Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

== gpt-5-1 ==
=== User: Summarize this award ===
Summarize this award

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, authoritative summary of the award CAS 2025/A/11162 Asociación Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. ===
Below is a clear, authoritative summary of the award CAS 2025/A/11162 Asociación Liga Deportiva Alajuelense v. Club León, Club Pachuca & FIFA, based exclusively on the uploaded file. Award_11162__FINAL_for_publ._

==== ### ====

Liga Deportiva Alajuelense (LDA) filed a complaint with FIFA in November 2024 alleging that Mexican clubs León and Pachuca were in breach of Article 10 of the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 Regulations (multi-club ownership, “MCO”). LDA claimed both clubs were controlled by the same corporate group (Grupo Pachuca) and asked FIFA to exclude at least one of them and admit LDA as the replacement club for the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (CWC).

FIFA did not give substantive answers to LDA’s repeated requests, leading LDA to file an appeal before CAS on February 3, 2025, alleging denial of justice.

During the CAS proceedings, FIFA’s Disciplinary and Appeal Committees later found that both Mexican clubs failed to meet the MCO criteria, and the FIFA Secretary General decided that Pachuca would be admitted and León excluded (pending a replacement decision).

===== The Panel addressed: =====
# Jurisdiction — whether CAS had authority based on alleged denial of justice.
# Standing to sue — whether LDA had a legally protected interest.
# Admissibility of LDA’s claims, including a damages claim.
# Merits — whether LDA was entitled to the substantive relief requested, including removal of León/Pachuca and LDA’s admission to the CWC.

===== CAS found that: =====
* FIFA’s replies to LDA (Nov–Dec 2024) were insufficient, vague, and failed to address key requests.
* FIFA did not disclose crucial information (e.g., that León and Pachuca had not yet signed Participation Agreements).
* Given the stakes and the clear regulatory ambiguity, FIFA was obliged to give a meaningful response.

Therefore, CAS held that a lack of decision existed, amounting to a partial denial of justice, and consequently CAS had jurisdiction.

===== Despite establishing jurisdiction, the Panel found that: =====
* LDA’s only plausible interest related to the MCO eligibility assessment.
* But LDA conflated multiple distinct stages of the regulatory process: - (i) MCO assessment - (ii) choice of which Mexican club to exclude - (iii) selection of a replacement club
* The regulations assign these stages to different FIFA bodies, and LDA had no direct interest in steps (ii) and (iii).
* LDA’s claim of an “automatic right” to replace the excluded Mexican club was unfounded.
* FIFA had not yet made the replacement decision, so LDA’s request was premature.

Thus, LDA lacked standing to obtain the substantive relief sought.

===== By the time CAS reviewed the case: =====
* FIFA’s Appeal Committee had already ruled that both Mexican clubs were non-compliant with Article 10.
* The FIFA Secretary General had already admitted Pachuca and excluded León.

Therefore, CAS held that LDA’s requests to compel FIFA to:
* open proceedings,
* find MCO breach, and
* exclude one Mexican club,

were moot.

===== CAS further found: =====
* Article 10.4 gives the FIFA Secretary General discretion to choose the replacement.
* The decision depends on multiple criteria: rankings, confederation quotas, and other sporting considerations.
* The text does not support an “automatic” placement for LDA.
* LDA’s arguments were highly interpretative and speculative—far from an “automatic” right.

===== The Panel dismissed LDA’s USD 23,050,000 damages request as inadmissible because: =====
* It had not been raised before FIFA.
* CAS cannot hear new claims outside the scope of the underlying dispute.

===== The Panel ruled: =====
# CAS has jurisdiction due to denial of justice.
# LDA’s appeal is dismissed in full.
# All other requests for relief are rejected.

