TAS - CAS 2025-A-11724

CAS 2025/A/11724 Fakhri Yaiche v. Al-Raed SFC ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Nicolas Cottier, Attorney-at-law in Saint-Prex, Switzerland in the arbitration between

Fakhri Yaiche, Tunis Represented by Mr Sami Boussarsar, Attorney-at-law in Tunis, Tunisia Appellant and Al-Raed Saudi Football Club, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia Represented by Mr Pedro Macieirinha, Attorney-at-law in Villa Real, Portugal Respondent

CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 2

I. THE PARTIES

1. Fakhri Yaiche (the “Agent” or the “Appellant”) is a FIFA licensed Agent from Tunisia.

2. Al Raed Saudi Football Club (the “Club” or the “Respondent”) is a football club , member of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (hereinafter the “ SAFF”) with corporate seat in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.

3. The Agent and the Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. On 12 July 2024, the Parties concluded a written agreement for the organisation of a training camp in Bosnia, to take place from 19 August to 4 September 2024 (hereinafter: the “Agreement”) . The Agreement included accommodation at a five -star facility, professional training facilities, full logistics (transport, catering and leisure) and the organisation of 3–4 friendly matches during the camp.

5. The contract price was EUR 61,344, payable in three instalments: (i) 30% upon signing

(paid on 17 July 2024) ; (ii) 30% upon arrival (paid on 21 August 2024) ; and (iii) the

5. The contract price was EUR 61,344, payable in three instalments: (i) 30% upon signing

(paid on 17 July 2024) ; (ii) 30% upon arrival (paid on 21 August 2024) ; and (iii) the remaining 40% five days before departure (due on 30 August 2024).

6. The Club did not pay the final instalment of 40%, namely EUR 24,536.

7. On 4 September 2024, the Respondent’s CEO issued a confirmation letter acknowledging the success of the camp and satisfaction with the services delivered.

8. On 16 December 2024, the Appellant sent a formal payment notice which remained unanswered.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIFA PLAYERS STATUS CHAMBER

9. On 18 March 2025 , the Agent filed a claim before the FIFA Players Status Chamber

(hereinafter: the “FIFA PSC”), arguing that he fully performed all obligations (accommodation, matches, logistics) with the Club’s satisfaction confirmed in writing and that he was entitled to the full remuneration provided under the Agreement.

10. The Club ha ving argued before the FIFA PSC that the Agent’s FIFA license was not valid, the Agent put forward that the administrative error mentioned by the Club did not have a material effect on the validity of his license.

11. The Agent requested the following relief: • The Club to pay the Agent the amount in debt of €24,536.00; • Interest from 30 August 2024; • €4,000.00 of legal expenses.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 3

12. The Club replied to the Agent’s claim, arguing that the latter was absent from the FIFA’s Match Agent list as at least March 2025 and that the Agreement violated Article 18 of the FIFA Match Agents Regulations (hereinafter: the “FIFA MAR” or the “MAR”) by omitting mandatory clauses , namely : conditions for match cancellation due to force

Match Agent list as at least March 2025 and that the Agreement violated Article 18 of the FIFA Match Agents Regulations (hereinafter: the “FIFA MAR” or the “MAR”) by omitting mandatory clauses , namely : conditions for match cancellation due to force majeure (Art. 18(1)(c)); player non-appearance protocols (Art. 18(1)(d)) ; and the Parties’ acknowledgment of FIFA regulations (Art. 18(1)(e)). The Club further claimed that contracts lacking these clauses are "null and void" (Art. 18(2) FIFA MAR).

13. The Club added that according to Article 19 FIFA MAR, agent commissions are capped at 25% of the negotiated amount. In this regard, the Club put forward that , assuming that “the amount of 61.344,00€ is the total amount the Claimant has negotiated for the Club”, the total fee (EUR 61,344.00) should be reclassified as a commission, subject to a EUR 15,336.00 cap.

14. The Club also contended that it had not received the Agent’s formal notice of 16

December 2024.

15. The Club thus put forward that: “The amount of 61.344,00€ is the total amount the Claimant has negotiated for the Club, and in accordance with article 19 of the FIFA Match Agents Regulations, the Claimant would only be entitled to receive in the maximum, the amount of 15.336€.

