CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10150 — Club Al Faisaly v. Ahmed Achraf Mohamed Feki & FIFA

"Al Faisaly" · CAS set aside a two-window transfer ban imposed on Club Al Faisaly for terminating a player's contract during the protected period due to injury, finding no aggravating circumstances sufficient to justify the sanction.

What happened in Al Faisaly

Club Al Faisaly, a Saudi Arabian professional football club, terminated its employment contract with Egyptian-Saudi player Ahmed Achraf Mohamed Feki in July 2022, citing the player's persistent injury of over one year. The club relied on Article 37 of the SAFF Regulations as justification. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, in its decision of 26 October 2023, found the termination to be without just cause during the protected period and ordered the club to pay SAR 954,540 in outstanding remuneration and SAR 2,886,349 in compensation, and imposed a two-window transfer ban under Article 17(4) RSTP. The parties settled the monetary aspects via a Partial Consent Award dated 26 February 2024, leaving only the transfer ban in dispute before CAS. The CAS panel, by majority, set aside the ban. It held that while the prerequisites of Article 17(4) RSTP were met, the imposition of sporting sanctions is not automatic but requires sufficiently severe aggravating circumstances. The panel found that none of the factors cited by FIFA — the breach during the protected period, termination due to injury, salary reduction, or lack of prior warning — constituted aggravating factors in this specific case. The case matters because it reaffirms that Article 17(4) RSTP sanctions require a case-by-case assessment of aggravating circumstances, not mere fulfilment of the provision's prerequisites.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10150

On 28 July 2023, the player initiated proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 30 October 2023, the FIFA DRC issued its decision (FIFA case reference FPSD-11112), ordering Club Al Faisaly to pay SAR 954,540 in outstanding remuneration plus interest and SAR 2,886,349 in compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. from 19 June 2023, and imposing a two-window transfer ban under Article 17(4) RSTP. On 20 November 2023, Club Al Faisaly filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS. The parties entered settlement negotiations on the monetary aspects, and a Partial Consent Award was issued on 26 February 2024, ratifying the settlement and limiting the remaining CAS proceedings to point 6 of the Appealed Decision (the transfer ban). The Appeal Brief was filed on 7 March 2024. FIFA filed its Answer on 16 April 2024. A second round of written submissions was exchanged in lieu of a hearing, concluding on 2 May 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10150

• The prerequisites of Article 17(4) RSTP — breach of contract during the protected period — were fulfilled, as termination due to a player's injury does not constitute just cause.
• The imposition of sporting sanctions under Article 17(4) RSTP is not automatic even when its prerequisites are met; the competent body has discretion and must assess specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
• A breach of contract during the protected period is a prerequisite for the application of Article 17(4) RSTP and cannot simultaneously be treated as an aggravating factor justifying the sanction.
• The lack of a prior warning before termination is already encompassed by the qualification of termination without just cause and cannot be considered a separate aggravating circumstance.
• CAS has full de novo review power under Article R57 of the CAS Code and is not limited to intervening only where a FIFA judicial body acted arbitrarily or imposed a grossly disproportionate sanction.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first confirmed that FIFA regulations (RSTP, May 2023 edition) governed the dispute, as Article 9(2) of the contract expressly chose FIFA regulations, and Article 3's reference to SAFF regulations did not constitute a choice of law for disputes. The SAFF Regulations were therefore inapplicable. The panel then confirmed its full de novo review power under Article R57 CAS Code, rejecting FIFA's argument that CAS should only intervene in cases of arbitrariness or gross disproportionality. On the merits, the panel found the prerequisites of Article 17(4) RSTP satisfied — the contract was concluded on 24 October 2020 and terminated on 19 July 2022, within the protected period, and injury is not just cause for termination. However, relying on the FIFA Commentary and consistent FIFA DRC and CAS practice, the majority held that sanctions are not mandatory but require sufficiently severe aggravating circumstances. The panel rejected each of FIFA's proposed aggravating factors: the breach during the protected period is a prerequisite, not an aggravating factor; termination due to injury had not led to sanctions in comparable DRC decisions; the salary reduction, while unlawful, was not aggravating because the club paid full salary for four months and reduced it gradually, exceeding what Swiss law would require; and the lack of prior warning is subsumed within the finding of termination without just cause. The club was not a repeat offender, and no other sufficiently severe circumstances were identified.

Why Al Faisaly matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the dominant CAS and FIFA DRC jurisprudence that Article 17(4) RSTP sporting sanctions are not automatic consequences of a breach during the protected period but require a case-by-case assessment of aggravating circumstances. Notably, the panel clarified that the breach during the protected period itself cannot serve as an aggravating factor, as it is merely a prerequisite for the provision's application. The award also reaffirms CAS's full de novo review power under Article R57, rejecting any self-imposed limitation to review only arbitrary or grossly disproportionate disciplinary decisions.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2008/A/1705 CAS 2018/A/6072 CAS 2022/A/8953 CAS 2017/A/5056 CAS 2015/A/4327 CAS 2014/A/3460

Frequently asked questions about Al Faisaly

Did CAS uphold the transfer ban imposed on Club Al Faisaly for terminating a player's contract due to injury?

No. The CAS panel, by majority, set aside the two-window transfer ban imposed under Article 17(4) RSTP. While the prerequisites of the provision were met — the contract was terminated during the protected period without just cause — the panel found no sufficiently severe aggravating circumstances to justify the sanction in this specific case.

Is a transfer ban under Article 17(4) RSTP automatic whenever a club breaches a contract during the protected period?

No. According to the Al Faisaly award, the imposition of sporting sanctions under Article 17(4) RSTP is not automatic even when its prerequisites are fulfilled. The panel held, consistent with dominant FIFA DRC and CAS practice, that the competent body has discretion and must assess the specific circumstances of each case, requiring sufficiently severe aggravating factors to justify the sanction.

Can a club's termination of a player's contract due to injury be considered an aggravating factor for imposing a transfer ban under Article 17(4) RSTP?

Not necessarily. In the Al Faisaly case, the majority of the CAS panel found that termination due to injury did not constitute an aggravating factor, noting that in several prior FIFA DRC decisions (including Rakic, Akobeto, Betila, and an anonymized 2023 decision) no sanction was imposed despite contracts being terminated due to injury. The panel also rejected the FIFA DRC's reasoning that an exemplary sanction was needed for deterrence, holding that the individual case must be sufficiently serious in itself.

Can the fact that a breach occurred during the protected period be used as an aggravating factor to justify imposing a transfer ban under Article 17(4) RSTP?

No. The Al Faisaly panel held that a breach during the protected period is a prerequisite for the application of Article 17(4) RSTP, not an aggravating circumstance. Without a breach during the protected period, the article is not applicable at all, so it cannot simultaneously serve as a factor that tips the scale toward imposing the sanction.

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.