TAS - CAS 2025-A-11381

Palais de Beaulieu Av. Bergières 10 CH-1004 Lausanne Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 www.tas-cas.org

CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation (EFF) & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company (EPLSC) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Kwadjo Adjepong OBE, Lawyer in London, United Kingdom in the arbitration between

Mekele 70 Enderta FC, Mekelle, Ethiopia Represented by Bereket Dereje Mekonnen , FIFA-Licensed Football Agent , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

• Appellantand

1/ Ethiopian Football Federation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Represented by Bahiru Tilahun, Chief Executive Officer, Ethiopian Football Federation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - First Respondent2/ Ethiopian Premier League Share Company, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Represented by Dr Yonas Girma Adimassu, Habesha Legal Advocates LLP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

• Second Respondent-CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 2

I. PARTIES

1. Mekelle 70 Enderta FC (the “Appellant” or the “Club”) is a n Ethiopian football club, competing in the Ethiopian Premier League, affiliated to the Ethiopian Football

Federation.

2. The Ethiopian Football Federation (the “First Respondent” or the “EFF”) is the national governing body for football in Ethiopia based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It is affiliated to the Confederation of African Football (“CAF”) which is affiliated to the Fédération

Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).

governing body for football in Ethiopia based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It is affiliated to the Confederation of African Football (“CAF”) which is affiliated to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).

3. The Ethiopian Premier League Share Company (the “Second Respondent ” or the “EPLSC”) is responsible for the organisation of professional football competitions in

Ethiopia.

4. The EFF and EPLSC shall jointly be referred to as the “Respondents”, where applicable.

5. The Appellant and the Respondents shall jointly be referred to as the “Parties”, where applicable.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Background Facts

6. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced and at the hearing . Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, he refers in his award only to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain his reasoning.

7. As the Club is affiliated to the EFF and the EPLSC, it is obliged to comply with the rules of both organisations. As set out in section 6 of the decision on 1 April 2025 by the EFF Appeal Committee (the “ Appealed Decision”), the EPLSC Payment

Administration System Guideline No. 1/2016 (“the Directive”) was approved by a general assembly on 11 June 2024 and is recognised by the EFF.

8. On 19 September 2024 , the football player Yabsira Tesfaye Kumsa signed an E FF Professional Players Agreement with the Club for up to two years in duration. Article 2 of the agreement provided that “the Player’s monthly salary is 495,000 [ETB]”. On the same date , the football player Medhane Birhane Gebremariam signed a n EFF

Professional Players Agreement with the Club for up to two years in duration. Article 2 of the agreement provided that “the Player’s monthly salary is 495,000 [ETB]”. On the same date , the football player Medhane Birhane Gebremariam signed a n EFF Agreement with the Club for up to two years. The agreement provided that “the player’s monthly salary is 74,615 [ETB]”.

9. On 13 February 2025, the Club received a letter from the EPLSC requesting a response regarding alleged financial irregularities concerning two players , i.e. Mr Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa and Mr Medhane Birhane Gebremariam. The allegations related toCAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 3 payments made to the players that exceeded income limits set by the Directive. The alleged payments deposited into each player’s personal bank account, totall ed ETB 1,408,341.12 and ETB 1,239,500 respectively. The EPLSC letter to the Player, Mr Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa, dated 25 December 2024 , requested an explanation for the payments. The letter referred to the receipt of the following payments: ETB 150,308.42, ETB 1,257,649.17 and ETB 383.53 totalling ETB 1,408,341.12 made between 7 June 2024 and 30 October 2024 . A significant proportion of the payments queried by the EPLSC letter predated the signing of the Player’s contract.

