CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11287 — Anthony Nnaduzor Nwakaeme v. Al Fayha Club

"Nwakaeme" · CAS partially upheld a Nigerian player's appeal, awarding default interest and team bonuses but rejecting his agent commission claim for lack of standing.

What happened in Nwakaeme

Nigerian professional footballer Anthony Nnaduzor Nwakaeme signed a two-season employment contract with Saudi club Al Fayha on 24 August 2022. The contract contained an entire-agreement clause and expressly stated no intermediary was involved, yet the Player alleged the Club had orally promised to pay USD 400,000 commission to his agents (Joe Briggs and William D'Avila). The Club separately paid its own agent USD 600,000 under a Representation and Mediation Agreement. The Player also claimed USD 42,352.33 in default interest on late salary payments and SAR 260,000 (approx. USD 70,000) in unpaid collective team bonuses. The FIFA DRC on 16 January 2025 awarded only USD 50,000 as an individual performance bonus under clause 5.3 of the Employment Contract, rejecting all other claims. On appeal, CAS confirmed the FIFA DRC decision and supplemented it: the commission claim was dismissed for lack of standing (the Player was not the contractual creditor); the default interest claim was partially upheld at USD 32,870.63 after correcting calculation errors and applying the two-year statute of limitations under Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP; and the team bonus claim of SAR 260,000 was upheld based on credible and uncontested witness testimony from former coaching staff and players. The case matters for its treatment of player standing to claim agent fees and the evidentiary weight of oral bonus promises.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11287

On 28 August 2024, the Player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal seeking USD 762,352.33 comprising overdue commission (USD 600,000), default interest (USD 42,352.33), collective bonus (USD 70,000), and an individual bonus (USD 50,000). On 16 January 2025, the FIFA DRC issued its decision partially accepting the claim, ordering Al Fayha Club to pay only USD 50,000 as outstanding remuneration (the individual performance bonus under clause 5.3 of the Employment Contract) plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 July 2024, and rejecting all other claims. The grounds were communicated on 3 March 2025. On 24 March 2025, the Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, requesting that CAS additionally award the USD 400,000 commission (or alternatively damages), USD 42,352.33 in default interest, and USD 70,000 in collective bonuses. The Club requested confirmation of the FIFA DRC decision and dismissal of the appeal.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11287

• The Player lacks standing to claim agent commission from the Club on behalf of Mr Briggs because the Employment Contract contains no provision entitling the Player to claim, receive or distribute commission on Mr Briggs' behalf, and Article 112(1) SCO is inapplicable where no such contractual duty exists.
• A subsidiary claim to award commission directly to Mr Briggs must be dismissed because Mr Briggs is not a party to the appeal arbitration proceedings.
• The Player's claim for compensation for damages arising from the Club's alleged failure to pay agent commission is dismissed because the Player failed to establish by evidence that he personally incurred any damages.
• Default interest on late salary payments accrues automatically from the first day of the following month under Article 102(2) SCO where the Employment Contract fixes payment deadlines, but claims relating to payments due before 28 August 2022 are time-barred under Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP (two-year limitation period applied ex officio), reducing the recoverable interest to USD 32,870.63.
• Oral promises of collective team bonuses by the Club's Chairman and President are binding under Swiss law even absent a written agreement, and where the Club fails to call key witnesses to rebut credible and consistent testimony from multiple former employees, the Player's evidence stands effectively uncontested, entitling him to SAR 260,000 in team bonuses.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a textual and contractual approach to the commission claim: the Employment Contract's entire-agreement clause (Clause 11.1) and the explicit 'NO' answer to intermediary involvement (Clause 15(5)) were irreconcilable with any binding pre-contractual obligation to pay Mr Briggs. Signing the contract with that language was treated as a waiver of any prior entitlement. Article 112(1) SCO was rejected because the Employment Contract imposed no duty of performance toward Mr Briggs. The Player's argument that he would personally have to cover the commission was dismissed as unsubstantiated. On default interest, the Sole Arbitrator corrected three minor calculation errors in the Player's table and applied the two-year limitation of Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP ex officio, excluding the sign-on fee payments due on 25 August 2022. Interest was calculated at 5% p.a. under Article 73(1) SCO, with automatic default from the contractual due dates per Article 102(2) SCO. On team bonuses, the Sole Arbitrator found the testimony of six former coaching staff members and a former player credible and mutually consistent. The Club's Director partially corroborated the practice of ad hoc collective bonuses. The Club's failure to produce its President as a witness, despite an explicit invitation and warning of adverse inferences, left the Player's evidence uncontested. The absence of a written bonus agreement was not fatal under Swiss law.

