CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2020/A/6767 — Zobahan Cultural & Sport Club v. Reza Shekari & Football Club Rubin Kazan & FIFA

"Zobahan" · CAS overturned a FIFA DRC res judicata ruling and awarded Zobahan EUR 300,000 for the Player's unjustified contract breach.

What happened in Zobahan

Reza Shekari, an Iranian professional footballer born 31 May 1998, was under a second employment contract with Iranian club Zobahan running to 30 June 2018. In January 2017 he attempted to trigger a USD 100,000 release clause via FC Rostov, but Zobahan refused to release him. The FFIRI Disciplinary Committee (Second FFIRI Decision, 15 August 2017) confirmed the contract remained live and the Player still belonged to Zobahan. The Player did not appeal that decision. On 31 August 2017, within the protected period, he signed a five-year contract with Russian club Rubin Kazan. Zobahan filed a claim at the FIFA DRC on 26 June 2018 seeking USD 5 million in compensation. On 30 October 2019 the FIFA DRC declared the claim inadmissible on res judicata grounds, treating the Second FFIRI Decision as having already resolved the dispute. Zobahan appealed to CAS. The Panel held that the Second FFIRI Decision addressed only whether the contract was still live — it expressly declined to rule on compensation because no transfer had yet occurred — so res judicata did not bar the FIFA DRC from hearing Zobahan's new claim arising from the Player's subsequent signing with Rubin Kazan. The Panel found the Player breached the contract without just cause on 31 August 2017, awarded Zobahan EUR 300,000 jointly against the Player and Rubin Kazan, and remitted the question of sporting sanctions to the FIFA DRC. The case matters because it clarifies the temporal limits of res judicata in sequential football disputes and confirms that a national federation decision that expressly reserves compensation issues does not extinguish a later FIFA DRC claim.

Procedural history of CAS 2020/A/6767

On 26 February 2017 Zobahan lodged a disciplinary complaint against the Player before the FFIRI Disciplinary Committee. The First FFIRI Decision (8 May 2017) rejected the complaint for lack of evidence after Zobahan was not notified of the hearing due to an administrative error. Following a rehearing on 2 July 2017, the Second FFIRI Decision (15 August 2017) confirmed the contract was still live but expressly declined to rule on compensation because the Player had not yet joined another club; it was declared final. The Player did not appeal. On 31 August 2017 the Player signed with Rubin Kazan. On 26 June 2018 Zobahan filed a claim at the FIFA DRC against the Player and Rubin Kazan seeking USD 5 million. On 30 October 2019 the FIFA DRC declared Zobahan's claim inadmissible on res judicata grounds and rejected Rubin Kazan's counterclaim; grounds were notified on 24 January 2020. Zobahan filed its CAS Statement of Appeal on 13 February 2020 and its Appeal Brief on 1 April 2020. A video-conference hearing was held on 17 November 2020.