Accordingly, the decision to be carried out shall consider the abovementioned and impose on the Claimant the reimbursement of 21.388€ towards the Respondent.”

16. In its answer before FIFA, the Club did not challenge FIFA’s competence as such and

filed the following requests for relief: “REQUEST FOR RELIEF: The Claim shall be rejected due to the lack of legitimacy of the Claimant since isn’t (sic) a FIFA Match Agent licensed.

The Claim shall be rejected since the contract reached between the parties is null and void.

Subsidiarily,

“REQUEST FOR RELIEF: The Claim shall be rejected due to the lack of legitimacy of the Claimant since isn’t (sic) a FIFA Match Agent licensed.

The Claim shall be rejected since the contract reached between the parties is null and void.

Subsidiarily, The decision to be carried out shall consider the breach of article 19 of the FIFA Match agents Regulations, and impose on the Claimant the reimbursement of 21.388€ towards the Respondent.”

17. In the course of the proceeding s before FIFA, the Agents department of FIFA sent the following email to the Agent on 13 May 2025: “Dear fakhri yaiche, Thank you for your e-mail.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 4

As you have referred, if you submitted the correct insurance policy in due time, your insurance policy would be valid from the indicated time here referenced:

(…)”

18. The FIFA PSC issued its decision on 11 July 2025 and communicated the grounds of its decision on 12 August 2025 (hereinafter: the “Decision”).

19. In chapter I. Facts of the case of the Decision, the FIFA PSC confirmed the following: “The Claimant proved a FIFA administrative error in license renewal dates (March – May 2024 instead of May 2024–May 2025). FIFA confirmed validity via email (May 13,

2025).”

20. In essence, the FIFA PSC rejected the Agent’s claim for the following reasons: “ 23. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations )

(January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns regarding a contractual dispute between a Match Agent and a Club (sic).

of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations ) (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns regarding a contractual dispute between a Match Agent and a Club (sic).

24. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is not applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

25. The FIFA MAR are specifically designed to govern the activities of match agents who arrange international matches between teams affiliated with different confederations (Art. 2, Art. 13). The regulations focus on the organization of formal matches, not ancillary services such as training camps, accommodation, or logistics. 26.The contract in question primarily pertains to the provision of training camp services, including accommodation, training facilities, and logistics. The brief mention of "3–4 friendly matches" in Art. 8(5) of the contract is incidental and lacks specificity regarding the organization of matches between teams from different confederations, which is a prerequisite for the application of the FIFA MAR.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 5

27. Article 18 of the regulations mandates specific contractual clauses (e.g., provisions for force majeure, player non -appearance, and regulatory acknowledgment) that are tailored to formal match organization agreements. These clauses are not feasible or relevant in the context of a training camp contract, where no formal match agreement between two clubs or associations is specified.

28. As the contract does not primarily involve the organization of international matches between teams from different confederations, it falls outside the regulatory scope of the FIFA MAR. FIFA’s jurisdiction, as administered by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee (Art. 21), applies to disputes related to match organization, not to disputes concerning training camp services or incidental friendly matches without clear interconfederation involvement.

29. Consequently, the FIFA administration is of the position that FIFA lacks

Committee (Art. 21), applies to disputes related to match organization, not to disputes concerning training camp services or incidental friendly matches without clear interconfederation involvement.

29. Consequently, the FIFA administration is of the position that FIFA lacks competence to adjudicate this dispute, as the matter pertains to a training camp service contract rather than the organization of international matches as defined by the FIFA

Match Agents Regulations.

30. The Claimant’s request is therefore rejected on the grounds that it falls outside FIFA’s regulatory authority.”

21. Based on the above, the FIFA PSC decided: “1. The Football Tribunal does not have competence to hear the claim of the claimant,

Fakhri Yaiche.

2. This decision is rendered without costs.”

IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

22. On 29 August 2025, the Appellant filed his Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”), against the Respondent and FIFA, with respect to the Decision, pursuant to Articles R47 and R48 of the Code of Sports -related Arbitration (2025 edition) (the “Code”). In the Statement of Appeal, t he Appellant requested that the dispute be referred to a Sole Arbitrator.

