TAS - CAS 2025-A-11761

CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

Sole Arbitrator: Dr Vanja Smokvina, Professor of Law in Rijeka, Croatia in the arbitration between Mahamadou Kouyate, Bamako, Mali Represented by Ms Ariadna Mendoza and Ms Maike Herrlei , Fédération Internationale des Associations de Footballeurs Professionnels (“FIFPRO”), Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Appelant and Malian Football Federation (FEMAFOOT), Bamako, Mali Represented by Ms. Joëlle Monlouis , Attorney-at-law in Paris, France, and Mr. Jean-Samuel Leuba, Attorney-at-Law in Lausanne, Switzerland

First Respondent &

AS Real de Bamako, Bamako, Mali Second RespondentCAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 2

PARTIES

1. Mr. Mahamadou Kouyate (the “Appellant”) is Malian professional football player.

2. The Malian Football Federation ( “FEMAFOOT”, the “Federation” or the “First Respondent”) is the governing body of football in Mali and is affiliated with the Confédération Africaine de Football ( “CAF”) and the Fédération Internationale de

Football Association (“FIFA”).

3. AS Real de Bamako (the “Club” or the “Second Respondent”) is a football club in Mali, which is affiliated with the First Respondent.

4. The First and Second Respondent are collectively referred to as the “Respondents”. The Appellant, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent are hereinafter collectively designated as the “Parties”.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

which is affiliated with the First Respondent.

4. The First and Second Respondent are collectively referred to as the “Respondents”. The Appellant, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent are hereinafter collectively designated as the “Parties”.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the written submissions of the Parties and the hearing held on 26 March 2026. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where appropriate, 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.

6. On 6 August 2024, the Appellant and the Second Respondent concluded a two -year employment contract valid from 1 September 2024 until the end of the 2025-2026 sports season, i.e. 31 May 2026 (the “Employment Contract”).

7. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Employment Contract, the Player and the Second Respondent agreed that the Second Respondent would pay to the Appellant: - CFA 2,200,000 as signing bonus; - CFA 200,000 as monthly salary; - victory bonuses, in the not specified amount.

8. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Employment Contract: “Any dispute relating to the interpretation and execution of this Contract will be settled amicably within ten (10) calendar days and, failing that, will be submitted to the competent bodies governed by the FEMAFOOT regulations and/or, by default, to

FIFA.”CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 3

9. On 20 January 2025, in an official letter the Second Respondent informed the Appellant that he had been excluded from the professional squad and was instead instructed to train with the reserve team (the youth team).

Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 3

9. On 20 January 2025, in an official letter the Second Respondent informed the Appellant that he had been excluded from the professional squad and was instead instructed to train with the reserve team (the youth team).

10. On 3 February 2025, the Appellant issued a formal notice to the Second Respondent, requesting reinstatement into the professional squad within five (5) days. In his communication, the Appellant claimed that his exclusion was not in accordance with the terms of the Employment Contract and his professional status, called the Second Respondent to respect the Employment Contract obligations and requested a wr itten clarification of the Second Respondent regarding his status.

11. On 4 February 2025, the Second Respondent unilaterally terminated the Employment Contract without any reason and issued an official Certificate of Release.

12. On 5 March 2025, the Appellant contested the unilateral termination of the Employment Contract as abusive and without just cause, called the Second Respondent to pay financial compensation within the next ten (10) days, failing which he would initiate legal proceedings before the competent body of the First Respondent.

13. On the same day , via e -mail the Second Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s letter and declined the Appellant’s demands.

14. On 21 March 2025, the Appellant concluded an employment agreement with the club Gbohloe – Su des Lacs, valid until the end of the 2024/2025 football season.

15. On 14 April 2025, the Appellant lodged a claim against the Club before the FEMAFOOT Dispute Resolution Chamber ( Chambre de Résolution des Litiges de la Fédération Malienne de Football ) in relation to the Club’s unilateral termination the Employment Contract without just cause, seeking financial compensation.

