What is Locus Standi?

Locus Standi is a platform for the dispute-resolution world. It brings together arbitration, mediation and adjudication events, jobs and internships, and landmark arbitral awards explained in plain English, alongside the qualifications and pathways into the field. It was established in London at LIDW26 by the alumni of Queen Mary University of London.

Can Locus Standi help me understand a dispute?

Yes. Locus Standi offers free dispute help: paste your contract's dispute-resolution clause and a short note on what happened, and it works out the type of dispute, the governing law, your options, the right forum to file in, and drafts a basic document to start from, all in plain English.

What is the agentic AI case officer?

Locus Standi's workspace includes an AI case officer that helps practitioners run their matters: tracking stages and deadlines, raising alerts, organising to-dos and documents, and drafting. It is built for arbitrators, mediators and the institutions that administer disputes.

Where can I find arbitration events and internships?

Locus Standi keeps a live calendar of arbitration, mediation and adjudication events with one-tap calendar export, and a board of arbitration jobs and internships from institutions including the PCA, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and AIAC.

CAS 2022 A 8785 (CAS)

Why it matters

This case reinforces the strict enforcement of financial obligations in football, particularly decisions from FIFA and CAS. It highlights CAS's consistent jurisprudence on the burden of proof for clubs claiming inability to pay due to force majeure or economic hardship, requiring concrete evidence. The decision also affirms the principle of deference to FIFA's Disciplinary Committee regarding the proportionality of sanctions, emphasizing that CAS will only intervene if a sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate,' thereby upholding the autonomy of sports governing bodies in disciplinary matters.

Summary

This arbitral award from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerns an appeal by El Zamalek Sporting Club against a decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DC). The underlying dispute originated with a FIFA Players' Status Committee (FIFA PSC) decision on 28 July 2020, ordering El Zamalek to pay Sporting Clube de Portugal USD 510,015 plus interest. Sporting then appealed to CAS (CAS 2020/A/7484), which, on 10 November 2021, ordered El Zamalek to pay USD 400,000 in penalty fees plus 5% interest, and bear arbitration costs. This CAS award became final and binding. When El Zamalek failed to comply with this final CAS award, Sporting requested enforcement, leading to proceedings before the FIFA DC. On 13 January 2022, the FIFA DC found El Zamalek responsible for breaching Article 15 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC). It ordered El Zamalek to pay the outstanding amounts (USD 510,015 + interest, and USD 400,000 + interest, plus CHF 5,000 for costs), granted a 30-day deadline, imposed an automatic transfer ban upon non-compliance, and levied a fine of CHF 30,000. El Zamalek appealed this FIFA DC decision to CAS (CAS 2022/A/8785), arguing that it had not violated Article 15 FDC due to the impact of the 2016 Egyptian economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic (claiming force majeure). It also contended that the CHF 30,000 fine was disproportionate and that the FIFA DC's decision was based on vague grounds and wrong legal analysis. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed El Zamalek's appeal in its entirety. The Arbitrator reiterated that El Zamalek bore the burden of proving its allegations to the standard of 'comfortable satisfaction' (Articles 36 and 35 FDC, Swiss Civil Code Article 8). The Club failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic or the 2016 Egyptian economic crisis made it objectively impossible to comply with its financial obligations, noting that financial difficulties are not a valid justification for non-compliance, especially when the Club continued to engage in the transfer market. Regarding the proportionality of the sanction, the Arbitrator found that the CHF 30,000 fine (less than 3.5% of the total owed) was not 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' when compared to FIFA DC's consistent practice. The appeal was dismissed, the FIFA DC decision confirmed, and El Zamalek was ordered to bear all arbitration costs.

The detail

Parties: El Zamalek Sporting Club v. FIFA

Case number: CAS 2022 A 8785

Outcome: The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed El Zamalek Sporting Club's appeal, confirming the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision to impose a CHF 30,000 fine and a transfer ban for non-compliance with a previous CAS award.

Quantum: CHF 30,000

Applicable law: CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47, R48, R55, R57, R58, R64.4, R64.5), FIFA Statutes (Articles 56(2), 57(1)), FIFA Disciplinary Code (Articles 15, 20(5), 35(2), 35(3), 36(1), 36(2), 49(1)), Swiss Civil Code (Article 8), Swiss law (subsidiary).

Issues in play: The case primarily involved the application of Article 15 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code concerning failure to comply with final decisions. Key legal principles included the burden and standard of proof (Article 36 and 35 FDC, Swiss Civil Code Article 8), and the principle of proportionality in sanctions, with CAS deferring to sports bodies' discretion unless sanctions are 'evidently and grossly disproportionate.' The Club's defenses of force majeure (Covid-19 pandemic) and economic hardship (2016 Egyptian economic crisis) were also central.

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.

Back to the awards board