The case involves a dispute between Raja Club Athletic (the Club) and Léma Mabidi (the Player) regarding unpaid salaries and contractual breaches under an employment agreement signed in 2015. The contract stipulated a monthly salary, match premiums, and an annual signing-on fee, but the Club failed to meet its financial obligations, leading the Player to issue default notices and eventually terminate the contract in 2017. The Player filed claims with FIFA, which were partially upheld in 2020, ordering the Club to pay significant sums with interest. The Club contested FIFA's jurisdiction, arguing that the Royal Moroccan Football Federation's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (FRMF NDRC) was the proper forum, while the Player maintained that the FRMF NDRC lacked independence and fairness as required by FIFA regulations.
The dispute reached the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where key legal principles were examined, including the principle of tempus regit actum, which governs the applicability of regulations based on the timing of events. Jurisdictional issues were deemed procedural, and Swiss law was applied to assess standing and dispute classification. The case distinguished between vertical disputes (involving association decisions) and horizontal disputes (between members, such as employment contracts), with FIFA's role limited in the latter. The CAS emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and parity in dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly in arbitrator appointments.
The FRMF NDRC's independence was scrutinized, with the Sole Arbitrator finding that its composition, heavily influenced by club representatives in the FRMF Executive Committee, violated the principle of parity. This imbalance undermined the NDRC's fairness, justifying FIFA's assertion of jurisdiction. The CAS upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, confirming the Club's liability for unpaid amounts and dismissing the appeal. The ruling highlighted the necessity of balanced representation in arbitration bodies to ensure impartiality and compliance with FIFA standards.
The case underscores the complexities of contractual disputes in football, the challenges of jurisdictional clarity, and the enforcement of financial obligations under FIFA regulations. It also reaffirms the importance of equitable proceedings and the limitations of interpretative guidance in overriding regulatory provisions. The final decision reinforced the Player's claims and dismissed the Club's arguments, ensuring compliance with contractual and regulatory obligations.