16. Due to the First Respondent’s lack of response, on 15 May 2025 the Appellant requested an update on the status of the complaint.

Fédération Malienne de Football ) in relation to the Club’s unilateral termination the Employment Contract without just cause, seeking financial compensation.

16. Due to the First Respondent’s lack of response, on 15 May 2025 the Appellant requested an update on the status of the complaint.

17. On 30 June 2025 that First Respondent replied with a letter signed by the Secretary General (the “30 June Letter”), and stated the following: “We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding the dispute between Mr Mahamadou Kouyaté, Mali (the ‘Player’) and Association Sportive Réa1 de Bamako, Mali (the ‘Club’).

We regret to inform you that this matter does not concern the Malian Football Federation in any way. This case is a contractual dispute between a player and a club. The Malian Football Federation was not involved in any way, either directly or indirectly, in the conclusion of the said contract. We are informing you that you have come to the wrong place, as our Federation has nothing to do with this dispute. As you pointed out in your last email, you are free to bring the case before the CAS or any other court of your choice.CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 4

In conclusion, we kindly request that you pursue the matter further and leave FEMAFOOT out of it.”

18. On 8 July 2025, the Appellant acknowledged the First Respondent’s position and recalled that under both the Employment Contract and the First Respondent’s Statutes, the Central Players ’ Status Committee (Commission Centrale du Statut du Joueur , “CCSJ’’) has jurisdiction over such disputes. Therefore, the First Respondent was invited, within 15 days, to process the claim, while indicating that in case of refusal or silence, the matter would be brought before CAS, including claims for denial of justice and financial compensation.

19. The First Respondent did not reply to the Appellant’s letter.

invited, within 15 days, to process the claim, while indicating that in case of refusal or silence, the matter would be brought before CAS, including claims for denial of justice and financial compensation.

19. The First Respondent did not reply to the Appellant’s letter.

20. On 6 August 2025, the Appellant sent a final notice to the First Respondent calling it to process the file and render a decision within 15 days. It was indicated that failure to do so would result in legal action against the First Respondent before CAS for denial of justice, including a claim for financial compensation for harm caused to the Player.

21. The First Respondent did not reply to the Appellant’s letter.

22. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the factual situation is limited to the above . No further documentation has been received from the Parties in the present proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

23. On 9 September 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) against the Respondents, pursuant to Article R47 and R48 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2025 edition) (the “CAS Code”).

In the Statement of Appeal, the Appellant requested CAS to appoint a Sole Arbitrator and requested that the proceedings be bilingual, in English and French. In case of denial of that request, the Appellant asked the proceedings to be conducted in English with the possibility to provide documents in French without any translation obligations in the interest of cost efficiency.

24. On 11 September 2025, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s Statement of Appeal and provided a copy to the Respondents.

25. On 24 September 2025, since the Respondents did not accept a bilingual procedure

(English and French) within the prescribed time limit, pursuant of the Article R29 of the CAS Code, the CAS Court Office confirmed that all written submissions shall be filed in English, and all exhibits submitted in any other language shall be accompanied with a translation into English.

(English and French) within the prescribed time limit, pursuant of the Article R29 of the CAS Code, the CAS Court Office confirmed that all written submissions shall be filed in English, and all exhibits submitted in any other language shall be accompanied with a translation into English.

26. On 25 September 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that pursuant of the Article R50 of the CAS Code, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division

(the “Division President”) had decided to submit the present case to a sole arbitrator.CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 5

27. On 2 October 2025, the Appellant filed the Appeal Brief, and on the same day the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s Appeal Brief and invited the Respondents to file the Answer within 20 days.

28. On 22 October 2025, the Division President issued an Order on Language, confirming that the present proceedings shall be conducted in English.

29. On 13 November 2025, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Athletes ’ Commission of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) has granted the Appellant’s application for legal aid with respect to the CAS administrative costs, meaning that the present procedure will be free of charge. In line with the Article R55 of the CAS Code, the Respondents were invited to file their respective Answers within 20 days.

