CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11724 — Fakhri Yaiche v. Al-Raed Saudi Football Club

"Yaiche v. Al-Raed" · CAS reversed FIFA PSC's jurisdictional dismissal and ordered Al-Raed to pay a licensed match agent EUR 24,536 for a training camp including friendly matches.

What happened in Yaiche v. Al-Raed

Tunisian FIFA-licensed match agent Fakhri Yaiche contracted with Saudi club Al-Raed SFC on 12 July 2024 to organise a training camp in Bosnia (19 August – 4 September 2024) for EUR 61,344, covering accommodation, logistics, and 3–4 friendly matches. Al-Raed paid two of three instalments but withheld the final 40% (EUR 24,536) due on 30 August 2024. The club's CEO nonetheless issued a written satisfaction letter on 4 September 2024. Yaiche filed before the FIFA Players Status Chamber (PSC) in March 2025. The PSC declined jurisdiction on 11 July 2025, characterising the contract as a training-camp services agreement outside the FIFA Match Agents Regulations (MAR). Yaiche appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator reversed the PSC, finding that three inter-confederation friendly matches (AFC v. UEFA teams) within 17 days were a core, not incidental, element of the agreement; that the PSC's competence under Article 22 MAR was not contingent on perfect compliance with Article 18 MAR; that the agent's licence was valid (FIFA confirmed an administrative error); and that the agreement was not null and void. CAS ordered Al-Raed to pay EUR 24,536 plus 5% interest p.a. from 30 August 2024. The case matters because it clarifies that FIFA PSC jurisdiction under Article 22 MAR attaches whenever a licensed match agent's contract includes genuine inter-confederation friendly matches, regardless of ancillary services.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11724

On 18 March 2025 Fakhri Yaiche filed a claim before the FIFA Players Status Chamber (PSC) seeking EUR 24,536 (the unpaid final instalment), interest from 30 August 2024, and EUR 4,000 in legal costs. The club argued the agent lacked a valid FIFA licence, that the agreement was null and void under Article 18(2) FIFA MAR for missing mandatory clauses, and that any fee should be capped at EUR 15,336 under Article 19 MAR. On 11 July 2025 the FIFA PSC declined jurisdiction, holding the contract was a training-camp services agreement outside the FIFA MAR's scope, which covers only the organisation of international matches between teams from different confederations. On 29 August 2025 Yaiche filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, initially naming both Al-Raed and FIFA as respondents; FIFA was subsequently excluded on 12 September 2025 after Yaiche withdrew the appeal against it. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 24 April 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11724

• FIFA PSC has jurisdiction under Article 22 FIFA MAR over disputes between a licensed match agent and a club whenever the contract genuinely includes the organisation of inter-confederation friendly matches, even if the contract also covers ancillary services such as accommodation and logistics.
• FIFA PSC jurisdiction under Article 22 MAR is not subordinated to full compliance with the mandatory contractual clauses of Article 18(1) MAR; alleged breaches of those clauses go to the merits, not to competence.
• Where both parties are bound by the FIFA MAR by virtue of their status (licensed agent and FIFA-affiliated club), the condition in Article 18(1)(e) MAR — that parties acknowledge and undertake to observe FIFA regulations — is materially satisfied even if not expressly stated in the contract.
• Invoking Article 18(2) MAR nullity to escape payment after full performance by the other party constitutes an abuse of right within the meaning of Article 2 of the Swiss Civil Code.
• A FIFA administrative error in publishing licence renewal dates does not invalidate a duly held licence, and a club that relies on such an error to avoid payment acts in bad faith.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began by establishing CAS appellate jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code and Article 50.1 of the FIFA Statutes, rejecting the club's challenge based on a Swiss Federal Tribunal decision (4A_313/2025) as irrelevant to CAS appellate competence. On the merits of FIFA PSC jurisdiction, the arbitrator read the Agreement holistically rather than focusing solely on Article 8(5): multiple provisions (Articles 3, 6, 9) referenced friendly matches, a 15% penalty clause applied specifically if matches were not organised, and three matches occurred within 17 days — a rhythm consistent with a tournament. Witness testimony confirmed matches were the primary purpose. The arbitrator rejected the club's fee-structure argument (fees calculated per room) as merely reflecting a package deal. On Article 18 MAR nullity, the arbitrator found that only the Article 18(1)(e) acknowledgment clause was missing, while other clauses were either present or inapplicable; given both parties' status under FIFA regulations, the condition was materially met. Declaring nullity in these circumstances would violate pacta sunt servanda and constitute an abuse of right under Article 2 Swiss Civil Code. Interest was awarded under Articles 104 and 108 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

Why Yaiche v. Al-Raed matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies the jurisdictional reach of the FIFA PSC under Article 22 FIFA MAR: jurisdiction attaches to any genuine inter-confederation friendly-match arrangement by a licensed agent, regardless of ancillary services bundled in the same contract. It also establishes that Article 18(2) MAR nullity cannot be weaponised by a party that has received full performance, reinforcing pacta sunt servanda and the abuse-of-right doctrine in the context of FIFA match-agent disputes. The decision provides practical guidance on how to assess 'mixed' match-agent agreements.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2014/A/3707 CAS 2024/A/10809 Swiss Federal Tribunal judgement 4A_313/2025 (27 January 2026)

Frequently asked questions about Yaiche v. Al-Raed

Did CAS find that FIFA had jurisdiction over the Yaiche v. Al-Raed training camp dispute?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator reversed the FIFA PSC's jurisdictional dismissal, holding that three inter-confederation friendly matches (AFC v. UEFA teams) within a 17-day camp were a core element of the agreement, not incidental services. Under Article 22 FIFA MAR, the PSC was therefore competent to hear the dispute.

Can a club avoid paying a match agent by arguing the contract is null and void under Article 18(2) FIFA MAR?

Not in these circumstances. The Sole Arbitrator found that only the Article 18(1)(e) acknowledgment clause was missing, while other required clauses were either present or inapplicable. Because both parties were bound by the FIFA MAR by virtue of their status, the condition was materially satisfied. Invoking nullity after receiving full performance was held to be an abuse of right under Article 2 of the Swiss Civil Code.

What happened with the agent's FIFA licence validity argument in Yaiche v. Al-Raed?

FIFA confirmed in a 13 May 2025 email that it had made an administrative error in publishing the licence renewal dates (March–May 2024 instead of May 2024–May 2025) and that the agent's licence No. 301604 was valid throughout. The Sole Arbitrator held that the club's reliance on this clerical error to avoid payment constituted bad faith and rejected the submission.

How did CAS calculate the interest awarded to Fakhri Yaiche?

The Sole Arbitrator awarded 5% interest per annum on EUR 24,536 running from 30 August 2024 — the contractual due date of the final instalment — until full payment, applying Articles 104 and 108 of the Swiss Code of Obligations as the subsidiary applicable law.

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.