CAS 2021 A 7851
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 11 Feb 2022
Why it matters
This award confirms that CAS panels cannot reduce the minimum sporting sanctions under FIFA RSTP Articles 17(3) and 17(4) even if they consider them disproportionate. It reinforces the principle that CAS cannot substitute its own judgment for the legislated rules of sports governing bodies, and that the minimum sanctions are mandatory. The decision also clarifies that the presumption of inducement under Article 17(4) is difficult to rebut when a club negotiates with a player before contract termination.
Summary
The case arose from a dispute between Algerian player Mohamed Naoufel Khacef and his former club Club Nasr Athlétique Hussein Dey. The player terminated his contract on 20 August 2020, citing force majeure due to COVID-19 border closures and suspension of the Algerian league. He then signed with Portuguese club CD Tondela. Club Nasr filed a claim with FIFA, which found the player breached his contract without just cause during the protected period. The FIFA DRC ordered the player to pay EUR 160,000 compensation, with Tondela jointly and severally liable, and imposed sporting sanctions: a 4-month ban on the player and a two-registration-period transfer ban on Tondela. The player and Tondela appealed to CAS, challenging only the sporting sanctions, not the compensation. They argued the sanctions were disproportionate and that the Panel should reduce them. The CAS Panel held that under the FIFA RSTP, the 4-month ban and two-period transfer ban are minimum sanctions that cannot be reduced. The Panel found it had no discretion to impose lesser sanctions, as the rules are clear and mandatory. It also rejected arguments that the sanctions were disproportionate, noting that Tondela failed to prove financial hardship or relegation risk. The Panel confirmed the FIFA DRC decision in full.
The detail
Parties: & 7905 Mohamed Naoufel Khacef & Tondela Futebol v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2021 A 7851
Outcome: CAS dismissed both appeals and confirmed the FIFA DRC decision imposing a 4-month playing ban on the player and a two-registration-period transfer ban on the club.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Articles 17(3) and 17(4); CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case concerned whether the FIFA RSTP's minimum sporting sanctions (4-month ban for player, two-period transfer ban for club) could be reduced on proportionality grounds. The Panel held it had no discretion to reduce the fixed minimum sanctions.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.