CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10845 — Dhofar Club v. Oman Football Association

"Dhofar Club" · CAS dismissed Dhofar Club's appeal, confirming its relegation and six-point deduction for failing AFC/OFA club licensing Criterion F.04.

What happened in Dhofar Club

Dhofar Club, an Omani professional football club, was denied a licence to participate in the Oman Professional League (OPL) for the 2024/25 season after failing to demonstrate compliance with Criterion F.04 of the OFA and AFC Club Licensing Regulations (Edition 2023). The criterion required the club to prove that overdue payables owed to players Ilir Camaj and Hugo Lopez Martinez as at 31 December 2023 had been fully settled, deferred by mutual agreement, or subject to a not-obviously-unfounded dispute before a competent authority by 31 March 2024. The only documents submitted within the CLAS system before the 11 May 2024 deadline were Transfer Instructions — letters requesting bank transfers — which the panel found did not constitute proof of payment. Settlement Agreements signed in March 2024 were excluded as inadmissible because they were not submitted in CLAS before the deadline, in accordance with Article 7.4(f) of the OFA Regulations. The OFA Club Licensing Committee denied the licence, the Club Licensing Appeal Committee upheld that decision, and the Court of Arbitration for Football – Oman (CAF) confirmed it on 29 August 2024. CAS upheld jurisdiction despite the OFA's objection, finding a conflict between the OFA Regulations and the higher-ranking OFA Statutes, and dismissed the appeal in full, confirming relegation to the Oman First Division and a six-point deduction.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10845

On 14 May 2024, the OFA Club Licensing Committee (CLC) denied Dhofar Club a licence for the 2024/25 OPL season for failure to comply with Criterion F.04 regarding overdue payables to players Camaj and Martinez (the 'First Decision'). The Club Licensing Appeal Committee (CLAC) rejected the appeal on 25 May 2024, holding that Settlement Agreements submitted for the first time on appeal were inadmissible under Article 7.4(f) of the OFA Regulations. On 4 June 2024, the OFA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee relegated the club to the Oman First Division and deducted six points (the 'Disciplinary Decision'). Dhofar Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Football – Oman (CAF), which on 29 August 2024 rejected the appeal and upheld the licensing decision and its effects (the 'Appealed Decision'). On 2 September 2024, Dhofar Club filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, challenging the Appealed Decision and seeking reinstatement in the OPL for 2024/25.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10845

• CAS has jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the OFA Statutes (Articles 61.3 and 70.2), which rank higher than the OFA Regulations, permit CAF licensing decisions to be appealed to CAS, overriding the OFA Regulations' designation of CAF as the 'final appellate authority'.
• The Settlement Agreements signed in March 2024 were inadmissible because they were not submitted in CLAS before the 11 May 2024 deadline, as required by Article 7.4(f) of the OFA Regulations read with Article 7.5 of the AFC Regulations.
• Transfer Instructions — letters requesting bank transfers — do not constitute proof of payment and therefore do not demonstrate compliance with the first limb of Criterion F.04 (full settlement by 31 March 2024).
• Dhofar Club failed to comply with Criterion F.04, an 'A' criterion, and was therefore correctly denied a licence to participate in the OPL for the 2024/25 season.
• The mandatory sanctions under Article 8.10 of the OFA Regulations — relegation to the lower division and a six-point deduction — were confirmed, though the panel suggested the Respondent consider amending Article 8.10 to introduce flexibility in applying the double sanction.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied a de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. On jurisdiction, it resolved a conflict between the OFA Regulations (designating CAF as final appellate authority) and the higher-ranking OFA Statutes (Articles 61.3 and 70.2, permitting further appeal to CAS) by applying the principle of legality: lower-level regulations cannot contradict higher-level ones. Jurisdiction was also independently grounded in the parties' CAF arbitration agreement incorporating Article 31 of the CAF Regulations. On admissibility of the Settlement Agreements, the panel rejected the Appellant's argument that the Respondent had an obligation to alert it to documentary deficiencies, finding no legal basis for such a duty. The panel emphasised equal treatment obligations under Articles 5.6(f) and 11.1 of the AFC Regulations and 5.6(f) and 9.1 of the OFA Regulations, and noted the Appellant had ample time to submit the agreements before the deadline. On the Transfer Instructions, the panel found they were merely requests to a bank to transfer funds and did not demonstrate actual payment or receipt. The panel also checked whether the instructions could satisfy the second or third limb of Criterion F.04 and found they could not. On proportionality of the six-point deduction, the panel noted the Appellant had already qualified for the promotion stage of the Oman First Division despite the deduction, limiting practical impact, and declined to interfere with the legislator's intent.

Why Dhofar Club matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that lower-level federation regulations (such as club licensing rules designating a national arbitration body as 'final appellate authority') cannot override higher-ranking federation statutes that preserve CAS appeal rights, applying the principle of legality well-established in CAS jurisprudence. It also reinforces strict evidentiary cut-off rules in club licensing proceedings and confirms that transfer instructions alone do not constitute proof of payment for Criterion F.04 purposes. The panel's obiter suggestion to introduce proportionality flexibility into fixed double-sanction provisions may influence future regulatory reform.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2023/A/9501 CAS 2008/A/1705 CAS 2006/A/1181 CAS 2004/A/794 CAS 2007/A/1394 CAS 2016/O/4684

Frequently asked questions about Dhofar Club

Why did CAS find it had jurisdiction in Dhofar Club v. OFA despite the OFA Regulations saying CAF is the final appellate authority?

The panel found a conflict between the OFA Regulations (Article 7.3.4, designating CAF as 'final appellate authority') and the higher-ranking OFA Statutes (Articles 61.3 and 70.2, which permit CAF decisions to be appealed to CAS). Applying the principle of legality — that lower-level regulations cannot contradict higher-level ones — the panel gave precedence to the OFA Statutes. Jurisdiction was also independently grounded in the parties' CAF arbitration agreement, which incorporated Article 31 of the CAF Regulations expressly permitting CAS appeals.

Were the settlement agreements with Camaj and Martinez admissible before CAS in the Dhofar Club case?

No. The Settlement Agreements — signed on 13 March 2024 (Camaj) and 17 March 2024 (Martinez) — were excluded as inadmissible because they had not been submitted in CLAS before the 11 May 2024 deadline, as required by Article 7.4(f) of the OFA Regulations read with Article 7.5 of the AFC Regulations. The panel applied the same evidentiary cut-off at CAS level, noting the Appellant had ample time to submit the documents and provided no logical explanation for the failure to do so.

What documents did Dhofar Club submit to prove payment under Criterion F.04, and why were they insufficient?

Dhofar Club submitted Transfer Instructions — letters addressed to Bank Sohar International requesting transfers to Camaj and Martinez, bearing a receipt stamp from Bank Oman Arab. The panel found these were merely requests to a bank to transfer funds and did not demonstrate that the amounts had actually been sent or received by the creditors. The panel noted that proof of payment normally requires a banking record or receipt showing the amount left the debtor's account and confirmation of receipt by the named creditor.

Was the six-point deduction imposed on Dhofar Club for failing Criterion F.04 found to be disproportionate?

The panel expressed reservations about the proportionality of the double sanction (relegation plus six-point deduction) under Article 8.10 of the OFA Regulations, noting that relegation alone already achieves the envisaged goal of excluding a non-compliant club. However, because the Appellant had already qualified for the promotion stage of the 2024/25 Oman First Division despite the deduction, the panel found there would be limited sporting or practical impact in interfering, and declined to annul the points deduction. The panel did suggest the Respondent consider amending Article 8.10 to introduce flexibility.

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.