10. On 19 February 2025, the Club submitted a response to the EPLSC letter, summarised

as follows: a. The Club did not resume full league participation until August 2024, having obtained an official licence at the end of July 2024. b. The Club began player registrations on 31 August 2024 and the first salary payment to the players occurred after 10 October 2024.

a. The Club did not resume full league participation until August 2024, having obtained an official licence at the end of July 2024. b. The Club began player registrations on 31 August 2024 and the first salary payment to the players occurred after 10 October 2024. c. The players were not under contract or registered with the Club during the time that the alleged transfers in breach of the Directive occurred. d. Documentary evidence was submitted to the EPLSC , including club licencing records, contract signing dates, payment records and bank statements.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE EPLSC FINANCIAL PROCEDURE SUPERVISORY

COMMITTEE

11. The EPLSC conducted an investigation to review the Player’s bank records, internal correspondence and registration timelines. The EPLSC concluded that the transactions violated Article 5 and Article 9 of the Directive; specifically in relation to payments exceeding income thresholds; and the disbursement of advance payments before formal player registration. The EPLSC also alleged there was a lack of clarity and transparency in the Player’s contract and payment documentation.

12. On 24 February 2025, the Financial Procedure Supervisory Committee (“FPSC”) made the following decision: “Financial Management Supervisory Committee , in accordance with the responsibility granted under Article 7, Paragraph 7.2 of the Ethiopian Premier League

Clubs Finance Administration Directive No. 1/2024), conducted an investigation into four clubs and 15 players. The investigation found that the clubs violated the provisions of Paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.4 of the Directive by making advance payments to a third party, and that the players violated the same provisions by receiving such payments through a third party – both actions classified as prohibited activities under Article 5 […]”.

13. Article 5 of the Directive states:CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 4

“5.2 Prohibited Activities

[…]”.

13. Article 5 of the Directive states:CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 4 “5.2 Prohibited Activities 5.2.1 A club’s total payments shall not exceed the payment ceiling approved by the General Assembly for the fiscal year. 5.2.2 No club shall permit any third party to make payments to a club member, unless such payments are made pursuant to a contract approved by the Ethiopia Football Federation and the Share Company […] 5.2.4 Clubs are prohibited from paying members salaries or signing bonuses in advance. 5.2.5 It is prohibited to submit information that deviates from the required forms and instructions provided by the Office [i.e. office of the EPLSC] , or to fail to respond altogether […] Article 6: Financial Management Supervisory Committee 6.1 The Financial Management Supervisory Committee is an independent, decisionmaking body composed of experts […] to oversee the financial management of clubs participating in the League. 6.2 The Committee is administratively supported by the Share Company […] 6.4 The Committee may, at any time, initiate an investigation into any club or club member […] 6.5 The club or club member is required to respond to any request made by the committee and must co -operate fully until the conclusion of the investigation […].

(Emphasis added) Article 7: Composition, Protocol, and Decision -Making of Financial Management Supervision 7.1 The administration and oversight of the clubs’ payment systems shall be managed by the Office. However, all professional activities related to financial supervision shall be conducted independently and impartially by the Committee […]. 7.2 The Committee shall be a group of experts established to monitor the financial management of clubs. It shall have the authority to investigate and impose sanctions on any club or club member […]. 7.3 The Committee shall submit a copy of the investigation report and findings, as

7.2 The Committee shall be a group of experts established to monitor the financial management of clubs. It shall have the authority to investigate and impose sanctions on any club or club member […]. 7.3 The Committee shall submit a copy of the investigation report and findings, as carried out in accordance with Article 7.2, to the Board of Directors. The Share Company Office shall subsequently notify the Ethiopian Football Federation E.F.F. 7.4 Before taking any action based on the findings of an investigation, the Committee shall provide the concerned club or club member with ten (10) working days’ notice to submit a written response and any supporting evidence.CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 5 7.5 If the concerned party fails to respond within the given time frame, or if the response does not refute the findings of the investigation, the Committee shall consider the investigation report as valid and approve it accordingly”.