30. On 26 November 2025, the First Respondent filed a request for production of documents.

31. On 27 November 2025, the Appellant filed the employment contract signed by the Appellant in March 2025 for the remainder of the season 2024-2025 in French language.

32. On 3 December 2025, the First Respondent filed its Answer in which it objected to CAS jurisdiction. The Second Respondent did not file its Answer within the prescribed time limit.

Appellant in March 2025 for the remainder of the season 2024-2025 in French language.

32. On 3 December 2025, the First Respondent filed its Answer in which it objected to CAS jurisdiction. The Second Respondent did not file its Answer within the prescribed time limit.

33. On 4 December 2025, pursuant of the Article R55(5) of the CAS Code , the Appellant and the Second Respondent were invited to file written submission on jurisdiction by 15 December 2025.

34. On 10 December 2025, on behalf of the Division President, and pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Panel was constituted as follows: Sole Arbitrator: Prof. Dr Vanja Smokvina, Professor of Law in Rijeka in Croatia.

35. On 22 December 2025, the Appellant file his written submission on jurisdiction . The Second Respondent did not file any written submission on jurisdiction or any communication in that regard.

36. On 7 January 2025, both Respondents were to submit written submissions strictly limited to the issue of jurisdiction.

37. On 13 January 2026, the First Respondent submitted its Reply on jurisdiction. The Second Respondent did not file a written submission on jurisdiction within the prescribed time limit.

38. On 14 January 2026, the Appellant was invited to submit his Rejoinder on jurisdiction by 22 January 2026.

39. On 22 January 2026, the Appellant submitted his Rejoinder on jurisdiction.CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v.

Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 6

40. On 20 February 2026, in view of the Parties’ availabilities, the Sole Arbitrator decided to hold a hearing via videoconference on 26 March 2026.

41. On 9 March 2026, the CAS Court Office provided an Order of Procedure to the Parties

40. On 20 February 2026, in view of the Parties’ availabilities, the Sole Arbitrator decided to hold a hearing via videoconference on 26 March 2026.

41. On 9 March 2026, the CAS Court Office provided an Order of Procedure to the Parties and invited them to sign and return such Order of Procedure by 16 March 2026.

42. On 16 March 2026, the Appellant and the First Respondent each returned a signed copy of the Order of Procedure. The Second Respondent did not return a signed copy of the Order of Procedure within the prescribed time limit.

43. A hearing was held on 26 March 2026 by video link. The Sole Arbitrator was assisted at the hearing by Ms Delphine Deschenaux-Rochat, Counsel to the CAS.

44. The Sole Arbitrator was joined at the hearing: i. for the Appellant: Ms. Ariadna Mendoza, FIFPRO; ii. for the First Respondent: Ms. Joëlle Monlouis and Mr. Jean-Samuel Leuba, counsels;

45. The Second Respondent did not attend the hearing, although it was duly informed about the hearing via CAS Court Office letter dated 20 February 2026, delivered by courier to its address.

46. At the hearing, preliminarily, the Parties confirmed that they had no objection as to the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator and the holding of the hearing by video conference.

After their preliminary submissions both parties had their final submissions.

47. Before the conclusion of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objections in respect of their right to be heard and to be treated equally in the arbitration proceedings.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

48. The following summary of the Parties’ positions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise each and every contention put forward by the Parties. The Sole Arbitrator however, has carefully considered all the submissions made by the Parties, even if no explicit reference is made in what immediately follows.

A. The Appellant’s submissions

necessarily comprise each and every contention put forward by the Parties. The Sole Arbitrator however, has carefully considered all the submissions made by the Parties, even if no explicit reference is made in what immediately follows.

A. The Appellant’s submissions

49. In his Appeal Brief, the Appellant submitted the following prayers for relief: “1. To declare that the Federation’s refusal to process the Appellant’s claim constitutes a denial of justice.

