CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2017/A/5336 — Al Nassr Saudi Club v. FC Twente 65

"Al Nassr v. Twente" · CAS upheld FIFA's order that Al Nassr pay EUR 1,200,000 transfer fee plus EUR 250,000 reduced penalty to FC Twente 65.

What happened in Al Nassr v. Twente

On 22 August 2015, Al Nassr Saudi Club and FC Twente 65 concluded a transfer agreement for player Youness Mokhtar, stipulating a transfer fee of EUR 1,200,000 payable in two equal instalments of EUR 600,000, with a EUR 200,000 penalty for each late instalment. Al Nassr failed to pay either instalment. Twente lodged a claim before FIFA on 9 February 2016, later updated to include the second instalment. The FIFA Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee, in its decision of 8 May 2017, ordered Al Nassr to pay EUR 1,200,000 in outstanding transfer fees and EUR 250,000 as a reduced penalty (down from the contractual EUR 400,000), while rejecting Twente's claim for 5% interest as no contractual default interest had been agreed alongside the penalty. Al Nassr appealed to CAS, arguing the true transfer fee was only USD 800,000 because USD 400,000 allegedly represented an agent's commission hidden in the transfer price, constituting unjust enrichment. The Sole Arbitrator rejected all of Al Nassr's arguments as vague, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by any evidence, confirmed the FIFA decision in full, and ordered Al Nassr to bear all arbitration costs plus CHF 10,000 in legal costs to Twente. The case matters as a clear restatement of CAS burden-of-proof standards and the principle that alleged intermediary-fee irregularities do not invalidate an otherwise clear and binding transfer agreement.

Procedural history of CAS 2017/A/5336

On 9 February 2016, FC Twente 65 lodged a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Committee (PSC) against Al Nassr Saudi Club for non-payment of the first instalment (EUR 600,000) of the transfer fee for player Youness Mokhtar. On 4 November 2016, Twente updated its claim to include the second instalment (EUR 600,000) and corresponding penalties. The FIFA Single Judge of the PSC rendered the Appealed Decision on 8 May 2017, ordering Al Nassr to pay EUR 1,200,000 in outstanding transfer fees and EUR 250,000 as a reduced penalty (reducing the contractual EUR 400,000 as disproportionate), while rejecting the 5% interest claim. The grounds were notified to the parties on 24 August 2017. Al Nassr filed its statement of appeal with CAS on 11 September 2017, within the 21-day deadline under Article 58 para. 1 of the FIFA Statutes. CAS was asked to annul the FIFA decision, reduce the transfer fee to USD 800,000, and eliminate the penalty.

Key holdings in CAS 2017/A/5336

• The Transfer Agreement's clear and unequivocal wording establishing a transfer fee of EUR 1,200,000 is binding, and the burden rests on the party alleging a different amount to provide convincing evidence, which Al Nassr entirely failed to do.
• An alleged confidential agreement between the respondent club and a player's agent, even if proven, would not affect the validity of the transfer agreement or the appellant's obligation to pay the transfer fee stipulated therein.
• Alleged violations of the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries concern disciplinary matters and do not affect the financial obligations undertaken by a club under a transfer agreement.
• A third party may only participate in CAS arbitration if bound by the arbitration agreement or if all parties agree in writing, and a spontaneous intervention under Article R41.3 requires the third party to file an application, which Mr Moussa Rahal failed to do.
• Counterclaims are no longer admissible in CAS appeals proceedings and must be pursued by way of a separate appeal.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the clear wording of the Transfer Agreement, finding the EUR 1,200,000 transfer fee unambiguous. He placed the burden of proof squarely on Al Nassr to demonstrate that the parties had agreed on a different amount, citing the CAS principle that any party wishing to prevail on a disputed issue must discharge its burden of proof by actively substantiating allegations with convincing evidence (referencing CAS 2003/A/506, CAS 2009/A/1810&1811, CAS 2009/A/1975, CAS 2015/A/309, CAS 2007/A/1380). Al Nassr's allegations were found to be vague, ambiguous, and entirely unsupported by any document or fact. The Arbitrator also noted that Al Nassr had withdrawn its request for a hearing, thereby forgoing the opportunity to call witnesses. On the penalty, Al Nassr acknowledged non-payment but offered no valid reason to exclude the penalty clause. The Arbitrator rejected the request for production of the alleged confidential agreement under Article R44.3 because Al Nassr failed to demonstrate that such documents were likely to exist and relevant. On costs, the Arbitrator found Al Nassr had engaged in dilatory conduct, filed clearly groundless requests, and had not paid even the amount it conceded was due (USD 800,000), demonstrating bad faith.

Why Al Nassr v. Twente matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that clear and unambiguous transfer agreement wording will be enforced as written, and that a club cannot escape payment obligations by raising unsubstantiated allegations of hidden agent fees or unjust enrichment. It reaffirms the CAS adversarial burden-of-proof standard and confirms that alleged intermediary regulation violations are disciplinary matters separate from contractual payment obligations. The panel's finding of dilatory conduct and bad faith, resulting in a costs award against the appellant, also signals CAS's willingness to sanction procedural abuse.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2007/A/1269 CAS 2008/A/1351 CAS 2008/A/1534 CAS 2003/A/506 CAS 2009/A/1810&1811 CAS 2009/A/1975

Frequently asked questions about Al Nassr v. Twente

Did Al Nassr successfully argue that the transfer fee should be reduced because part of it was secretly an agent's commission?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected this argument entirely. Al Nassr failed to provide any evidence that the parties had agreed on a transfer fee different from the EUR 1,200,000 clearly stated in the Transfer Agreement. The Arbitrator found all of Al Nassr's allegations on this point to be vague, ambiguous, and totally unsupported.

Can a club avoid paying a contractual transfer fee by claiming the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries were violated?

No, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that any alleged violations of the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries would concern disciplinary matters and would not affect the financial obligations undertaken by Al Nassr towards Twente under the Transfer Agreement. The validity of the Transfer Agreement was unaffected by such allegations.

What penalty did FIFA and CAS award FC Twente for Al Nassr's late payment, and was the full contractual penalty enforced?

The Transfer Agreement provided for a EUR 200,000 penalty for each late instalment, totalling EUR 400,000. The FIFA Single Judge reduced this to EUR 250,000 as disproportionate and excessive, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence. CAS confirmed this reduced penalty of EUR 250,000 in full.

What were the consequences for Al Nassr's conduct during the CAS proceedings in Al Nassr v. Twente?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Al Nassr's behaviour was characterised by dilatory practice, that many of its requests were clearly groundless and unsupported, and that it had not paid even the USD 800,000 it conceded was due, demonstrating bad faith. As a result, Al Nassr was ordered to bear all CAS arbitration costs and to pay FC Twente 65 CHF 10,000 as a contribution towards legal fees and other expenses.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.