23. On 3 September 2025, the Statement of Appeal was notified to the Respondent and to FIFA by the CAS Court Office, which asked the Respondent and FIFA whether they agreed with the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

24. The Appellant filed his Appeal Brief on 5 September 2025.

25. The CAS Court Office notified the Appeal Brief to the Respondent and to FIFA on 9

September 2025 indicating notably: “Pursuant to Article R55 of the Code of Sports -related Arbitration (the “Code”), the Respondents shall submit on or before 29 September 2025 , to the CAS an Answer containing. (…)CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 6 Please note that if the Respondents fail to submit their respective Answer by the given

Respondents shall submit on or before 29 September 2025 , to the CAS an Answer containing. (…)CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 6 Please note that if the Respondents fail to submit their respective Answer by the given time limit, the Panel may nevertheless proceed with the arbitration and deliver an award. (…)” [emphasis in original version]

26. On 10 September 2025, FIFA requested to be excluded from the procedure.

27. On 11 September 2025, the CAS Court Office notified FIFA’s correspondence dated 10

September 2025 to the Parties and indicated in particular that: “I note that the Second Respondent is requesting to be excluded as a pa rty in these proceedings, for the reasons stated in its letter. The Appellant is invited to indicate, on or before 16 September 2025, whether in view of the Second Respondent's comments, it would agree to withdraw his appeal as far as it is directed against FIFA. In the meantime, ail time limits set to the Second Respondent in previous CAS correspondence are suspended as from 10 September 2025 until further notice. Please note that such time limits are however not suspended for the First Respondent. In this respect, please note that the First Respondent is kindly invited to contact DHL as soon as possible to collect the CAS Court letter of 3 September 2025, which has not been delivered yet (cf. enclosed DHL tracking report).(…)” [emphasis in original version]

28. The same day, the Appellant confirmed that he withdrew its appeal as far as it was directed against FIFA “without prejudice to any of his substantive arguments raised in the Statement of Appeal and the Appeal Brief”.

29. On 12 September 2025, the CAS Court Office took note of the Appellant's withdrawal of his appeal against FI FA and confirmed that FIFA was no longer a party to the proceedings.

30. On 25 September 2025, the CAS Court Office sent the following correspondence to the

Parties:

of his appeal against FI FA and confirmed that FIFA was no longer a party to the proceedings.

30. On 25 September 2025, the CAS Court Office sent the following correspondence to the Parties: “I refer to my letter dated 3 September 2025 (delivered on 17 September 2025; please see DHL delivery report attached), in which the Respondent was granted a deadline of 5 days from the receipt of such letter by courier to express its position on Appellant's requests for the appointment of a sole arbitrator in this case and for the conduct of a bilingual French/English proceedings.

In the absence of any answer within the prescribed deadline, pursuant to Article R50 of the Code of Sports -related Arbitration, the Parties are advised that it is for the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, or her Deputy, to decide the issue, taking into account the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, in view of the Respondent's tacit agreement (cf. section 6 of the CAS Com1 Office letter of 3 September 2025), I confirm that the present procedure will beCAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 7 conducted in English and French. that the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division had decided to submit the case to a Sole Arbitrator.”

31. On 26 September 2025, the Parties were informed that the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division had decided to submit the case to a sole arbitrator and, o n 14

October 2025, the CAS Finance Director invited the Parties to pay advances of costs.

32. On 20 October 2025 , the Respondent ’s attorney, Mr Macieirinha, replied to such correspondence arguing in essence that the Respondent did not understand why the opening of the proceedings had not been notified to its attorney who had been in charge of the case before FIFA, namely Mr Macieirinha.

33. The Respondent filed the following requests: “6Moreover, accordingly to article R55 of the Code: “The Respondent may

opening of the proceedings had not been notified to its attorney who had been in charge of the case before FIFA, namely Mr Macieirinha.

33. The Respondent filed the following requests: “6Moreover, accordingly to article R55 of the Code: “The Respondent may request that the time limit for the filing of the answer be fixed after the payment bv the Appellant of its share of the advance of costs in accordance with Article R64.2.”