14. Having consider ed the financial audit evidence and trans action records, the FPSC imposed the following sanctions on the Club and the Player including: “3. Penalty Decisions against Mekelle 70 Enderta Sports Club and its Players” “3.1 Mekele 70 Enderta Sports Club shall be fined 3,000,000 [ETB] (three million birr) for providing an advance payment to a player through a third party,

in accordance with Article 9 Ordinal No. 9.4.1. […] “A written warning shall also be issued to the club’s president Mr Yirga Gere Egeziabehar, Manager, Mr. Shiferaw Tekele Haymonot and the board members”. 3.2 The board members who were present at the time of the violation shall be identified by the club and held accountable for executing this decision. 3.3 The club player 3.3.1 Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa received an advance payment of 1,408, 341.00

members”. 3.2 The board members who were present at the time of the violation shall be identified by the club and held accountable for executing this decision. 3.3 The club player 3.3.1 Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa received an advance payment of 1,408, 341.00 [ETB] (one million four hundred eight thousand three hundred forty -one birr) through a third party, in accordance with Article 9, Paragraph 9.4.3. 3.3.2 He shall pay a fine of 200,000.00 [ETB] (two hundred thousand birr) for the offense committed. 2.2.2.4 He must return the aforementioned advance payment to the (share company) within 7 days. 2.2.6.5 He shall remain suspended from the competition until he submits evidence of the refund of the advance payment to the (share company office). “[…] The parties subject to these penalties have the right to appeal in accordance with Article 8 of the Clubs Finance Administration Directive No. 01/2024”.

IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE EFF APPEAL COMMITTEE

15. On 28 February 2025, the Club formally appealed the decision to the EFF Appeal Committee, pursuant to Article 98 of the EFF Disciplinary Regulations. On the same date, the EFF issued an order stating: “1. The penalties issued by the EPLSC against the clubs and players on February , 24 2025 shall remain suspended until the Appeals Committee investigates the matter and renders an appropriate decision.”CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 6

16. On 1 April 2025, the EFF Appeal Committee undertook a procedural review and an assessment of the factual and legal representations made by the Club. On the conclusion of this process, the Committee issued its final ruling. The appeal was dismissed and the decision rendered by the EPLSC was affirmed. The Committee found that the Club had not presented sufficient evidence to refute the findings of administrative and financial

assessment of the factual and legal representations made by the Club. On the conclusion of this process, the Committee issued its final ruling. The appeal was dismissed and the decision rendered by the EPLSC was affirmed. The Committee found that the Club had not presented sufficient evidence to refute the findings of administrative and financial mismanagement, no r had it demonstrated compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. As a result, the sanctions imposed by the EPLSC remained in full effect.

17. The reasons for the decision provided by the EFF Appeal Committee (the “Appealed Decision”) are as follows: “12. Decision of the Appeal Hearing Committee “After reviewing the aforementioned legal and litigation point. The appeal hearing committee, pursuant to the Ethiopian Football Federation Disciplinary Guidelines,

Article 90, No1, and Article 100, as well as. The Ethiopian Premier League Clubs Payment System, Article 8 has reached the following decision:

1. Even if the appellants contest the legitimacy of the Finance Administration Monitoring Committee, which was established per the payment System Administration Guideline, […] the claim asserting the committee’s decision is illegal has been rejected by the appeal hearing committee. 2. […] the amounts found in the player’s bank accounts exceed their entitled salaries, raising concerns […] An investigation was conducted. Rather than explaining the source of the excess funds, the players contested the investigation, claiming it violated their constitutional rights. Such assertions cannot be valid defenses. The appellants failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claims regarding payments made to players through a third party, nor did they adequately explain the discrepancy in the amounts found in the players’ accounts. Consequently, the litigation presented by the appellants is dismissed. 3. […] the appellants argument rests on the lack of evidence regarding the source of the funds in the players’ accounts, which exceed their salaries. They assert that since the source of the money deposited by a third party remains unverified, specifically who deposited it, when and how, it should preclude the imposition of penalties. 4. […] the appellant’s request to revoke the penalty decision made by the

that since the source of the money deposited by a third party remains unverified, specifically who deposited it, when and how, it should preclude the imposition of penalties. 4. […] the appellant’s request to revoke the penalty decision made by the respondent on February 24, 2025 is ruled unacceptable. 5. […] the suspension issued by the appeal hearing committee under reference no. 2 EFA/61323 on February 28, 2025, is hereby lifted […]”.CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 7

V. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

18. On 17 April 2025, the Appellant filed its Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) in accordance with Articles R47 and R48 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “Code”), against the Appealed Decision.