Why Nwakaeme matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a player has no standing under Article 112(1) SCO or FIFA dispute resolution rules to claim agent commission on behalf of his intermediary where the employment contract contains an entire-agreement clause and expressly denies intermediary involvement. It also confirms that oral promises of collective bonuses by club officials are enforceable under Swiss law without a written agreement, and that a club's unexplained failure to produce key witnesses in response to an explicit arbitral invitation leaves the player's evidence effectively uncontested. The two-year limitation of Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP is applied ex officio to ancillary interest claims.

Cases cited in this award

Club Al Fayha Club, Saudi Arabia / Coach Vuk Rasovic, Serbia; Ref. No. FPSD-15179 Club Al Fayha Club, Saudi Arabia / Coach Ljubisa Rankovic; Serbia Ref. No. FPSD-15224 Club Al Fayha Club, Saudi Arabia / Coach Rudolf Marcic; Serbia Ref. No. FPSD-15227

Frequently asked questions about Nwakaeme

Did Nwakaeme have standing to claim his agent's commission from Al Fayha Club?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the Employment Contract contained an entire-agreement clause (Clause 11.1) and expressly stated no intermediary was involved (Clause 15(5)), leaving no contractual basis for the Player to claim, receive or distribute commission on behalf of Mr Briggs. Article 112(1) SCO was found inapplicable because the Employment Contract imposed no duty of performance toward Mr Briggs. The proper claimants for any agent fees would be Mr Briggs and/or Mr D'Avila themselves.

How much default interest did CAS award Nwakaeme for late salary payments, and why was it less than the USD 42,352.33 he claimed?

CAS awarded USD 32,870.63. The reduction resulted from two adjustments: the Sole Arbitrator corrected minor calculation errors in the Player's payment table (including the number of overdue days for the August 2022 salary and the June 2024 salary) and applied the two-year statute of limitations under Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP ex officio, which barred the interest claim on the sign-on fee instalments due on 25 August 2022 — the payments with the longest delays and therefore the largest interest component.

How did CAS uphold the SAR 260,000 team bonus claim when there was no written bonus agreement in the Nwakaeme v. Al Fayha case?

The Sole Arbitrator found that under Swiss law a contract need not be in writing to be valid and binding. Six former members of the Club's coaching staff and a former player provided credible, consistent testimony that the Club's Chairman and President had orally promised collective bonuses of SAR 260,000. The Club's Director partially corroborated the practice of ad hoc collective bonuses. Crucially, the Club failed to produce its President as a witness despite an explicit invitation and a prior warning that adverse inferences might be drawn, leaving the Player's evidence effectively uncontested.

Can a CAS tribunal in the Nwakaeme case award sums directly to a non-party agent like Joe Briggs?

No. The Sole Arbitrator expressly held that it was impossible to award any sums directly to Mr Briggs because he was not a party to the appeal arbitration proceedings. The Player's subsidiary prayer for relief requesting a direct payment to Mr Briggs was dismissed on this ground, and the Sole Arbitrator noted that this subsidiary request itself confirmed that the true beneficiary of the commission claim was Mr Briggs rather than the Player.

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.