CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/9147 — Mr Ali Khomand v. Mr Hamed Lak

"Khomand v. Lak" · CAS rejected an Iranian agent's penalty-clause claim against a player because the agent failed to prove a valid agency contract existed.

What happened in Khomand v. Lak

Ali Khomand, an Iranian football agent licensed by the IRIFF, claimed IRR 4.5 billion from player Hamed Lak under an alleged penalty clause in their agency contract, after Lak independently signed a two-season deal with Persepolis FC worth IRR 45 billion in September 2020. The IRIFF Player Status Committee dismissed the claim, and the IRIFF Appeal Committee upheld that dismissal on 23 August 2022, finding the penalty clause (10% of salary) disproportionate to the agent's commission entitlement (6%) and contrary to fairness principles. Khomand appealed to CAS. The Respondent never participated in the proceedings despite extensive efforts to serve him. Sole Arbitrator Dr Jan Räker conducted a de novo review under Art. R57 CAS Code and found that the contract excerpt provided by the Appellant was incomplete — all key fields (duration, commission percentages) were left blank — and no adequate translation or supplementary evidence was furnished even after the arbitrator explicitly flagged the deficiency at the July 2024 hearing. Because the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proof that any valid, enforceable agency contract existed, the claim was rejected. The case matters as a reminder that CAS de novo review places the full evidentiary burden on the appellant, and that prior IRIFF factual findings do not substitute for independent proof before CAS.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/9147

On 21 November 2020, Khomand filed a payment claim of IRR 5 billion (later reduced to IRR 4.5 billion) before the IRIFF Player Status Committee (IRIFF-PSC) for breach of the agency contract. On 17 July 2022, the IRIFF-PSC dismissed the claim (Second PSC Decision), finding the penalty clause disproportionate and contrary to fairness. Khomand appealed to the IRIFF Appeal Committee, which on 23 August 2022 upheld the dismissal, confirming the clause was exorbitant and one-sided (the Appealed Decision). Grounds were notified on 29 August 2022. On 16 September 2022, Khomand filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS within the 21-day limit under Art. R49 CAS Code, requesting CAS to set aside the Appealed Decision and award him at least 10% of the Persepolis FC contract value. CAS was asked to conduct a full de novo review. The Respondent never filed an answer or attended the hearing despite multiple service attempts including courier delivery confirmed received on 18 February 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/9147

• CAS has jurisdiction under Art. 111 of the IRIFF Procedural Rules, which permits appeal of final IRIFF decisions to CAS in accordance with CAS formal and substantive regulations.
• A request for relief that does not state a concrete monetary figure is nonetheless admissible under Art. R48 CAS Code if the requested amount is clearly determinable from the appellant's submissions and evidence, consistent with a non-formalistic interpretation of that provision.
• Under Art. R57 CAS Code, the panel conducts a de novo review, meaning factual findings in the appealed decision do not constitute sufficient evidence of their correctness before CAS; the appellant must independently prove its factual allegations.
• An appellant who fails to provide a complete, adequately translated agency contract — even after being explicitly alerted to evidentiary deficiencies by the arbitrator — does not discharge the burden of proving a valid contractual basis for its claim.
• Where no valid contractual link between the parties is established, both the remuneration claim and any penalty-clause claim derived from that contract must be rejected, rendering the validity of the penalty clause moot.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first addressed the admissibility of the imprecise prayer for relief, adopting a non-formalistic reading of Art. R48 CAS Code and concluding that IRR 4.5 billion was clearly determinable from the submissions and the Second PSC Decision. On the merits, the arbitrator applied the de novo standard under Art. R57 and placed the burden of proof squarely on the Appellant, citing CAS 2015/A/3904 for the proposition that a claimant must provide all relevant evidence and convince the panel that pleaded facts are true. The contract excerpt submitted was found fatally incomplete: all material fields — duration, commission percentages — were blank in the English version, and the Arabic version appeared similarly deficient. Despite being warned at the hearing and given post-hearing opportunity to supplement, the Appellant provided no further evidence. The arbitrator expressly declined to treat the IRIFF bodies' factual acceptance of the contract as a substitute for independent proof. Obiter, the arbitrator noted serious reservations about the fairness of the arrangement, observing that the agent bore no comparable obligation to act for the player while the penalty clause (10%) exceeded the service commission (6%), creating a perverse incentive for the agent to remain inactive. These concerns were not determinative given the prior finding on proof.

Why Khomand v. Lak matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that CAS de novo review under Art. R57 is a genuine re-examination requiring independent evidentiary proof, not mere deference to domestic federation findings. It also clarifies that Art. R48's prayer-for-relief requirement is applied flexibly where the claimed amount is objectively determinable, preserving access to justice. The arbitrator's obiter remarks — that a penalty clause exceeding the agent's service commission and imposing no reciprocal obligation on the agent may be unfair or invalid — offer guidance on the limits of penalty clauses in football agency agreements under Iranian and Swiss law.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2003/A/534 CAS 2015/A/3904 CAS 2017/A/5242

Frequently asked questions about Khomand v. Lak

Why did the CAS reject Khomand's agency fee claim against Hamed Lak?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Khomand failed to prove a valid agency contract existed between the parties. The contract excerpt he submitted had all key fields — including duration and commission percentages — left blank, and he did not provide a complete translation or supplementary evidence even after being explicitly warned of the deficiency at the July 2024 hearing. Without proof of a valid contract, neither the commission claim nor the penalty-clause claim could succeed.

Was the 10% penalty clause in the Khomand v. Lak agency contract enforceable?

The CAS arbitrator did not definitively rule on the clause's validity because the claim failed at the prior stage of proving the contract existed. However, the arbitrator noted obiter serious reservations about the clause's fairness: the penalty (10% of the player's salary) exceeded the agent's service commission (6%), and the contract imposed no comparable obligation on the agent to act for the player, creating a perverse incentive for the agent to remain inactive and collect the higher penalty fee.

Can a CAS appeal be admissible if the statement of appeal does not state a specific monetary amount?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator applied a non-formalistic reading of Art. R48 CAS Code, consistent with CAS 2003/A/534, holding that a prayer for relief is sufficient if the requested amount is clearly determinable from the appellant's submissions and evidence. Here, 10% of the IRR 45 billion Persepolis FC contract yielded an unequivocal claim of IRR 4.5 billion, confirmed by the Second PSC Decision already in the record.

Does a domestic federation's factual finding about a contract count as proof before CAS?

No. Under Art. R57 CAS Code, CAS conducts a full de novo review, meaning the panel has both the power and the obligation to make its own factual findings. In Khomand v. Lak, the arbitrator explicitly held that the IRIFF bodies' acceptance of the agency contract's existence did not constitute sufficient evidence of that fact before CAS, and that the Appellant was required to independently prove his factual allegations in the CAS proceedings.

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.