CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11381 — Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation (EFF) & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company (EPLSC)

"Mekelle 70 Enderta" · CAS dismissed Ethiopian club's appeal against salary-cap sanctions, holding the club failed its duty to cooperate and rebut excess-payment findings.

What happened in Mekelle 70 Enderta

Mekelle 70 Enderta FC, an Ethiopian Premier League club, was sanctioned by the EPLSC Financial Procedure Supervisory Committee on 24 February 2025 after an investigation found that two players had received bank deposits substantially exceeding their registered salaries. The club was fined ETB 3,000,000 and player Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa was fined ETB 200,000, ordered to repay ETB 1,408,341 in advance payments, and suspended from competition pending repayment. The club appealed to the EFF Appeal Committee, which dismissed the appeal on 1 April 2025 and confirmed the sanctions. The club then appealed to CAS, arguing denial of fair hearing, incorrect legal basis for sanctions, misapplication of FIFA third-party influence principles, and disproportionate penalties. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, finding that once the EPLSC established excess payments, the Directive imposed on the club a duty to cooperate and provide exculpatory evidence. The club failed to discharge that duty. Any procedural defects at first instance were cured by the de novo CAS hearing. The case matters because it confirms that Ethiopian financial fair play rules can impose a reverse burden on clubs to explain excess player payments, and that CAS de novo review heals prior due-process violations.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11381

On 24 February 2025, the EPLSC Financial Procedure Supervisory Committee (FPSC) sanctioned Mekelle 70 Enderta FC with a fine of ETB 3,000,000 and imposed a fine of ETB 200,000 on player Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa, ordered repayment of ETB 1,408,341 in advance payments, and suspended the player from competition pending repayment. On 28 February 2025, the club appealed to the EFF Appeal Committee pursuant to Article 98 of the EFF Disciplinary Regulations; the EFF simultaneously suspended enforcement of the penalties pending the appeal. On 1 April 2025, the EFF Appeal Committee dismissed the appeal and confirmed the FPSC decision in full. On 17 April 2025, the club filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, sixteen days after receiving the Appealed Decision and thus within the 21-day deadline. The club filed its Appeal Brief on 30 April 2025. The Respondents filed their Answers in May 2025. A hearing was held by videoconference on 29 May 2026. The club also filed four applications for provisional measures, all of which were dismissed.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11381

• Once the EPLSC investigation established that a player received payments exceeding his registered salary, the Directive placed on the club a duty to fully cooperate and provide evidence explaining the nature of those additional payments, failing which the EPLSC was entitled to conclude the payments breached the salary cap.
• The club's argument that it could not be liable for bank transactions made before the player formally signed in September 2024 was rejected because Article 5.2.4 of the Directive expressly prohibits advance payments to players.
• Any violations of due process or the right to be heard at first instance are cured by the de novo appeal proceedings before CAS, rendering such procedural complaints unnecessary to address.
• An application for provisional measures under Article R37 of the CAS Code must satisfy cumulatively the irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and balance of interests tests; failure on any one ground is sufficient to dismiss the application.
• A request for an expedited procedure under Article R44.4 of the CAS Code cannot be granted without the consent of all parties.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the EFF Disciplinary Code and the EPLSC Payment Administration System Directive as the primary applicable regulations under Article R58 of the CAS Code, with Ethiopian law as a subsidiary source. On the merits, the Arbitrator reasoned that the Directive's cooperative framework (paragraphs 5.1.16, 5.1.17, 6.5, and 7.4–7.5) shifted the evidential burden to the club once excess payments were identified: the club had to explain the payments or face sanctions. The club's generic explanation — that payments came from family, friends and acquaintances — was not supported by documentary evidence. The Arbitrator drew a pointed contrast with co-investigated player Mr Gebremariam, who successfully demonstrated his additional funds came from lawful independent sources and was cleared. The club's argument that pre-contract payments could not be attributed to it was rejected because the Directive specifically prohibits advance payments. On procedural fairness, the Arbitrator applied consistent CAS jurisprudence holding that first-instance due-process defects are cured by a full de novo CAS hearing, citing CAS 1998/A/208, CAS 2022/A/9078, CAS 2013/A/3262, CAS 2011/A/2594, and CAS 2018/A/5853. The four provisional measures applications were dismissed because the club failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, likelihood of success, or a favourable balance of interests.

Why Mekelle 70 Enderta matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms that domestic financial fair play directives modelled on FIFA principles can impose a cooperative burden on clubs to explain excess player payments, with failure to cooperate treated as confirmation of a breach. It also reaffirms the well-established CAS principle that de novo appeal proceedings cure any first-instance due-process violations, making procedural complaints at the domestic level largely moot before CAS. The case provides a rare CAS examination of Ethiopian football governance structures.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/6064 CAS 2022/A/9078 CAS 1998/A/208 CAS 2013/A/3262 CAS 2011/A/2594 CAS 2018/A/5853

Frequently asked questions about Mekelle 70 Enderta

Why did Mekelle 70 Enderta lose at CAS even though the payments predated the player's contract?

The Sole Arbitrator rejected the club's argument that pre-contract payments could not be attributed to it because Article 5.2.4 of the EPLSC Directive expressly prohibits clubs from paying members salaries or signing bonuses in advance. Once the EPLSC identified excess funds in the player's account, the Directive required the club to cooperate fully and provide evidence that the payments were legitimate. The club failed to produce credible documentary evidence, unlike co-investigated player Mr Gebremariam who was cleared after demonstrating his additional funds came from lawful independent sources.

What sanctions were imposed on Mekelle 70 Enderta FC and player Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa?

The FPSC fined Mekelle 70 Enderta FC ETB 3,000,000 (three million birr) for providing an advance payment to a player through a third party under Article 9.4.1 of the Directive. Player Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa was fined ETB 200,000 and ordered to repay ETB 1,408,341 in advance payments to the EPLSC within 7 days, and was suspended from competition until evidence of repayment was submitted. These sanctions were confirmed by CAS.

Did CAS find that the EFF and EPLSC violated the club's right to a fair hearing?

The Sole Arbitrator found it unnecessary to definitively resolve the due-process complaints because, under consistent CAS jurisprudence including CAS 2022/A/9078 and CAS 1998/A/208, any violations of due process or the right to be heard at first instance are cured by the de novo appeal proceedings before CAS. The Arbitrator therefore dismissed the club's procedural fairness submissions, noting the club had a full opportunity to present its case before CAS.

Why were all four of Mekelle 70 Enderta's provisional measures applications dismissed?

Under Article R37(5) of the CAS Code, an applicant must cumulatively satisfy three tests: irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balance of interests. The first two applications were dismissed by the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division because the club failed to address these criteria adequately and did not demonstrate irreparable harm. The third application raised no new matters warranting a further order. The fourth application, seeking protection from relegation, was dismissed by the Sole Arbitrator who agreed with the Respondents that the club's likely relegation was due to poor sporting performance during the 2025/26 season, not the registration ban or the ETB 3,000,000 fine imposed in 2025.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance 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.