CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2020/A/7253 — Al Faisaly Sports Club v. Doukoure Abdoulaye

"Al Faisaly v. Doukoure" · CAS held the player terminated without just cause but awarded the club no compensation because it proved no damage.

What happened in Al Faisaly v. Doukoure

Al Faisaly Sports Club (Jordan) and Ivorian player Doukoure Abdoulaye signed an employment contract on 9 February 2019 running until the end of the 2022 football season. Two days later the player was loaned to Al Mansheyat until the end of the 2018/2019 Jordanian season. After the loan ended in April 2019, the player returned to Ivory Coast. The Jordan league had been realigned with the AFC calendar, meaning the next season would not start until 30 January 2020 — a gap of roughly nine months. The player sent default notices in October and November 2019 claiming unpaid salaries and failure to provide a work visa, then terminated the contract on 28 November 2019 and filed before the FIFA DRC. The FIFA DRC Single Judge found the club breached the player's fundamental right to registration and ordered the club to pay USD 76,540 compensation. Al Faisaly appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator reversed the FIFA DRC, finding: (i) no salary was owed during the loan period; (ii) the visa failure was not sufficiently serious given the pre-season had not started; and (iii) the club's inability to re-register the player was due to a closed transfer window, not deliberate refusal. The player therefore terminated without just cause. However, the club's compensation counterclaim was inadmissible (not raised at first instance) and, in any event, the club proved no actual damage. The appeal was partially upheld, the DRC decision set aside, and no compensation awarded to either party.

Procedural history of CAS 2020/A/7253

On 28 November 2019 Doukoure Abdoulaye filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber against Al Faisaly Sports Club seeking USD 93,800 (USD 8,300 outstanding remuneration, USD 82,500 residual contract value, USD 3,000 additional compensation). On 15 April 2020 the FIFA DRC Single Judge partially accepted the claim, ordering the club to pay USD 76,540 as compensation for breach of contract, finding the club had breached the player's fundamental right by failing to register him. The grounds were notified on 19 June 2020. Al Faisaly filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS on 10 July 2020 under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, requesting the DRC decision be set aside, the termination declared without just cause, and the player ordered to pay USD 84,000 plus 5% interest. The player filed his Answer on 14 November 2020 seeking confirmation of the DRC decision and an increase in compensation. Both parties agreed to proceed on written submissions without a hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2020/A/7253

• The player's termination of the employment contract on 28 November 2019 was without just cause because neither the alleged salary arrears (which were not owed by the club during the loan period) nor the failure to provide a work visa reached the level of seriousness required to justify immediate termination.
• A club's failure to register a player can constitute a breach of the player's fundamental rights entitling termination with just cause, but this principle does not apply where the registration window was legally closed and the club was materially unable to re-register the player.
• A counterclaim for compensation raised for the first time in CAS appeals proceedings — not having been brought before the first-instance body — is inadmissible.
• Even where a player terminates without just cause, no compensation is payable to the club unless the club proves the existence of damage, its quantification, and a causal link between the breach and the damage, pursuant to Article 97 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.
• The principle of venire contra factum proprium bars a party from relying on a situation it tacitly accepted, where the other party had legitimate expectations based on that conduct.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 14 FIFA RSTP and Articles 337(1)-(2) SCO, treating immediate termination as an ultima ratio admissible only for particularly severe breaches or, for lesser breaches, only after a warning and persistence of the breach. On salary arrears, the arbitrator found the loan agreement ran until the end of the 2018/2019 season (25 October 2019 per FIFA TMS), so the club owed no salary during that period; the player's claim for months within the loan window was rejected. On the visa failure, the arbitrator noted the pre-season had not yet started when the player terminated, so no employment right had actually been denied. On non-registration, the arbitrator distinguished the established CAS line (CAS 2016/A/4560; CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093) by finding the club was legally unable to register the player because the transfer window was closed — a consequence of the JFA's June 2018 calendar realignment decision, known to all parties before the loan was signed. The arbitrator also applied venire contra factum proprium: the player had silently accepted the situation for six months, giving the club legitimate expectations. On compensation, the arbitrator held the counterclaim inadmissible (citing CAS 2016/A/4569 and CAS 2010/A/2874) and, alternatively, that the club demonstrated no actual damage, noting its apparent indifference to the player's situation.

Why Al Faisaly v. Doukoure matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award is notable for disaggregating two distinct questions that are often conflated: whether a termination lacked just cause, and whether the innocent party is entitled to compensation. The panel confirmed that even a without-just-cause termination yields no damages unless actual harm is proved, and it applied the venire contra factum proprium doctrine to limit a player's ability to invoke non-registration where a closed transfer window — not deliberate club conduct — was the cause, tempering the broad CAS line on registration as a fundamental right.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/6029 CAS 2016/A/4884 CAS 2016/A/4560 CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093 CAS 2016/A/4569 CAS 2010/A/2874

Frequently asked questions about Al Faisaly v. Doukoure

Did Al Faisaly v. Doukoure find that the player terminated with or without just cause?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Doukoure Abdoulaye terminated the employment contract without just cause. The alleged salary arrears were not owed by Al Faisaly during the loan period, the visa failure was not sufficiently serious given the pre-season had not started, and the club's failure to re-register the player was due to a legally closed transfer window rather than deliberate refusal.

Why did Al Faisaly receive no compensation even though the player terminated without just cause?

The club's compensation claim was inadmissible because it had not been raised as a counterclaim before the FIFA DRC at first instance — a rule confirmed by reference to CAS 2016/A/4569 and CAS 2010/A/2874. Alternatively, the Sole Arbitrator held that even if admissible, the club had not proved the existence of damage, its quantification, or a causal link, as required by Article 97 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.

How did the CAS panel treat the club's failure to register the player in Al Faisaly v. Doukoure?

The panel acknowledged the established CAS jurisprudence (citing CAS 2016/A/4560 and CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093) that non-registration can breach a player's fundamental rights. However, it distinguished those cases because the Jordan transfer window was legally closed from 13 February 2019 to 4 December 2019 following the JFA's June 2018 calendar realignment, making re-registration materially impossible — a fact all parties knew when the loan was signed.

What salary was the player owed by Al Faisaly during the loan period in this case?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Al Faisaly owed the player no salary from 11 February 2019 until the end of the 2018/2019 Jordanian football season (25 October 2019 per FIFA TMS), because during that entire period the player was on loan to Al Mansheyat, which bore the salary obligation. The player had also signed a settlement agreement with Al Mansheyat on 29 April 2019 acknowledging receipt of all salaries due under the loan.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.