Key holdings in CAS 2020/A/6767

• The Second FFIRI Decision did not have res judicata effect over Zobahan's FIFA DRC claim because the FFIRI expressly declined to rule on compensation, finding no transfer had yet occurred, so the object of the two proceedings was not identical.
• The Player breached the Second Employment Contract without just cause on 31 August 2017 by signing with Rubin Kazan while the contract remained in force and binding, as confirmed by the unappealed Second FFIRI Decision.
• Arguments relating to the Release Clause and the FC Rostov transfer were matters the Player should have raised by appealing the Second FFIRI Decision; they were of no relevance to the subsequent breach claim before CAS.
• Rubin Kazan is jointly and severally liable with the Player for the compensation awarded under Article 17.2 RSTP, as the exceptional circumstances recognised in CAS 2017/A/4977 — where the new club had paid a transfer fee — were not present here.
• The question of sporting sanctions under Articles 17.3 and 17.4 RSTP against the Player and Rubin Kazan respectively was remitted to the FIFA DRC, as FIFA had not yet ruled on those issues.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first rejected bifurcation and addressed res judicata as the primary issue. It read the Second FFIRI Decision carefully and noted that the FFIRI had expressly stated it was 'not deemed in charge of any position' regarding compensation because the Player had not yet joined another club. The FFIRI's finding was limited to confirming the contract remained live; it never adjudicated a compensation claim. Accordingly, the object of the FFIRI proceedings and the FIFA DRC proceedings was not identical, and the triple-identity test for res judicata was not satisfied. The Panel then exercised its Article R57 power to decide the merits rather than remit to the DRC. On breach, it found the Player signed with Rubin Kazan while bound by an unappealed final decision confirming his contract with Zobahan, constituting a breach without just cause. On quantum, the Panel rejected Zobahan's USD 5 million claim as unsupported and self-serving, noting the club's primary interest was a transfer fee rather than the Player's services. It identified a logical nexus between the breach and lost transfer opportunity and fixed compensation at EUR 300,000, anchored to a genuine third-party written offer from Zenit of EUR 300,000, which it found represented the mid-point of the evidential range (EUR 100,000 release clause to EUR 500,000 verbal Rubin Kazan offer). On joint liability, it distinguished CAS 2017/A/4977 as exceptional and applied the standard automatic joint liability rule.

Why Zobahan matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award clarifies that a national federation disciplinary decision which expressly reserves the compensation question — because no transfer has yet occurred — does not create res judicata barring a subsequent FIFA DRC claim once the player actually joins a new club. It also reaffirms that release-clause arguments must be pursued by appealing the national decision that rejected them, and confirms the standard automatic joint-liability rule under Article 17.2 RSTP applies unless truly exceptional circumstances (such as payment of a transfer fee) are present.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2010/A/2091 CAS 2017/A/4977 CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 CAS 2013/A/3411 CAS 2016/A/4550 CAS 2014/A/3739 & 3749

Frequently asked questions about Zobahan

Why did CAS reject the res judicata defence in the Zobahan v Shekari case?

The Second FFIRI Decision of 15 August 2017 expressly stated the Disciplinary Committee was 'not deemed in charge of any position' on compensation because the Player had not yet joined another club. CAS found the object of the FFIRI proceedings — whether the contract was still live — was different from the object of the FIFA DRC proceedings — compensation for the Player's subsequent signing with Rubin Kazan on 31 August 2017. Because the triple-identity test was not satisfied, res judicata did not apply.

How did CAS calculate the EUR 300,000 compensation in the Zobahan case?

The Panel rejected Zobahan's USD 5 million claim as unsupported and self-serving. It identified the club's primary interest as a lost transfer fee rather than lost playing services, establishing a logical nexus between the breach and that lost opportunity. It anchored the award to a genuine written third-party offer from Zenit of EUR 300,000, which it found represented the mid-point of the evidential range between the USD 100,000 release clause and an alleged EUR 500,000 verbal offer from Rubin Kazan.

Was Rubin Kazan held jointly liable in the Zobahan v Shekari CAS award?

Yes. The Panel applied the standard automatic joint-liability rule under Article 17.2 RSTP and held Rubin Kazan jointly and severally liable with the Player for the EUR 300,000 compensation. It distinguished CAS 2017/A/4977 — where joint liability was disapplied because the new club had paid a transfer fee — noting that the monies Rubin Kazan had already paid Zobahan related only to training compensation, not a transfer fee, so the exceptional circumstances of that case were absent.

What happened to the sporting sanctions request in the Zobahan case?

CAS did not itself impose sporting sanctions under Articles 17.3 and 17.4 RSTP against the Player and Rubin Kazan respectively. Because the FIFA DRC had declared the claim inadmissible without ever ruling on sanctions, the Panel remitted that specific question back to the FIFA DRC to consider, following the approach taken in cases such as CAS 2014/A/3739 & 3749.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance 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.