7Therefore, the Respondent requests to be established a deadline to provide its Answer upon the full amount of the advance costs by the Appellant.” [emphasis in original version]

34. On 21 October 2025, the CAS Court Office sent the following correspondence to the

Parties:

1. Respondent's representation As an initial matter, I note that the Respondent is now represented by Mr Pedro Macieirinha of JMPM & Associates, in Vila Real, Portugal. Accordingly, all future correspondence for the Respondent ’s attention shall be sent solely to Mr

Macieirinha. […]

2. Answer Deadline Finally, I note that the Respondent requests that the time limit to file its Answer be fixed once the advance of costs has been paid by the Appellant, pursuant to Article R55 para. 3 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

Please however note that the time-limit for the filing of the Answer has already expired on 29 September 2025 (cf. CAS Court Office letter of 9 September 2025). Accordingly, the Appellant is invited to express his position on the Respondent's request, on or before 27 October 2025.” [emphasis in original version]

35. On 23 October 2025, the Appellant objected to the Respondent’s request relating to the time-limit for the filing of its Answer.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 8

36. On 29 October 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that it would be for the Sole Arbitrator to decide upon the Respondent’s request once appointed.

time-limit for the filing of its Answer.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 8

36. On 29 October 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that it would be for the Sole Arbitrator to decide upon the Respondent’s request once appointed.

37. On 4 December 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that , pursuant to Article R54 of the Code, the Arbitral Tribunal appointed to rule on this matter would be

constituted as follows:

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Nicolas Cottier, Attorney-at-Law in Saint-Prex, Switzerland

38. On 12 December 2025, the Respondent requested again the grant, respectively the reinstatement of a time limit for the filing of its Answer.

39. On 18 December 2025, the CAS Court Office informed first the Parties that the Sole Arbitrator had decided to reject the Respondent’s requests of 20 October 2025, reiterated on 12 December 2025 , and that the reasons for this decision would be communicated in the award . The C AS Court Office then granted a deadline to the Parties until 5 January 2026 to inform the CAS Court Office whether they requested a hearing and/or a case management conference to be held.

40. On 31 December 2025, the Respondent requested an online hearing to be held arguing that “an online hearing is therefore our only remaining attempt to try to ensure some measure of procedural fairness and provide the Respondent with a meaningful opportunity to present its position and evidence directly before the Sole Arbitrator.”

41. On 5 January 2026, the Appellant confirmed that it did not request that a hearing be held in the present matter and that “should the Sole Arbitrator consider it useful or necessary to hear the witnesses identified by the Appellant in the Appeal Brief in order to clarify any factual aspects of the case, the Appellant remains fully available and at the disposal of the CAS for the holding of a hearing.”

42. On 8 January 2026, the Parties were informed that the Sole Arbitrator had decided to

to hear the witnesses identified by the Appellant in the Appeal Brief in order to clarify any factual aspects of the case, the Appellant remains fully available and at the disposal of the CAS for the holding of a hearing.”

42. On 8 January 2026, the Parties were informed that the Sole Arbitrator had decided to hold a hearing in this case. Following a request from the Appellant , and with the Respondent’s agreement, the Parties were convened to an in-person hearing to be held in Lausanne on 24 April 2026.

43. On 28 January 2026, the Parties were provided with a copy of the first-instance file transmitted by FIFA, upon request of the Sole Arbitrator.

44. On 4 February 2026, the Sole Arbitrator took note of the Respondent’s confirmation of 15 January 2026, which followed a request made by the Appellant in his Appeal Brief, that there existed no internal correspondence or any other type of written document that would relate to the Respondent’s decision to withhold the final instalment provided under the Agreement.

45. On 6 March 2026, the Respondent filed a decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal

(judgement 4A_313/2025 issued on 27 January 2026) allegedly “directly relevant to the jurisdictional issues arising in these proceedings.” In its letter accompanying the copyCAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 9 of this decision, the Respondent put forward a series of legal arguments which will be summarised in the part of the award dealing with the Parties’ submissions.