2. To rule on the merits of the dispute and to declare that the Club has terminated the Employment Contract without just cause and, consequently, to order the Club toCAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v.

Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 7

pay compensation in the amount of CFA 2,600,000 net plus 5% interest p.a. from the date of the termination of the Employment Contract, i.e. 3 February 2025. In the alternative,

3. To order the Federation to admit the Appellant’s claim and to issue a reasonable decision within a maximum time period of three months from the date of the CAS

Award. In any case,

4. To rule that the Federation must financially compensate the Appellant for the harm caused by the denial of justice in the amount of CFA 6,900,000 plus 5% interest p.a., from the date on which the denial of justice arose until the date of effective payment.

5. To condemn the Federation and the Club to pay the entire CAS administration costs and to reimburse the Appellant of any and all expenses he incurred in connection with this procedure.

6. To rule that that Federation and the Club have to pay the Appellant a contribution towards his legal costs.”

50. In summary, the Appellant submitted the following arguments in support of his claim: ➢ With regard to CAS jurisdiction, the Appellant contends that “cases amounting to denial of justice (whether due to the absence or undue delay of a decision) are

towards his legal costs.”

50. In summary, the Appellant submitted the following arguments in support of his claim: ➢ With regard to CAS jurisdiction, the Appellant contends that “cases amounting to denial of justice (whether due to the absence or undue delay of a decision) are treated as decisions subject to appeal ”. The 30 June Letter, signed by the General Secretary, stating that the dispute was purely contractual between the Appellant and the Club and expressly refusing to intervene, constitutes an express denial of justice. ➢ As regards the time limit for appeal, the Appellant submits that an appeal for denial of justice could be submitted at any time (CAS 2021/A/8444, para. 92). Moreover, the Appellant issued a final notice to the Federation on 6 August 2025, setting a 15day deadline expiring on 21 August 2025. The Appellant expressly warned the Federation that failure to respond would be treated as a refusal to render a decision, amounting to a manifest denial of justice. The Federation remain ed entirely silent.

The Statement of Appeal was filed on 9 September 2025, well within the applicable time limit calculated from 21 August 2025. ➢ The 30 June Letter cannot be regarded as a decision as it “neither intended to nor did it actually affect the Appellant’s legal position”: “If if a body lacks the authority to adjudicate a matter, any act or correspondence issued by it cannot be considered as having Animus Decidendi and thus cannot be regarded as a decision ”. The 30 June Letter corresponds merely to an administrative communication. ➢ The 30 June Letter expressly denied the existence of any alternative federation channel through which the claim could be addressed by stating that all FEMAFOOT bodies would refrain from considering the Appellant’s claim. Accordingly, internalCAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 8

channels were not, in practice, available, compelling the Appellant to seek recourse before CAS.

Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 8

channels were not, in practice, available, compelling the Appellant to seek recourse before CAS. ➢ The Federation “ has committed a manifest denial of justice and, in doing so, has infringed its regulations and, above all, violated the Appellant’s fundamental rights”. A formal denial of justice occurs when the competent body unjustifiably fails to do so or does so with undue delay, effectively preventing the individual from exercising their right to an effective appeal. In the present case, the FEMAFOOT regulations “ establish a mandatory internal dispute resolution system, with the [CCSJ] having exclusive competence over disputes related to players and a prohibition on resorting to ordinary courts ”. The Player was thus deprived of any forum in which to assert his rights. ➢ On the merits, the Appellant submits that the denial of justice deprived him of the opportunity to obtain compensation for the unlawful termination of his Employment Contract. He claims CFA 3,200,000 corresponding to the full residual value of the Employment Contract. ➢ Additionally, the Appellant claims that he “ lost the opportunity to secure a materially improved employment contract […] with a 50% salary increase ”, amounting to a total lost opportunity of CFA 2,700,000. ➢ The Appellant further claims CFA 1,000,000 as fair and reasonable compensation for moral damages, an amount said to be “ proportionate to the seriousness of the Federation’s misconduct and consistent with the principle enshrined in Article 114” of Malian law. ➢ The Appellant asks, by virtue of its de novo power under Article R57 of the CAS Code, to review both the facts and the merits of a case. ➢ The Appellant submits that the Club terminated the Employment Contract “without any just cause whatsoever ” and that he is entitled to full compensation . The total compensation amounts to CFA 3,200,000 net, corresponding to 16 months of

