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

On 4 September 2020, Al Nassr and MLS concluded a transfer agreement for the permanent transfer of a player from Atlanta United. The agreement required Al Nassr to pay the third instalment of the transfer fee on or before 1 October 2022, with Clause 2.6 providing for 5% per annum default interest from the date of default. Al Nassr withheld payment, arguing that pending CAS proceedings concerning the second instalment (CAS 2022/A/8837) created legal uncertainty about who was entitled to receive payment and whether Articles 18bis and 18ter of the FIFA RSTP would be triggered. On 11 April 2023, the FIFA PSC Single Judge ordered Al Nassr to pay the third instalment plus 5% interest from 2 October 2022. Al Nassr appealed to CAS, seeking to have the interest start date shifted to 1 February 2023 — the date the CAS Second Instalment Award was notified. Sole Arbitrator Manfred Nan dismissed the appeal in full. He held that the lis pendens doctrine did not apply because the triple identity test was not satisfied, that pending litigation over the second instalment did not suspend the third instalment obligation, and that justice and fairness actually required Al Nassr to honour its contractual commitments. The case matters because it confirms that a debtor cannot unilaterally suspend a separate payment obligation by commencing proceedings on a related but distinct instalment.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9697

On 4 September 2020, Al Nassr and MLS signed a transfer agreement for the permanent transfer of a player from Atlanta United. The second instalment dispute was decided by the FIFA PSC Single Judge on 3 March 2022 and confirmed by CAS on 1 February 2023 (CAS 2022/A/8837). On 14 February 2023, Atlanta filed a new claim before the FIFA PSC regarding the unpaid third instalment plus 5% interest per annum. Al Nassr partially contested the claim, arguing interest should only run from 1 February 2023. On 11 April 2023, the FIFA PSC Single Judge partially accepted Atlanta's claim, ordering Al Nassr to pay the third instalment plus 5% interest from 2 October 2022, and imposing a potential registration ban of up to three consecutive registration periods for non-payment within 45 days, with procedural costs of USD 22,000 payable by Al Nassr. Al Nassr filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 1 June 2023, requesting that the interest commencement date be changed to 1 February 2023.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9697

• The FIFA PSC Single Judge did not violate Al Nassr's procedural rights, as Al Nassr was afforded an equal opportunity to present its case and the reasoning in the Appealed Decision was satisfactory.
• Even if a procedural violation had occurred at first instance, it would have been cured by the de novo appeal proceedings before CAS.
• The lis pendens doctrine did not apply because the triple identity test was not satisfied: the subject matter of the second-instalment CAS proceedings differed from the dies a quo of interest over the third instalment.
• Pending CAS proceedings concerning the second instalment did not automatically suspend Al Nassr's obligation to pay the third instalment or render such payment impossible.
• Al Nassr was obliged to pay the third instalment with 5% per annum default interest from 2 October 2022, in accordance with Clause 2.6 of the Transfer Agreement and Article 102(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a two-step analysis. First, on the procedural objection, he found that the FIFA PSC Single Judge had explicitly dismissed Al Nassr's argument about the ongoing CAS proceedings and had referred to the relevant contractual provisions and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which was sufficient substantiation. He further noted that even if a violation had occurred, established CAS jurisprudence holds that such violations are cured by de novo appeal proceedings. Second, on the substantive interest question, the Sole Arbitrator anchored his analysis in Clause 2.2(iii) and Clause 2.6 of the Transfer Agreement, which fixed the due date as 1 October 2022 and provided for automatic daily interest from the date of default, fully aligning with Article 102(2) of the SCO. He rejected the lis pendens argument because the triple identity test — same parties, same subject matter, same cause of action — was not met. He also rejected the justice and fairness argument, reasoning that Atlanta was deprived of the use of its money from the due date, that inflation eroded the value of the overdue amount, and that Al Nassr's concerns about standing to sue and Articles 18bis/18ter had already been found unmeritorious. The non-imposition of Article 12bis sanctions was held to be a discretionary decision by the FIFA PSC Single Judge and carried no implication that the third instalment had not fallen due.

Why Al Nassr v. Atlanta United matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that a debtor club cannot unilaterally suspend a distinct contractual payment obligation by commencing proceedings on a separate instalment. It confirms that the lis pendens doctrine requires strict satisfaction of the triple identity test and that pending litigation on one instalment does not alter the dies a quo of interest on another. It also reaffirms the established CAS principle that procedural violations at first instance are cured by de novo appeal proceedings before CAS.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/A/8837 CAS 2020/A/6920 CAS 2021/A/8308 CAS 2022/A/9078 SFT 4A_162/2011 ATF 134 I 83

Frequently asked questions about Al Nassr v. Atlanta United

Why did CAS reject Al Nassr's argument that interest should only run from 1 February 2023?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Clause 2.2(iii) of the Transfer Agreement fixed the due date for the third instalment as 1 October 2022, and Clause 2.6 expressly provided for 5% per annum interest from the date of default, fully consistent with Article 102(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations. The pending CAS proceedings concerning the second instalment (CAS 2022/A/8837) did not satisfy the triple identity test required for lis pendens and therefore did not suspend the third instalment obligation.

Did the FIFA PSC Single Judge's failure to give detailed reasons on the interest start date violate Al Nassr's right to be heard?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that the FIFA PSC Single Judge had explicitly dismissed Al Nassr's argument and referred to the relevant contractual provisions and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which constituted satisfactory reasoning. He further held that even if a violation had occurred, it would have been cured by the de novo appeal proceedings before CAS, citing CAS 2022/A/9078.

Does the fact that the FIFA PSC Single Judge declined to impose Article 12bis sanctions mean the third instalment was not yet due?

No. The Sole Arbitrator noted that Article 12bis(2) of the FIFA RSTP uses the word 'may', conferring discretion on the deciding body rather than imposing an obligation to sanction. The non-imposition of sanctions therefore carried no implication that the third instalment had not fallen due on 1 October 2022.

Could Atlanta United enforce the Transfer Agreement directly against Al Nassr even though the agreement was signed between MLS and Al Nassr?

Yes. Clause 8.5 of the Transfer Agreement expressly acknowledged and agreed that the MLS Team (Atlanta) had the right and standing to enforce the terms of the Transfer Agreement for and on behalf of MLS and itself, including before FIFA and CAS. The FIFA PSC Single Judge also found that MLS acted as agent of Atlanta, making Atlanta a contractual party with standing to sue.

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.