The case involves a dispute between Ittihad FC, a Saudi Arabian football club, and professional footballer Anice Badri over unpaid salaries and the unilateral reduction of wages during the COVID-19 pandemic. The club cited financial difficulties due to the pandemic as justification for withholding and reducing the player’s salaries, but the player argued these actions violated FIFA’s COVID-19 guidelines, which require good-faith negotiations and proof of financial loss. After the club failed to address the player’s formal notice demanding payment, the player terminated his contract with just cause under Article 14bis of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay unpaid salaries and compensation for breach of contract. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the DRC’s decision, finding the club’s salary reductions unjustified and its disciplinary measures unlawful.
The dispute centered on unpaid salaries from February to August 2020, with the player claiming $777,756 in overdue payments. The club acknowledged delays but argued the pandemic and regulatory directives justified salary reductions. The player contested these reductions, asserting they were imposed without negotiation or evidence of financial distress. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Fabio Iudica, rejected the club’s arguments, emphasizing its failure to comply with FIFA’s guidelines, which prioritize collective agreements or good-faith negotiations before unilateral changes. The panel also dismissed the club’s claim that a disciplinary sanction against the player was lawful, noting procedural violations.
The CAS confirmed the DRC’s award of $525,618 in unpaid salaries and $3,866,662 in compensation for breach of contract, plus interest. The club’s argument that the player waived claims by signing a property return document was rejected, as the document did not address financial obligations. The panel also dismissed the club’s reliance on the legal principle of rebus sic stantibus to reduce compensation, finding no evidence the pandemic made fulfilling the contract impossible. The final ruling reinforced the importance of contractual obligations and adherence to FIFA regulations, even during exceptional circumstances like the pandemic.
The case highlights the tension between clubs’ financial survival and players’ contractual rights during crises. It underscores FIFA’s role in ensuring fair treatment of players and the precedence of its guidelines over domestic league policies. The CAS’s decision serves as a precedent for resolving similar disputes, emphasizing the need for clubs to demonstrate financial hardship and engage in good-faith negotiations before altering contractual terms. The ruling also clarifies that disciplinary measures must follow due process to be valid. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the club’s appeal, upholding the DRC’s decision in full and affirming the player’s right to terminate the contract and receive compensation.