Code, to review both the facts and the merits of a case. ➢ The Appellant submits that the Club terminated the Employment Contract “without any just cause whatsoever ” and that he is entitled to full compensation . The total compensation amounts to CFA 3,200,000 net, corresponding to 16 months of residual salary at CFA 200,000 per month from February 2025 through May 2026. This amount is to be mitigated by the salaries received under a new employment contract signed by the Player for the remainder of the 2024 -2025 football season, totalling CFA 600,000. The mitigated compensation thus amounts to CFA 2,600,000 net, with interest at 5% per annum from 3 February 2025 until the date of effective payment.

B. The First Respondent’s submissions

51. In the Answer, the First Respondent submitted the following prayers for relief: “Prayer 1: The Appeal shall be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the internal remedies available within FEMAFOOT and, consequently, the proceedings shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v.

Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 9

Prayer 2: Subsidiarily, in the alternative, should the Appeal be considered admissible, it shall be rejected as no valid first-instance proceedings were ever initiated within FEMAFOOT. Prayer 3: Very subsidiarily, in the alternative, all claims for compensation directed against First Respondent shall be dismissed. Prayer 4: In any event, the Appellant shall be ordered to bear the costs of the arbitration and he shall be ordered to contribute to the legal fees incurred by First Respondent.”

52. In summary, the First Respondent submitted the following arguments in support of its position: ➢ The Respondent first submits that CAS lacks jurisdiction because internal remedies have not been exhausted. Indeed, the Appellant did not appeal the 30 June Letter

by First Respondent.”

52. In summary, the First Respondent submitted the following arguments in support of its position: ➢ The Respondent first submits that CAS lacks jurisdiction because internal remedies have not been exhausted. Indeed, the Appellant did not appeal the 30 June Letter before the Central Appeals Commission ( Commission centrale de recours ; “CAC”). By relying upon the 30 June Letter as the factual basis for bringing the appeal before CAS, the Appellant himself acknowledges that this letter constitutes a decision within the meaning of Article R47 of the CAS Code , which should therefore have been appealed internally. Instead, he appealed directly to CAS. ➢ FEMAFOOT’s Regulations for the Application of the Statutes (“RAS”) establish a specific appeal mechanism before the CAC. Article 42 RAS provides that the CAC hears appeals against decisions of the CCSJ, the Central Disciplinary Committee, the Central Ethics Committee, bodies of FEMAFOOT ’s Members, and the Executive Committee, and must be seized within eight (8) days from notification of the decision. ➢ The 30 June Letter falls within the category of “decisions of FEMAFOOT bodies” under Article 42 RAS, and any challenge should have been brought before the CAC within eight (8) days from notification. The Appellant did not lodge any such internal appeal. Furthermore, even assuming a direct appeal to CAS had been available (which FEMAFOOT denies), the 21-day time limit under Article R49 of the CAS Code began to run upon notification of the decision on 30 June 2025. The Appellant filed his appeal on 9 September 2025 , rendering the appeal time-barred in any event. ➢ Since the Appellant has not exhausted all legal remedies in front of the First Respondent, the present appeal before CAS should be declared inadmissible , or subsidiarily, rejected since no valid first-instance procedure was initiated before the First Respondent. ➢ Subsidiarily, FEMAFOOT argues that no valid first-instance proceedings were ever

