The case revolves around a dispute between Al Salmiya Club, a Kuwaiti football club, and Oday Abrahim Dabbagh, a professional football player, concerning the termination of the player's employment contract. The player terminated the contract, citing the club's failure to pay his salaries for August, September, and October 2019, totaling USD 42,000, despite a 15-day notice to remedy the default. The club countered by claiming the player refused to receive his salaries in person and failed to provide a verified bank account for payment, arguing his absence and unavailability hindered their ability to comply. The player lodged a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking unpaid salaries, residual contract value, default interest, and sanctions. The club filed a counterclaim, requesting reimbursement for expenses such as advance payments, apartment and car rentals, and compensation for breach of contract and reputational damage. The DRC ruled in favor of the player, prompting the club to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Fabio Iudica, upheld the DRC’s decision. It emphasized that under FIFA regulations, clubs must release players for national team duties, and a player’s absence does not justify non-payment of salaries. The club’s insistence on physical presence for payment was deemed invalid, as financial obligations must be fulfilled regardless of the player’s availability. The panel found the club’s arguments unconvincing, noting the player had provided a legitimate payment method through his lawyer’s bank account, which the club unreasonably rejected. The CAS dismissed the club’s appeal, affirming the player’s right to terminate the contract with just cause due to the club’s failure to meet its financial obligations. The ruling reinforced the principle that clubs cannot withhold salaries based on a player’s absence, particularly when alternative payment methods are available.
The DRC had partially accepted the player's claim, ordering the club to pay USD 14,000 for each unpaid month (August to December 2019) plus 5% annual interest, and USD 76,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause. The club was given 45 days to pay, failing which it would face a ban on registering new players. The DRC found the club failed to prove valid reasons for non-payment or the player’s alleged absences, highlighting that unpaid salaries for previous months could not be justified by later absences. The club’s appeal to CAS contested the DRC’s jurisdiction, arguing the Kuwait Football Association (KFA) should have handled the case, but this argument was raised too late. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction and dismissed the club’s appeal, upholding the DRC’s decision.
The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in professional football. The club’s failure to pay salaries and its inability to substantiate claims of the player’s unauthorized absence led to the player’s justified termination of the contract. The CAS ruling emphasized the club’s lack of evidence and failure to act in good faith, reinforcing the player’s rights under FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of breaching contractual and regulatory obligations in sports disputes.