46. On 11 March 2026, the Sole Arbitrator invited the Appellant to submit his position on the Respondent’s observations as well as on the produced decision on or before 18

March 2026.

47. On 12 March 2026, the CAS Court Office provided the Parties with an Order of Procedure, which they were invited to return duly signed.

48. On 13 March 2026, the Appellant replied to the Respondent’s observations of 6 March

March 2026.

47. On 12 March 2026, the CAS Court Office provided the Parties with an Order of Procedure, which they were invited to return duly signed.

48. On 13 March 2026, the Appellant replied to the Respondent’s observations of 6 March 2026 filing a series of documents, parts of which were part of the file before FIFA, part of which not.

49. On 17 March 2026, the Appellant inter alia, objected to the filing of the Respondent’s observations dated 6 March 2026, arguing that the Respondent’s request for a new deadline to be granted for the filing of its Answer had been rejected by the Sole

Arbitrator.

50. On 18 March 2026, the Respondent informed the CAS Court Office that it was unable to sign the Order of Procedure , as it objected to CAS jurisdiction and to the refusal to grant it a new time-limit for the filing of its Answer to the Appeal Brief.

51. On 23 March 2026, the Respondent in return objected to the admission on file of the Appellant’s submissions dated 13 March 2026.

52. On 25 March 2026, the Appellant requested that the Respondent’s submissions dated 23 March 2026 be rejected together with the ones dated 6 March 2026 and his own submissions dated 13 March 2026 be admitted.

53. On 31 March 2026, the CAS Court Office sent the following correspondence to the Parties: “(…), the Sole Arbitrator issues the following procedural decisions and directions: • Respondent’s observations of 6 March 2026: In application of Article R56 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the Sole Arbitrator deems that, in view of the nature and the date of issuance of the produced judgment issued by the Federal Tribunal on 27 January 2026, it is justified to admit on file said judgment and the Respondent's observations strictly limited to such decision (i.e. points 1 to 6 of its

nature and the date of issuance of the produced judgment issued by the Federal Tribunal on 27 January 2026, it is justified to admit on file said judgment and the Respondent's observations strictly limited to such decision (i.e. points 1 to 6 of its observations), while points 7 to 10 are excluded from the CAS file. For the sake of clarity, the Sole Arbitrator notes that the exhibits attached to these observations will thus be considered only insofar they were already on file, which includes the FIFA file (cf. CAS letters of 22 and 28 January 2026).

• Appellant's observations of 13 March 2026: In light of the above only sections VI and IX of the Appellant' s observations of 13 March 2026 are accepted on file.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 10

• Respondent's observations of 17 (dated) /18 (sent) Marc h 2026: The Respondent is referred to the CAS Court Office letter of 18 December 2025 with respect to the inadmissibility of its Answer and is invited to return a signed copy of the Order of Procedure, by 7 April 2026, after having, if applicable, made by hand any amendments it deems necessary before being able to sign said document.

• Respondent's letter of 23 March 2026: As this letter relates to the admissibility of the Appellant's observations of 13 March 2026 and was sent within the time-limit granted by the CAS Court Office letter of 17 March 2026, it had been accepted on file and duly considered, together with the enclosed legal authorities.(…)”

54. The Appellant signed the Order of Procedure on 13 March 2026.

55. The Respondent signed the Order of Procedure on 6 April 2026 with two amendments where it stated that CAS had no jurisdiction and that the matter should be referred to national jurisdictions, on one side, and that it was denied a fair and equal opportunity to file its answers, on the other side.

55. The Respondent signed the Order of Procedure on 6 April 2026 with two amendments where it stated that CAS had no jurisdiction and that the matter should be referred to national jurisdictions, on one side, and that it was denied a fair and equal opportunity to file its answers, on the other side.

56. At the outset of the hearing, which was held in Lausanne on 24 April 2026, the Parties confirmed that they had no objection as to the constitution and composition of the arbitral tribunal.

57. In addition to the Sole Arbitrator and Ms Pauline Pellaux, Counsel to the CAS, the following persons attended the hearing: a) For the Appellant: the Appellant himself assisted by Mr Sami Boussarsar, attorneyat-law. Mr Nikola Tomic and Mr Teo Pirija were called as witness es to the

Appellant.

b) For the Respondent: Mr Brice Belhumeur, Legal Counsel assisted by Mr Macieirinha, attorney-at-law.