Respondent, the present appeal before CAS should be declared inadmissible , or subsidiarily, rejected since no valid first-instance procedure was initiated before the First Respondent. ➢ Subsidiarily, FEMAFOOT argues that no valid first-instance proceedings were ever initiated. The Appellant’s claim was addressed to the “Dispute Resolution Chamber of FEMAFOOT”, which does not exist. FEMAFOOT had no obligation re redirect the petition to the competent body. The Appellant had “full capacity to identify andCAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v. Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 10

seize the competent body, and the misidentification of the organ is imputable solely to the Appellant”. ➢ Despite the absence of a valid petition, FEMAFOOT responded in writing on 30 June 2025, which “demonstrates transparency and good administrative practice ” and a lack of delay. ➢ Very subsidiarily, FEMAFOOT argues that it is not liable for employment disputes between a club and a player. It is “not a party to that contract and cannot be held responsible” for the Club’s contractual obligations. There is no causal link between FEMAFOOT’s conduct and the alleged damage. The Appellant cannot claim from FEMAFOOT the same amounts he claims from his former club as this “would result in a prohibited form of double recovery”.

C. The Second Respondent’s submissions

53. The Second Respondent has not submitted any Answer or any other communication in the due course of the case. During the procedure, it only made two submissions: first, it requested that the case to be conducted in French, and second, that the time limit to file its Answer be suspended. All correspondence from the CAS Court Office has been duly delivered to the Second Respondent by email and, in case of the Statement of Appeal, the Appeal Brief and the hearing summons, also by courier.

JURISDICTION

54. As Switzerland is the seat of the arbitration (see Article R28 of the CAS Code) and

delivered to the Second Respondent by email and, in case of the Statement of Appeal, the Appeal Brief and the hearing summons, also by courier.

JURISDICTION

54. As Switzerland is the seat of the arbitration (see Article R28 of the CAS Code) and neither of the Parties is domiciled in Switzerland, the provisions of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) on international arbitration apply (see Article 176 para. 1

PILA). In accordance with Article 186 PILA, CAS has the power to decide upon its jurisdiction.

55. Article R47 of the CAS Code provides inter alia, as follows: “An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.”

56. Pursuant to Article 97.1 of the FEMAFOOT Statutes: “Conformément aux statuts de la FIFA et/ou de la CAF, tout appel interjeté contre une décision définitive et contraignante de la FEMAFOOT, de la FIFA ou de la CAF sera entendu par le Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS) en Lausanne (Suisse). Le TAS ne traite pas des recours relatifs à la violation des Lois du Jeu, à une suspension inférieure ou égale à quatre matches ou trois mois à l'exception des décisions relatives au dopage.” Free translation:CAS 2025/A/11761 Mahamadou Kouyate v.

Malian Football Association & AS Real de Bamako – Page 11

“In accordance with the statutes of FIFA and/or CAF, any appeal lodged against a final and binding decision of FEMAFOOT, FIFA, or CAF shall be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. The CAS does not deal with

“In accordance with the statutes of FIFA and/or CAF, any appeal lodged against a final and binding decision of FEMAFOOT, FIFA, or CAF shall be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. The CAS does not deal with appeals concerning violations of the Laws of the Game, or suspensions of four matches or less, or three months or less, except for decisions relating to doping.”

57. Pursuant to Articles 95.1 and 95.2 of the FEMAFOOT Statutes: “95.1 En cas de litiges nationaux internes entre la FEMAFOOT, ses Membres, les Ligues, les Clubs, les Joueurs, les Officiels, les agents organisateurs de matches et les intermédiaires, il est interdit de recourir à des tribunaux ordinaires dans la mesure o ù la réglementation de la FIFA, les présents statuts ainsi que les dispositions juridiques contraignantes ne le prévoient pas expressément. 95.2 Les litiges mentionnés à l'alinéa 1 du présent article devront être adressés au Tribunal Arbitral du Football (TAF), ou au Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS) à

Lausanne en Suisse.” Free translation: “95.1 In the event of internal national disputes between FEMAFOOT, its Members, the Leagues, the Clubs, the Players, the Officials, match agents, and intermediaries, recourse to ordinary courts is prohibited, unless expressly provided for by the FIFA Regulations, these Statut