CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9697 — Al Nassr Saudi Club v. Atlanta United FC

"Al Nassr v. Atlanta United" · CAS dismissed Al Nassr's appeal, confirming default interest on the third transfer-fee instalment ran from 2 October 2022.

What happened in Al Nassr v. Atlanta United

Al Nassr Saudi Club and Atlanta United FC (via MLS) concluded a transfer agreement on 4 September 2020 for the permanent transfer of player Gonzalo Nicolas Martinez for a total fee of USD 16,000,000, payable in three instalments. Al Nassr paid the first instalment of USD 4,875,000 but disputed the second and third instalments. The second instalment dispute was resolved against Al Nassr by the FIFA PSC and confirmed by CAS on 1 February 2023. Atlanta then claimed the third instalment of USD 5,362,500 before the FIFA PSC Single Judge, who on 11 April 2023 ordered Al Nassr to pay that amount plus 5% interest per annum from 2 October 2022. Al Nassr appealed to CAS, arguing that pending CAS proceedings over the second instalment justified suspending the third instalment's due date and that interest should only run from 1 February 2023. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal in full, confirming that the lis pendens doctrine did not apply because the two disputes lacked triple identity, that Clause 2.6 of the Transfer Agreement and Article 102(2) SCO mandated automatic default from the contractual due date, and that Al Nassr's unilateral decision to litigate could not alter agreed payment terms. The case matters because it reinforces that pending appeals over one contractual instalment do not suspend independent payment obligations for separate instalments.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9697

On 14 February 2023, Atlanta United FC filed a claim before the Single Judge of the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (FIFA PSC) seeking payment of the third instalment of the transfer fee in the amount of USD 5,362,500 plus 5% interest per annum. Al Nassr partially contested the claim, arguing that interest should only run from 1 February 2023 (the date of the CAS Second Instalment Award) and that Article 12bis of the FIFA RSTP should not apply. On 11 April 2023, the FIFA PSC Single Judge partially accepted Atlanta's claim, ordering Al Nassr to pay USD 5,362,500 plus 5% interest per annum from 2 October 2022, and imposing a potential registration ban of up to three consecutive registration periods for non-compliance within 45 days. The grounds were communicated on 15 May 2023. Al Nassr filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 1 June 2023, requesting that default interest commence only from 1 February 2023. CAS was asked to modify or set aside the Appealed Decision on that limited point.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9697

• Pending CAS proceedings concerning the second instalment of a transfer fee do not suspend Al Nassr's independent contractual obligation to pay the third instalment by its agreed due date of 1 October 2022.
• The lis pendens doctrine does not apply where the two proceedings lack triple identity; the subject matter of the second-instalment appeal differed from the dies a quo of interest on the third instalment.
• Clause 2.6 of the Transfer Agreement and Article 102(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations together mandate automatic default interest at 5% per annum from the contractual due date without any need for a separate default notice.
• The FIFA PSC Single Judge's decision not to impose Article 12bis sanctions is discretionary (the word 'may') and does not imply that the third instalment had not fallen due.
• Procedural violations alleged at first instance are in any event cured by a de novo hearing before CAS, so even an assumed breach of the right to be heard would not warrant setting aside the Appealed Decision.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator conducted a de novo review under Article R57(1) of the CAS Code. On the procedural objection, he found that the FIFA PSC Single Judge had explicitly dismissed Al Nassr's argument about ongoing CAS proceedings and had referred to the contractual payment date and Clause 2.6, satisfying the minimum substantiation standard; moreover, any residual defect would be cured by the de novo CAS appeal. On the merits, the Sole Arbitrator applied Clause 2.2 (due date: 1 October 2022), Clause 2.6 (interest from date of default), and Article 102(2) SCO (automatic default on expiry of agreed deadline). He rejected the lis pendens argument because the triple identity test was not met: the second-instalment proceedings and the third-instalment interest question involved different subject matters. He also rejected the justice-and-fairness exception, reasoning that Atlanta was deprived of the use of USD 5,362,500 from 1 October 2022 and suffered from inflation, while Al Nassr's concerns about standing to sue and Articles 18bis/18ter were ultimately unfounded. The non-imposition of Article 12bis sanctions was held to be a discretionary choice, not an acknowledgment that no default had occurred. Al Nassr's failure to respond to the Default Notice or seek any agreed postponement further undermined its position.

Why Al Nassr v. Atlanta United matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that a club cannot unilaterally suspend payment of one contractual instalment by commencing litigation over a separate instalment, and that the lis pendens doctrine requires strict triple identity. It also confirms that the discretionary non-imposition of Article 12bis sanctions carries no implication that a payment obligation had not matured, and that de novo CAS review cures any first-instance procedural defects, limiting the utility of procedural challenges as a standalone ground of appeal.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6920 CAS 2022/A/9078 CAS 2021/A/8308 SFT 4A_162/2011

Frequently asked questions about Al Nassr v. Atlanta United

Why did CAS rule that interest on the third instalment ran from 2 October 2022 and not from 1 February 2023 in Al Nassr v. Atlanta United?

Clause 2.2 of the Transfer Agreement fixed 1 October 2022 as the due date for the third instalment of USD 5,362,500, and Clause 2.6 expressly provided that interest accrues from the date of default. Article 102(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations reinforces automatic default on expiry of an agreed deadline. The Sole Arbitrator held that Al Nassr's pending CAS appeal over the second instalment was legally irrelevant to this separate, independently due obligation.

Did the lis pendens doctrine suspend Al Nassr's obligation to pay the third transfer-fee instalment while the second-instalment appeal was pending at CAS?

No. The Sole Arbitrator applied the triple identity test and found it was not satisfied: the second-instalment CAS proceedings and the third-instalment interest question involved different subject matters. Because the test requires the same parties, same subject matter, and same cause of action cumulatively, lis pendens could not operate to suspend the third-instalment payment obligation.

What is the significance of the FIFA PSC not imposing Article 12bis sanctions on Al Nassr in this case?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 12bis(2) of the FIFA RSTP uses the word 'may', conferring discretion on the deciding body rather than imposing a mandatory sanction. Accordingly, the Single Judge's decision not to impose a registration ban carried no implication that the third instalment had not fallen due or that Al Nassr had a prima facie contractual basis for non-payment.

Can a club avoid default interest by arguing it was uncertain who to pay because of a standing-to-sue dispute over a different instalment?

No, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator found that Al Nassr's concerns about Atlanta's standing to sue and potential violations of Articles 18bis and 18ter of the FIFA RSTP were ultimately unfounded, as confirmed by the CAS Second Instalment Award. Justice and fairness did not warrant an exception to the contractual default-interest clause, because Atlanta was deprived of the use of USD 5,362,500 from 1 October 2022 and the proceedings Al Nassr commenced were decided against it.

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.