19. On 30 April 2025, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of the Code.

20. On the same date, the Appellant made an Application for Provisional Measures to: “Suspend the enforcement of the penalties pending final resolution of this appeal

(immediately suspend the penalties issued by the Ethiopian Premier League Share Company against the club and players on February 24, 2025, until the CAS conducts an investigation).”

21. On 7 and 9 May 2025 respectively , the Respondents replied to the Appellant’s Application for Provisional Measures, and both asked for the application to be dismissed.

22. On 9 May 2025, the Appellant made a further “Final Urgent Interim Request” seeking to reinstate the player Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa for competitive play, pending the final resolution of the appeal.

23. On the same date, the CAS Court Office replied to the Appellant reminding them that the deadline to respond to their original Application for Provisional Measures had not passed. The Court Office explained that the First Respondent had provided their

resolution of the appeal.

23. On the same date, the CAS Court Office replied to the Appellant reminding them that the deadline to respond to their original Application for Provisional Measures had not passed. The Court Office explained that the First Respondent had provided their response and , once the Second Respondent submitted their response , the Division President or her Deputy would issue an Order on provisional measures. On the same date, the Second Respondent provided their response to the Application for Provisional

Measures.

24. On 15 May 2025, the Appellant applied to CAS for an “Urgent Reminder for Interim Relief” to allow the Player to resume competitive play.

25. On 19 May 2025 , the Second Respondent filed its Answer in accordance with Art icle R55 of the Code.

26. On 20 May 2025, the Order on Provisional Measures was rendered by the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division which dismissed the Appellant’s Application, since the Appellant failed to address the three criteria for the granting of the provisional measures set out in Article R37 (5) of the CAS Code.

27. On the same date, the First Respondent filed its Answer in accordance with Article R55 of the Code.

28. On 22 May 2025, the Appellant filed a second Application for Provisional Measures and requested the following:CAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 8 “1. Grant a stay of execution of the disciplinary decision issued by the Ethiopian Football Federation (EFF) and the Ethiopian Premier League Share Company (EPLSC), with immediate effect;

2. Authorize Mr. Yeabsira Tesfaye Kumsa to resume full participation in all remaining Ethiopian Premier League matches, including the fixture scheduled for 26 May 2025 , pending the final decision in this appeal;

3. Order that the costs of this application be reserved for the final award.

(Emphasis added by the Appellant).

Ethiopian Premier League matches, including the fixture scheduled for 26 May 2025 , pending the final decision in this appeal;

3. Order that the costs of this application be reserved for the final award.

(Emphasis added by the Appellant).

29. On the same date, the CAS Court Office invited the Respondents to file their replies to the Appellant’s second Application for Provisional Measures by 27 May 2025.

30. On 27 May 2025, the First Respondent filed its reply to the Appellant’s second

Application for Provisional Measures.

31. On 30 May 2025, the Second Respondent filed its reply to the Appellant’s second

Application for Provisional Measures.

32. On 31 May 2025, the Appellant objected to the admissibility of the Second Respondent’s reply to its second Application for Provisional Measures.

33. On 8 June 2025, the Second Respondent filed its explanations on the late filing of its reply to the Appellant’s second Application for Provisional Measures and the admissibility of its reply.

