CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2020/A/6996 & CAS 2020/A/7006 — Barcelona Sporting Club & Victor Hugo Ayala Nuñez v. Al Nassr Saudi Club

"Ayala / Barcelona SC v. Al Nassr" · CAS reduced the player's breach-of-contract compensation from USD 1,263,375 to USD 735,477.65, reflecting the club's own persistent salary-payment failures.

What happened in Ayala / Barcelona SC v. Al Nassr

Paraguayan defender Victor Hugo Ayala signed a two-year contract with Al Nassr Saudi Club in August 2016 worth USD 1,500,000 for year one and USD 1,700,000 for year two. Al Nassr repeatedly paid monthly salaries late and failed to pay a USD 200,000 advance due on 1 February 2017. On 7 May 2017 Ayala left Riyadh without authorisation and never returned. Al Nassr filed a DRC claim; Ayala counterclaimed. On 17 January 2020 the DRC found Ayala terminated without just cause (no written default notice) and ordered him to pay USD 1,263,375 compensation, with Barcelona SC — his next registered club — jointly and severally liable. It also ordered Al Nassr to pay Ayala USD 702,830 in outstanding remuneration. Both Ayala and Barcelona SC appealed to CAS. CAS confirmed that Ayala lacked just cause because he never formally warned Al Nassr before walking out, but reduced the compensation to USD 735,477.65 under Art. 17 RSTP and Art. 44 SCO to reflect Al Nassr's own contractual fault. Barcelona SC's appeal was dismissed: as the first club to register Ayala after termination, it is objectively jointly and severally liable under Art. 17(2) RSTP regardless of inducement. The case matters because it illustrates how CAS balances a player's failure to give prior warning against a club's persistent late payment when calibrating Art. 17 compensation.

Procedural history of CAS 2020/A/6996

On 31 August 2017 Al Nassr lodged a DRC claim against Ayala, Boca Juniors and Lanus seeking USD 5,846,275.86 plus interest for breach of contract. On 2 December 2017 Ayala filed a counterclaim for USD 2,640,539.14. On 17 January 2020 the DRC issued its decision: it ordered Ayala to pay Al Nassr USD 1,263,375 (plus 5% p.a. from 31 August 2017) for termination without just cause, with Barcelona SC jointly and severally liable; and ordered Al Nassr to pay Ayala USD 702,830 in outstanding remuneration (plus 5% p.a.). Grounds were notified on 1 April 2020. On 22 April 2020 both Ayala (CAS 2020/A/7006) and Barcelona SC (CAS 2020/A/6996) filed Statements of Appeal at CAS. The two cases were consolidated before a three-member Panel. A videoconference hearing was held on 16 December 2020.

Key holdings in CAS 2020/A/6996

• A player who terminates an employment contract citing non-payment of salaries must give the club a prior written warning before terminating; failure to do so means the termination lacks just cause even where substantial sums are overdue.
• Under Art. 17 RSTP and Art. 44 SCO, compensation for termination without just cause may be reduced where the club's own persistent late payment of salaries contributed to the breakdown of the contractual relationship.
• The joint and several liability of a 'new club' under Art. 17(2) RSTP is objective in nature: it attaches to the first club with which the player is registered after termination, regardless of whether that club induced the breach or acted in bad faith.
• The RSTP (2016 edition) applies to disputes filed with the DRC before 1 June 2018, pursuant to Art. 26(1) of the transitional measures of the RSTP (June 2018 edition); Art. 14bis RSTP therefore did not apply to this case.
• A club's non-appeal of a DRC finding (here, the USD 702,830 outstanding remuneration award) renders that finding res judicata before CAS, which cannot review it on the non-appealing party's behalf under the non ultra petita principle.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first determined applicable law: because Al Nassr filed its DRC claim on 31 August 2017, before the June 2018 RSTP entered into force, Art. 26(1) of the transitional measures required application of the RSTP (2016 edition), excluding Art. 14bis. On just cause, the Panel accepted that Al Nassr owed Ayala USD 466,664 on 7 May 2017 (USD 200,000 advance plus four months' salary), a substantial sum. However, it found the second condition for just cause — a prior warning — unmet: Ayala produced no written notices of default, did not attend the Club's disciplinary hearing, and never formally threatened termination. The Panel distinguished the teammate's case (CAS 2018/A/5677) where written notices were sent. On compensation, the Panel declined to disturb the DRC's methodology (average of remaining contract value and new-contract value, plus non-amortised transfer fee and agent fees, halved for the Club's conduct) but applied Art. 44 SCO to reduce the figure further, equating it to the outstanding remuneration amount of USD 702,830 plus accrued interest to 31 August 2017, yielding USD 735,477.65. On Barcelona SC's liability, the Panel applied the objective test from CAS 2016/A/4843 and CAS 2013/A/3149: Barcelona SC was the first club to register Ayala after termination and knew of the dispute; inducement is irrelevant to Art. 17(2) RSTP.

Why Ayala / Barcelona SC v. Al Nassr matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that even under the pre-Art. 14bis RSTP (2016 edition) regime, a player must give a prior warning before terminating for non-payment; absence of such warning defeats just cause regardless of the sums overdue. It also confirms the objective, inducement-neutral character of Art. 17(2) joint liability for new clubs, and demonstrates CAS's willingness to use Art. 44 SCO to reduce Art. 17 compensation where the former club's own contractual misconduct materially contributed to the termination.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2016/A/4843 CAS 2013/A/3149 CAS 2018/A/5677 CAS 2016/A/4590 CAS 2014/A/3707

Frequently asked questions about Ayala / Barcelona SC v. Al Nassr

Did Victor Ayala have just cause to terminate his Al Nassr contract for non-payment?

No. CAS found that although Al Nassr owed Ayala USD 466,664 on 7 May 2017 — a substantial sum — Ayala never gave the club a prior written warning that he would terminate if payments were not made. Under the CAS jurisprudence on Art. 14 RSTP (2016 edition), a prior warning is a prerequisite for just cause based on late payment, and Ayala failed to meet his burden of proof on that point.

Why was Barcelona SC held jointly and severally liable even though it did not induce Ayala to leave Al Nassr?

Under Art. 17(2) RSTP the joint and several liability of a 'new club' is objective: it applies automatically to the first club with which the player is registered after the wrongful termination, regardless of inducement or good faith. CAS confirmed, following CAS 2016/A/4843 and CAS 2013/A/3149, that Barcelona SC was that club because Ayala was registered with it on 2 January 2018 and Barcelona SC knew of the ongoing FIFA dispute at that time.

How did CAS calculate the reduced compensation of USD 735,477.65 in the Ayala v. Al Nassr case?

The DRC had set compensation at USD 1,263,375 (already a 50% reduction of USD 2,526,750 for the club's payment failures). CAS applied Art. 17 RSTP and Art. 44 SCO to reduce it further, equating the compensation to the outstanding remuneration of USD 702,830 plus 5% p.a. interest accrued from the relevant dates to 31 August 2017, arriving at USD 735,477.65. The Panel noted that the two debts could be set off against each other.

Which edition of the RSTP applied to the Ayala / Al Nassr dispute, and did Art. 14bis apply?

The RSTP (2016 edition) applied because Al Nassr filed its DRC claim on 31 August 2017, before the June 2018 RSTP entered into force. Art. 26(1) of the transitional measures of the June 2018 edition expressly provides that cases brought to FIFA before the new regulations came into force are assessed under the previous regulations. Art. 14bis, introduced in June 2018, therefore did not apply.

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.