CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10519 — Al-Ain FC v. Danilo Arboleda Hurtado

"Al-Ain v. Arboleda" · CAS partially upheld Al-Ain's appeal, reducing breach-of-contract compensation from USD 1,541,667 to USD 1,216,124 by accounting for post-FIFA-decision mitigation contracts.

What happened in Al-Ain v. Arboleda

Al-Ain FC, an Emirati club, signed Colombian defender Danilo Arboleda Hurtado to a one-year contract (July 2022–June 2023) worth USD 1,000,000. After the player suffered an Achilles tendon rupture in October 2022, the parties negotiated a two-year extension (2023–2025) worth USD 2,700,000 plus a USD 200,000 down payment. No countersigned copy was ever delivered to the player. On 10 July 2023, Al-Ain declared the extension had never been concluded and released the player. The player filed before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, which on 13 March 2024 found the extension validly concluded and ordered Al-Ain to pay USD 1,541,667 plus 5% interest, deducting only the USD 200,000 down payment and USD 958,333 earned at Qatari club Al-Ahli. Al-Ain appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the extension existed based on circumstantial evidence (the USD 200,000 payment matching the contractual down payment, the London medical examination, the Spain pre-season announcement, and the attempted loan to Al-Ahli). However, exercising de novo review, the Sole Arbitrator also deducted the player's subsequent earnings at Wuhan (USD 173,543 gross) and Kazma FC (USD 192,000 minus USD 40,000 agent commission = USD 152,000), reducing the award to USD 1,216,124 plus 5% interest from 10 July 2023. The case is significant for confirming that mitigation is an ongoing duty assessed up to the date of the final CAS award.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10519

On 3 November 2023, Danilo Arboleda Hurtado filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) against Al-Ain FC, seeking USD 3,200,000 in compensation for breach of the Extended Al-Ain Employment Contract. On 13 March 2024, the FIFA DRC partially accepted the claim and ordered Al-Ain to pay USD 1,541,667 plus 5% interest per annum from 10 July 2023, deducting the USD 200,000 down payment and USD 958,333 earned at Al-Ahli. The grounds were communicated on 12 April 2024. On 22 April 2024, Al-Ain filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code. The Respondent challenged the admissibility of the Appeal Brief, but the Sole Arbitrator rejected that objection on 9 July 2024. A hearing was held on 13 September 2024 in Lausanne. Post-hearing, the Kazma FC employment contract was produced and considered. The Sole Arbitrator issued the Award on 2 April 2025, partially upholding the appeal.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10519

• The Extended Al-Ain Employment Contract was validly concluded based on circumstantial evidence including the USD 200,000 down payment, the London medical examination, the Spain pre-season social media announcement, and the attempted loan to Al-Ahli, even in the absence of a countersigned copy.
• Al-Ain's communication of 10 July 2023 constituted a unilateral termination of the Extended Al-Ain Employment Contract without just cause, triggering an obligation to compensate the player under Article 17.1 RSTP.
• Mitigation is an ongoing duty that must be assessed up to the date of the final CAS award, and employment contracts concluded after the FIFA DRC decision but before the CAS award must be deducted from compensation pursuant to Article 17.1(ii) RSTP and CAS de novo review powers under Article R57 of the Code.
• For mitigation purposes, gross earnings (not net) from subsequent employment contracts are to be deducted, as the obligation to pay taxes is the player's own and the gross amount remains part of the salary.
• The player's voluntary payment of USD 150,000 to Wuhan to terminate that contract early does not qualify as a deductible cost under Article 337c(2) SCO, as it resulted from the player's own discretionary decision without a demonstrated direct causal link to securing subsequent employment.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a comfortable satisfaction standard of proof and conducted a full de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. On the existence of the extension, the panel found that although no formal signed copy was produced, nine categories of circumstantial evidence collectively established the parties' mutual intent to be bound, most critically the USD 200,000 payment matching exactly the contractual down payment and the Club's failure to demand repayment until its counterclaim. The Club's alternative explanation — that the payment was a loan — was rejected as unsupported by evidence and inconsistent with the Club's own conduct. On mitigation, the panel followed CAS 2022/A/9004 in holding that the 'time of the decision' in Article 17.1(ii) RSTP refers to the final CAS award, not the first-instance FIFA decision, so all subsequent contracts must be considered. Gross rather than net figures were applied, citing CAS 2015/A/4055, because the tax obligation belongs to the player. The USD 150,000 Wuhan termination payment was excluded as a deductible cost because the player voluntarily chose early termination without proving a direct causal link to the Kazma contract. The USD 40,000 Kazma agent commission was allowed as a deductible cost because it was a direct expense incurred to secure new employment. The Club's claim for additional mitigation based on the player allegedly forgoing better opportunities was rejected for lack of evidence.

Why Al-Ain v. Arboleda matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that the mitigation duty under Article 17.1(ii) RSTP is continuous and must be assessed as of the date of the final CAS award, not the first-instance FIFA decision. It confirms that CAS de novo review under Article R57 requires panels to account for all post-FIFA employment contracts entered within the original contract's duration. The award also clarifies that gross — not net — earnings are the correct basis for mitigation calculations, and that voluntary early-termination payments by a player do not qualify as deductible mitigation costs absent a direct causal link to subsequent employment.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2007/A/1394 CAS 2022/A/9004 CAS 2015/A/4055 CAS 2018/A/6029 CAS 2020/A/7503 CAS 2014/A/3625

Frequently asked questions about Al-Ain v. Arboleda

Did CAS find that the Al-Ain extended contract with Arboleda was valid even without a signed copy?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that although no countersigned copy was produced, nine categories of circumstantial evidence established the extension, most critically the USD 200,000 payment matching exactly the contractual down payment under Clause 8(A) of the Draft Extended Al-Ain Employment Contract. The Club's failure to demand repayment until its FIFA counterclaim further undermined its loan argument.

How did CAS calculate the reduced compensation in Al-Ain v. Arboleda?

The Sole Arbitrator started from USD 2,700,000 (the total fixed remuneration for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 seasons), then deducted: USD 200,000 (down payment already paid), USD 958,333 (Al-Ahli earnings), USD 173,543 (Wuhan gross earnings), and USD 152,000 (Kazma earnings of USD 192,000 minus USD 40,000 agent commission), arriving at USD 1,216,124 plus 5% interest from 10 July 2023.

Can a player's contracts signed after the FIFA DRC decision be used to reduce compensation at CAS in the Al-Ain v. Arboleda case?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator, following CAS 2022/A/9004, held that the phrase 'by the time of the decision' in Article 17.1(ii) RSTP refers to the final CAS award, not the first-instance FIFA decision. Accordingly, the Wuhan Employment Contract (signed February 2024) and the Kazma Employment Contract (signed October 2024) were both considered for mitigation purposes even though they post-dated the FIFA DRC decision of 13 March 2024.

Was the player's USD 150,000 payment to Wuhan to exit his contract treated as a deductible cost in Al-Ain v. Arboleda?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that the USD 150,000 paid under the Wuhan Settlement Agreement was a consequence of the player's own voluntary decision to terminate the Wuhan Employment Contract early, and the player failed to demonstrate a direct causal link between that payment and the subsequent Kazma Employment Contract. It therefore did not qualify as a deductible cost under Article 337c(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

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.