34. On 16 July 2025, a second Order on Provisional Measures was issued by the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Order ruled that the late reply to the second Application for Interim Measures , filed by the Second Respondent on 28 May 2025, was inadmissible and would not be considered by the Deputy Division President. In addition, in relation to the Appellant’s Application for Provisional Measures, the Deputy Division President found that the Appellant had not made out its case that it would suffer ‘irreparable harm ’. As a result, the second Application for Provisional Measures was dismissed.

35. On 14 August 2025 the Division President notified the Parties that a Sole Arbitrator would be appointed in accordance with Article R54 of the Code.

36. On 3 September 2025, the Appellant made a third Application for Provisional Measures.

37. On 10 September 2025, the Respondents replied. CAS did not make a third Order

would be appointed in accordance with Article R54 of the Code.

36. On 3 September 2025, the Appellant made a third Application for Provisional Measures.

37. On 10 September 2025, the Respondents replied. CAS did not make a third Order regarding third application Provisional Measures, as the Appellant did not include new matters that would have required a further Order.

38. On 23 October 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties, in accordance with Article R54 of the Code, and on behalf of the Deputy President of the CAS AppealsCAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 9

Arbitration Division, that the arbitral tribunal appointed to decide the present matter would be constituted as follows: Sole Arbitrator: Mr Kwadjo Adjepong OBE, Lawyer in London, United Kingdom

39. On 15 April 2026, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator requesting answers to questions relating to the source of the alleged payments to the players by 27 April 2026. The Parties were informed that, subject to the answers provided, the Sole Arbitrator would determine whether a hearing was necessary or not.

40. On 27 April 2026, the Appellant and the Second Respondent filed its answers to the Sole Arbitrator’s questions. The First Respondent failed to provide its answers within the deadline provided.

41. On 8 May 2026, following representations from the Parties, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties to confirm that a hearing would take place on 29 May 2026 by videoconference.

42. On 18 May 2026, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties requesting that they sign and return the Order of Procedure. The Order of Procedure was duly signed by the Parties on 22 May 2026.

43. On 26 May 2026, the Parties were provided with the Hearing Schedule.

42. On 18 May 2026, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties requesting that they sign and return the Order of Procedure. The Order of Procedure was duly signed by the Parties on 22 May 2026.

43. On 26 May 2026, the Parties were provided with the Hearing Schedule.

44. On 29 May 2026, a hearing was held by videoconference. At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objection to the constitution of the Panel. Also, the Parties confirmed that there were no preliminary matters to address.

45. In addition to the Sole Arbitrator and Mr Fabien Cagneux, (Managing Counsel, CAS), the following people attended the hearing by videoconference:

– For the Appellant:

• Mr Bereket Dereje Mekonnen, FIFA registered agent

– For the First Respondent:

• Mr Bahiru Tilahun, CEO, the Ethiopian Football Federation

– For the Second Respondent:

• Dr Yonas Girma Adimassu, Counsel,

46. The Sole Arbitrator heard closing submissions from the legal representatives for the Parties. The Sole Arbitrator gave the party representatives a short opportunity to address the Court at the end of the hearing . The party representatives were Mr Yirga Gebregziabher Assefa (on behalf of the Appellant), Mr Bahiru Tilahun (on behalf of theCAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 10

First Respondent) and Mr Kifle Seife Endalem (on behalf of the Second Respondent). The Panel did not hear oral evidence from any witnesses.

47. At the end of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that their right to be heard had been respected and they had no objection to the way the hearing had been conducted.

48. On 22 June 2026, the Appellant made a fourth application for Provisional and Conservatory Measures requesting that CAS order that the Appellant should not be

respected and they had no objection to the way the hearing had been conducted.

48. On 22 June 2026, the Appellant made a fourth application for Provisional and Conservatory Measures requesting that CAS order that the Appellant should not be relegated from the Ethiopian Premier League pending the outcome of the appeal. The Appellant also requested an expedited procedure for the case.