58. During the hearing, the witnesses confirmed in essence, the following: Mr Nikola Tomic: Mr Tomic was present at the hearing and explained that he had acted as the accompanying person of the Respondent’s delegation during the training camps and the friendly matches. Mr Tomic testified that the Respondent was satisfied with the services rendered by the Appellant, notably all the elements linked to the friendly matches, and that the Respondent had repeatedly assured to settle the outstanding amount due to the Appellant. Mr Tomic explained notably that he facilitated the organisation of the training matches and that 3 matches took place during the camp.

According to the witness, those matches were a very important part of the camp, as in any preparation camp. The witness also confirmed that this was a camp for the youth.

Mr Teo Pirija: Mr Pirija attended the hearing per visioconference and explained that he was the head coach of the U 19 of the Respondent at the relevant time and that theCAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 11 training camp was essentially organised for the purpose of playing friendly matches ,

Mr Teo Pirija: Mr Pirija attended the hearing per visioconference and explained that he was the head coach of the U 19 of the Respondent at the relevant time and that theCAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 11 training camp was essentially organised for the purpose of playing friendly matches , that the witness called “controlling matches” as a fundamental component of the preparation phase of the Respondent’s team.

59. At the end of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they were satisfied with the way the proceedings before CAS had been conducted.

60. On 13 May 2026, the CAS Court Office confirmed that the evidentiary proceedings were closed

V. THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

A. The Appellant (the Agent)

61. The Appellant’s submissions may be summarised in essence as follows: • The PSC wrongly declined jurisdiction by isolating the ‘training camp’ elements of the contract and disregarding the integral organisation of friendly matches. The holistic reading of the contract shows that friendly matches were a core, not incidental, component of the bargain; the training camp’s very purpose was sporting preparation through matches. The MAR exist to regulate licensed professionals arranging friendly matches between teams, notably across confederations. Where a licensed Match Agent is engaged for a training camp whose programme includes international matches, the dispute falls within FIFA’s r egulatory and adjudicatory framework. Therefore FIFA bodies have jurisdiction over disputes arising therefrom. To deny jurisdiction merely because the contract also includes ancillary services would undermine the MAR’s object and purpose. • CAS jurisprudence consistently favours substance over form. When faced with contracts containing both sporting and logistical obligations, CAS panels have recognised jurisdiction where the sporting component was essential (see, e.g., CAS 2014/A/3707). The decisive criterion is the parties’ intent and the actual performance of the contract. Here, the organisation of matches was central, and FIFA’s jurisdiction should have been upheld. By excluding jurisdiction, the PSC failed to apply correctly

2014/A/3707). The decisive criterion is the parties’ intent and the actual performance of the contract. Here, the organisation of matches was central, and FIFA’s jurisdiction should have been upheld. By excluding jurisdiction, the PSC failed to apply correctly both the MAR and fundamental interpretative principles recognised by CAS. The decision contradicts the CAS’s well established approach to mixed agreements and denies effect to the regulatory framework specifically designed for such situations, especially for mixed agreements where the sporting component is central. The Respondent itself recognized that matches were not ancillary but an integral part of the Agreement as it praised the camp’s success in terms of “sporting objectives achieved”.

• FIFA itself acknowledged an administrative error in the publication of renewal dates and confirmed in writing on 13 May 2025 that the Appellant’s licence (No. 301604) was valid throughout. CAS panels have consistently refused to let administrative mishaps deprive parties of substantive rights. A clerical omission in a public list cannot invalidate a duly held licence nor be invoked in bad faith to avoid payment.CAS 2025/A/11724 – Page 12

• The Appellant fully performed. The Respondent benefited from the camp and friendly matches yet withheld the final instalment. This is a clear breach of contract.

CAS awards repeatedly enforce the principle of pacta sunt servanda: agreements freely concluded are to be honoured in good faith; payment obligations must be performed as agreed. The outstanding EUR 24,536 must be paid together with interest from the due date (30 August 2024) until full settlement.

• The Respond