CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10816 — Saado Abdelsalam Fouflias v. Ismaily SC

"Fouflias" · CAS dismissed a Greek-Palestinian player's USD 200,000 breach-of-contract claim against Egyptian club Ismaily SC, finding no valid employment contract was ever concluded.

What happened in Fouflias

Saado Abdelsalam Fouflias, a Greek/Palestinian footballer, travelled to Egypt in December 2022 and began a trial with Ismaily SC on 16 January 2023. He alleged that on 8 February 2023 he and the Club signed an employment contract (the 'Disputed Contract') for a term to end July 2024 at total remuneration of USD 200,000. The Club denied any contract was concluded, characterising its dealings with the player as a trial and pointing to a draft TMS Entry — showing a start date of 17 February 2023, end date of 1 August 2024, and remuneration of EGP 2,750,000 — as merely preparatory. The Club also argued that it lost interest after learning the player had misrepresented his professional status. The FIFA DRC rejected the player's claim on 6 June 2024, finding the essentialia negotii were not proven. The player appealed to CAS. After a video-conference hearing on 22 January 2025, Sole Arbitrator Andrew Mercer upheld the FIFA DRC decision. He found that the intermediary Mr. Zeid was not a Club representative capable of binding it, that no written contract was proven to exist, that the parties lacked mutual intent to contract, and that the material discrepancies between the player's claimed terms and the TMS Entry precluded any finding that the essentialia negotii were satisfied. The appeal was dismissed and the FIFA DRC decision confirmed. The case matters as a clear application of the essentialia negotii doctrine and the evidentiary weight of TMS draft entries.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10816

On 3 January 2024, the player filed a claim before the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (FIFA DRC) seeking USD 200,000 plus 5% interest for breach of contract without just cause. The Club requested dismissal. On 6 June 2024 the FIFA DRC rejected the player's claim in its entirety, finding he had not proven the essentialia negotii of an employment contract. The grounds of the decision were notified to the parties on 5 August 2024. On 20 August 2024 the player filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS, within the 21-day deadline under Article 50 para 1 of the FIFA Statutes. The Appeal Brief followed on 14 September 2024. The Club filed its Answer on 7 November 2024. A video-conference hearing was held on 22 January 2025. CAS was asked to annul the FIFA DRC decision, confirm the existence of an employment contract, confirm termination without just cause by the Club, and award USD 200,000 plus 5% interest, or alternatively EGP 2,750,000 plus 5% interest.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10816

• No valid and binding employment contract was concluded between the player and Ismaily SC, as neither mutual intent nor the essentialia negotii were established on the evidence.
• Mr. Ibrahim Abu Zeid was not a representative of Ismaily SC capable of binding the Club in contractual matters; his role was limited to acting as a liaison and obtaining information for background-checking and TMS purposes.
• A draft TMS Entry does not constitute an admission by a club that the parties reached consensus on the essential terms of an employment contract, particularly where the entry was never progressed beyond draft stage.
• Material discrepancies between the player's claimed contract terms (start date 8 February 2023; USD 200,000) and the TMS Entry (start date 17 February 2023; EGP 2,750,000) undermined the certainty of terms and precluded a finding that the essentialia negotii were satisfied.
• Media reports, social media postings, photographs and audio/video recordings that lack a concrete link to a recognised and authorised representative of the club are insufficient to establish the existence of a valid and binding employment contract.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator structured his analysis around two questions: (1) did the Disputed Contract exist in written form, and (2) was Mr. Zeid a Club representative? On the first, he noted that references to a 'draft' in the Club's submissions appeared to relate to the TMS Entry rather than a separate written contract, and that there was insufficient evidence that any written contract was discussed with or held by persons at the Club actually empowered to deal with transfers (Mr. Elkereem and Mr. Elyassky). On the second, despite Mr. Zeid's inconsistent statements and his social media profile describing him as working in 'Contracts and Marketing Management' at the Club, the Arbitrator was not comfortably satisfied that Mr. Zeid had authority to negotiate or conclude contracts on the Club's behalf. Turning to mutual intent, the Arbitrator acknowledged early signs of interest (trial, training, friendly matches) but found that the Club's interest cooled after 18 February 2023 when it learned of the player's amateur status, and that the meeting of 27 February 2023 involved no authorised Club representative. On essentialia negotii, the Arbitrator applied CAS 2015/A/3953 & 3954 and found that the stark discrepancy in remuneration (USD 200,000 vs. EGP 2,750,000, approximately USD 90,000) and differing start dates meant no consensus on essential terms could be established. The player's own alternative pleading — accepting TMS figures in the alternative — was itself treated as an acknowledgment that no agreement had been reached.

Why Fouflias matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that a draft TMS Entry, standing alone, does not establish a club's contractual intent or satisfy the essentialia negotii of an employment contract. It also clarifies that intermediaries who lack actual authority cannot bind a club, and that a player's failure to produce any written contract terms agreed with an authorised club representative — combined with material discrepancies in remuneration and start date — will be fatal to a breach-of-contract claim before CAS, even where circumstantial evidence (training, friendly matches, social media) suggests some level of club interest.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/3953 & 3954

Frequently asked questions about Fouflias

What did CAS decide in the Fouflias v Ismaily case about whether a TMS draft entry proves a contract exists?

CAS held that a draft TMS Entry does not constitute an admission by the club that the parties reached consensus on the essential terms of an employment contract. The Sole Arbitrator noted that the TMS instruction was never progressed beyond draft stage and that the Club's TMS manager, Mr. Elkereem, had made assumptions about duration and remuneration because no agreed terms had been conveyed to him.

Why did the player lose the Fouflias CAS case despite the club entering his details into FIFA TMS?

The player lost because the TMS Entry showed materially different terms from those he claimed — a start date of 17 February 2023 (not 8 February 2023), an end date of 1 August 2024, and remuneration of EGP 2,750,000 (approximately USD 90,000) rather than USD 200,000. These discrepancies meant the essentialia negotii could not be established. Additionally, the intermediary Mr. Zeid was found not to be an authorised representative of the Club capable of binding it.

Can a club intermediary or liaison person bind a football club to an employment contract under CAS jurisprudence, as discussed in Fouflias?

No, not on the facts of Fouflias. The Sole Arbitrator found that Mr. Zeid's role was limited to acting as a liaison and obtaining information for background-checking and TMS purposes, and that he lacked authority to negotiate or conclude contracts on behalf of Ismaily SC. The Arbitrator was therefore not comfortably satisfied that Mr. Zeid could be considered a representative of the Club in a legal context, even though he described himself on social media as working in 'Contracts and Marketing Management' at the Club.

What evidence did the player in Fouflias rely on to prove a contract existed, and why was it insufficient?

The player relied on a photograph showing him and Mr. Zeid holding a document folder bearing the words 'Contract of Football Player', WhatsApp audio conversations, media reports, social media postings, jersey numbers, participation in training and friendly matches, and a video of the 27 February 2023 meeting. CAS found this evidence insufficient because none of it contained a concrete link to an authorised representative of the Club, the photograph did not prove the folder contained a signed contract, and the circumstantial evidence was equally consistent with a trial arrangement rather than an employment relationship.

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.