49. On 30 July 2026, on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, the Parties were advised that the Appellant’s request for a for Provisional and Conservatory Measures had been dismissed and the grounds of the Sole Arbitrator’s decision was to be provided in the final award. (See section XI below.)

VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

50. The Appellant’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows: - The Appealed Decision must be set aside as the Club was denied a fair hearing. The decision rendered w as in violation of fundamental principles of due process and procedural fairness. The Committee failed to consider critical documentary evidence demonstrating that the players were not affiliated with the Club at the time of the alleged financial transaction s. This was a breach of the Club’s right to be heard. These shortcomings were in breach of FIFA Regulations. - There was an incorrect legal basis for the sanctions in breach of the FIFA RSTP Article 4 (contractual stability) and Article 22 (jurisdiction over disputes). The Club did not enter contractual relations with the players until August 2024. The Club cannot therefore be held liable for private bank transactions made to individuals that were not under contract; not registered; and not receiving salaries from the Club. No evidence has been presented linking the Club to these transactions. - There has been a misapplication of Third-Party Influence Principles under the FIFA RSTP and the FIFA Disciplinary Code. The decision erroneously attributes third party transactions to the Club without evidence of proof of Club involvement. The burden of verifying third party deposits does not rest with the Club unless demonstrably linked. - The sanctions were arbitrary and disproportionate , contrary to the FIFA

RSTP and the FIFA Disciplinary Code. The decision erroneously attributes third party transactions to the Club without evidence of proof of Club involvement. The burden of verifying third party deposits does not rest with the Club unless demonstrably linked. - The sanctions were arbitrary and disproportionate , contrary to the FIFA Disciplinary Code. The sanctions must be proportionate and evidenced. Sanctions were imposed without clear evidence or lawful justification. - There was a violation of FIFA principles and access to a fair appeal in accordance with FIFA Statutes; and the FIFA Code of Ethics. The EFF Appeal Committee failed to act independently and denied the Appellant with a meaningful opportunity for appeal, contrary to FIFA’s standards for adjudicatory bodies. The decisionCAS 2025/A/11381 Mekelle 70 Enderta FC v. Ethiopian Football Federation & Ethiopian Premier League Share Company – Page 11 violates FIFA’s commitment to transparency, a fair hearing and accountability enshrined in the FIFA Disciplinary Code and FIFA Club Licensing Regulations.

51. As a result of the above submissions, the Appellant requests the following relief: “In light of the foregoing, the Appellant respectfully requests CAS to: 1.Suspend the enforcement of the penalties pending final resolution of this appeal

(Immediately suspend the penalties issued by the Ethiopian Premier League Share Company against the club and players on February 24, 2025, until the CAS conducts an investigation);

2. Annul the decision of Ethiopian Football Federation Appeal Committee (April 1,

2025);

3. Revoke all sanctions imposed on Mekelle 70 Enderta Football Club and its player;

4. Clear the club’s name of any wrongdoing concerning this matter; 5 Order the EFF and EPLSC to align their disciplinary procedures with FIFA and CAS standards of fairness and independence; 6.Restore the eligibility, integrity, and reputation of the Club and its players”.

52. The First Respondent’s submissions can be summarised as follows: - The EFF’s Role and Legal Authority: As the national federation entrusted with the governance of football in Ethiopia, the EFF has the authority to recogni se and

6.Restore the eligibility, integrity, and reputation of the Club and its players”.

52. The First Respondent’s submissions can be summarised as follows: - The EFF’s Role and Legal Authority: As the national federation entrusted with the governance of football in Ethiopia, the EFF has the authority to recogni se and enforce compliance mechanisms including financial integrity guidelines. - The Payment System Administration Guideline (the “Directive”) was approved during a General Assembly, where all Premier League clubs were represented; upon entering the Premier League, all clubs agree to adhere to the operational and regulatory instruments of the EPLSC and EFF; and the EFF Disciplinary Guidelines, sp ecifically Artic