CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10885 — Mohammed Abdulnasser Mohammed Adam v. Al Shabab Club

"Adam v. Al Shabab" · CAS partially upheld a player's appeal, awarding SAR 1,650,000 additional compensation under Article 337b(2) SCO where both parties contributed to contract breakdown.

What happened in Adam v. Al Shabab

Mohammed Abdulnasser Mohammed Adam, a dual Saudi-Yemeni professional footballer, signed a four-year employment contract with Saudi club Al Shabab on 9 June 2022, worth SAR 137,500–171,875 per month. The Club never countersigned the contract and failed to register the Player with the SAFF, allegedly because its foreign-player quota was full. The Player trained and played friendly matches for over a year but received only SAR 30,000 in payment. On 11 June 2023, the Club removed the Player from its WhatsApp group, effectively ending the relationship. The Player subsequently signed with Al-Khaleej (SAR 80,000/month) and later Al-Batin (SAR 40,000/month). The FIFA DRC found a valid contract existed and awarded approximately SAR 1,470,819 in unpaid salaries for the first year only, rejecting compensation for the remaining term. The Player appealed to CAS seeking the full residual value of SAR 5,837,500 plus additional compensation. CAS confirmed the contract's validity, found both parties contributed to its termination, and applied Article 337b(2) SCO to award an additional SAR 1,650,000 (12 × SAR 137,500) at 5% p.a. interest from 11 June 2023. The case is significant for its application of Article 337b(2) SCO as a discretionary tool where both employer and employee share fault for contract breakdown, departing from the binary Article 17 RSTP framework.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10885

On 12 April 2024, the Player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (reference FPSD-14373) seeking a declaration of unjust termination, SAR 1,482,500 in overdue remuneration, SAR 5,837,500 in residual contract value, and sporting sanctions under Article 17(4) RSTP. On 22 August 2024, the FIFA DRC partially accepted the claim, ordering Al Shabab to pay approximately SAR 1,470,819 in outstanding salaries for the first contractual year (after deducting SAR 30,000 already paid), but rejecting any compensation for the remaining contract term. The reasoned decision was issued on 4 September 2024. On 24 September 2024, the Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Article R48 of the CAS Code, seeking to set aside the FIFA DRC decision and obtain the full residual value plus additional compensation. The Club did not cross-appeal. A three-member panel was constituted and an in-person hearing was held on 13 February 2025 in Lausanne.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10885

• A professional football contract unsigned by the club can still constitute a valid and binding employment agreement where the parties' conduct — including prolonged training, social media announcements, and a payment — demonstrates implicit mutual consent under Article 18.1 SCO.
• A player's waiver of all financial entitlements conditioned on non-registration is unenforceable under Article 341 SCO, which prohibits employees from waiving claims arising from mandatory provisions during and for one month after the employment relationship.
• Where both parties contribute to the breakdown of an employment relationship, Article 17 RSTP does not adequately address the situation; Article 337b(2) SCO applies, granting the adjudicatory body full discretion to determine financial consequences taking all circumstances into account.
• A club's failure to register a player, non-payment of salary for approximately one year, removal from the team WhatsApp group, reassignment of the player's shirt number, and requests through an agent for the player to 'stay away' collectively constitute the club's primary contribution to contract termination.
• Under Article 337b(2) SCO, mitigation of compensatory damages by amounts earned under subsequent contracts does not automatically apply when the award is discretionary rather than a standard breach-of-contract compensatory calculation under Article 17(1) RSTP.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first applied Article 18.1 SCO to determine whether a binding contract existed, examining both the contract text and extrinsic evidence including the Club's social media posts, the Player's prolonged presence, and the SAR 30,000 payment. It rejected the Club's 'gentleman's agreement' characterisation as unsupported by evidence. The Panel then invalidated the Player's Declaration under Article 341 SCO and by analogy to Article 18.4 RSTP. On termination, the Panel found the Club primarily responsible — through non-registration, non-payment, and covert exclusion tactics — but also found the Player contributed by failing to serve any notice, making no documented salary demands, and signing with other clubs without formally terminating. Because both parties bore fault, the Panel declined to apply Article 17 RSTP (which addresses unilateral breach) and instead invoked Article 337b(2) SCO, citing CAS 2020/A/7262 as precedent. Exercising discretion, the Panel weighed the Player's age (25–26, peak career years), loss of Inter Miami CF income (approximately USD 105,000/season), a year of competitive inactivity, subsequent salary reduction to roughly half, and the Club's egregious salary non-payment, against the Player's procedural passivity. It set the award at 12 × SAR 137,500 = SAR 1,650,000 additional compensation, representing approximately 43% of total contract value when combined with the FIFA DRC award.

Why Adam v. Al Shabab matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that Article 337b(2) SCO is the appropriate instrument when both employer and club contribute to contract breakdown in football disputes, displacing the binary Article 17 RSTP framework. It confirms that unsigned contracts can be valid through conduct, that nationality-acquisition conditions are analogous to prohibited work-permit conditions under Article 18.4 RSTP, and that salary-waiver declarations signed during employment are void under Article 341 SCO — providing important guidance on all three issues for practitioners advising clubs and players in Saudi Arabia and beyond.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2014/A/3643 CAS 2018/A/5771 and CAS 2018/A/5772 CAS 2013/A/3089 CAS 2023/A/9574 CAS 2020/A/7262 CAS 2017/A/5092

Frequently asked questions about Adam v. Al Shabab

Did CAS find the Al Shabab contract valid even though the club never signed it?

Yes. The Panel applied Article 18.1 SCO and found that the Club's conduct — including official social media announcements of the signing, allowing the Player to train and play friendly matches for over a year, and making a SAR 30,000 payment — constituted implicit consent to be bound. The absence of the Club's formal signature was therefore not decisive.

Why did CAS apply Article 337b(2) SCO instead of Article 17 RSTP to calculate compensation in Adam v. Al Shabab?

The Panel found that both parties contributed to the contract's breakdown: the Club through non-registration, near-total non-payment, and covert exclusion tactics, and the Player through failure to serve any termination notice or documented salary demands. Because Article 17 RSTP addresses unilateral breach rather than shared fault, the Panel followed CAS 2020/A/7262 and applied Article 337b(2) SCO, which grants full discretion to determine financial consequences taking all circumstances into account.

Was the player's waiver of all financial entitlements enforceable in the Adam v. Al Shabab case?

No. The Panel held the Declaration unenforceable under Article 341 SCO, which prohibits employees from waiving claims arising from mandatory provisions of law during the employment relationship and for one month after its end. The Panel also noted that Article 18.4 RSTP applied by analogy, since conditioning employment on obtaining a nationality for registration purposes is analogous to conditioning it on obtaining a work permit.

How much did CAS award the player in Adam v. Al Shabab, and how was the figure calculated?

CAS awarded an additional SAR 1,650,000 on top of the approximately SAR 1,470,819 already granted by the FIFA DRC, for a combined total of roughly SAR 3,150,000 — approximately 43% of the total contract value of roughly SAR 7,350,000. The additional amount was calculated as 12 monthly salaries at the first-year rate of SAR 137,500 each, plus 5% p.a. interest from 11 June 2023, reflecting the Panel's discretionary balancing of both parties' contributory fault under Article 337b(2) SCO.

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.