CAS 2022 A 9318
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 14 Sept 2023
Why it matters
This case clarifies the limits of FIFA's jurisdiction over disputes between clubs from the same country (Guinea) and reinforces that the FIFA DRC cannot hear claims based on separate agreements not related to international transfers. It also underscores the importance of respecting transfer agreements and the consequences of breach, including joint liability of the new club.
Summary
The case concerns a dispute over the transfer of Guinean player Yakhouba Gnagna Barry. In May 2020, Santoba (Guinea) loaned the player to Horoya (Guinea) for the 2020/2021 season, with a preferential clause in Horoya's favor. In June 2021, QRM (France) signed a transfer agreement with Santoba and the player for a permanent transfer. However, the player did not join QRM and instead signed a contract with Horoya in October 2021. QRM filed a complaint with FIFA, claiming breach of the transfer agreement. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) found that the player had breached the agreement and that Horoya was jointly liable, ordering them to pay compensation. Horoya appealed to the CAS, arguing that the DRC lacked jurisdiction over the preferential clause issue and that the player's signature on the transfer agreement was forged. The CAS upheld the DRC's decision, confirming that the DRC had jurisdiction over the international transfer dispute but not over the separate loan agreement dispute (which was a national matter). The CAS also found that the player had validly signed the transfer agreement and that Horoya induced the breach. The appeal was dismissed, and the DRC's decision was confirmed.
The detail
Parties: Horoya Athletic Club c. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2022 A 9318
Outcome: CAS dismissed Horoya's appeal and upheld the FIFA DRC decision, finding that the player breached his transfer agreement with QRM and that Horoya was jointly liable.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), Swiss law subsidiarily, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case involved the interpretation of a transfer agreement and a loan agreement with a preferential clause, and the question of whether the FIFA DRC had jurisdiction over a claim based on the loan agreement.
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.