==== LDA failed to demonstrate a concrete, legitimate interest in the relief sought, and the request to be admitted to the Club World Cup was premature, speculative, and unsupported by the regulations. The appeal is therefore dismissed. ====

If you want, I can also:
* Prepare a legal brief summary,
* Draft a client-facing note,
* Extract key precedents, or
* Prepare a strategic assessment of the award for future MCO challenges.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured summary of the Final CAS Award in cases CAS 2024/A/11078, 11079, 11081 Pacheco, J. ===
Below is a clear, structured summary of the Final CAS Award in cases CAS 2024/A/11078, 11079, 11081 (Pacheco, J. Teixeira, P. Teixeira v. Vasco da Gama) based strictly on the uploaded award. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

=== ## ===

Three Portuguese coaches—Head Coach Álvaro Pacheco and assistants José Miguel Teixeira and Pedro Teixeira—were hired by Vasco da Gama SAF in May 2024 under individual employment contracts running until 31 December 2024. On 21 June 2024, the Club terminated all contracts immediately and without just cause.

The FIFA Players’ Status Chamber (PSC) rejected Pacheco’s large claim (EUR 729k) and awarded only minimal amounts to the deputies after applying mitigation based on their new contracts with Al-Orobah (Saudi Arabia). All three appealed to CAS.

==== 1. Were the coaches’ contracts invalid “group contracts” prohibited by Annex 2 RSTP? ====
# If not, should termination compensation be governed by the contractual termination clauses or by Article 6 of Annex 2 RSTP?
# Are the contractual termination amounts subject to mitigation or reduction under Swiss law?
# Are the assistants entitled to full contractual compensation or must their new earnings be deducted?
# Can Pacheco’s additional EUR 50,000 “salary advance” claim be heard for the first time before CAS?

==== ### ====

CAS reversed the PSC’s finding that the contracts breached Article 2(1) of Annex 2 RSTP. The contracts:
* Were signed individually, with separate salaries and separate termination clauses.
* Did not establish the head coach as the single paymaster for the whole staff.
* Were individually negotiated (though coordinated), which does not constitute a prohibited “collective” contract.

Result:
The contractual termination clauses are valid and enforceable. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

===== The Sole Arbitrator classified: =====
* Pacheco’s clause (Art. 8.2) → Liquidated damages clause (not a penalty, not a pure buy-out).
* Assistants’ clauses (Art. 8.1) → Buy-out clauses referring back to the default regime of Article 337c CO (damages + mitigation).

Consequences:
* For Pacheco, the amount can be reduced under Article 163(3) CO (excessive liquidated damages), but not mitigated (as parties replaced statutory rules).
* For the assistants, the amounts must be mitigated because their clauses incorporate statutory damages rules.

===== ### =====
* Contractual clause: EUR 850,000 (pro-rated) for 2024 termination.
* CAS held this was excessive, because: - Annual earnings under the contract were EUR 584,000, meaning the liquidated sum exceeded actual salary by 45.55%.
* CAS applied a 10% uplift on the lost earnings (consistent with Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence).

Final Amount:
EUR 551,095.80 + 5% simple annual interest from 9 August 2024 until payment.
(The date reflects the 10-day default after the coaches’ demand letters.)

Mitigation does ''not'' apply to Pacheco because the parties contractually fixed compensation in advance. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

===== - Residual salary/benefits: EUR 59,776.58 =====
* Earnings at new club Al-Orobah: EUR 55,116
* Mitigated compensation: EUR 4,660.58

CAS upheld PSC’s mitigation and award but added interest.

Final Amount:
EUR 4,660.58, plus 5% simple interest from 9 August 2024. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

===== - Residual salary/benefits: EUR 95,829.68 =====
* Earnings at new club Al-Orobah: EUR 93,697.18
* Mitigated compensation: EUR 2,132.50

CAS upheld PSC’s award, with interest added.

Final Amount:
EUR 2,132.50, plus 5% simple interest from 9 August 2024. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

==== CAS refused to impose sporting sanctions on Vasco because: ====
* The contracts were “buy-out type” and did not allow sanctions for termination without just cause.
* Sanctions for non-payment are a matter of FIFA’s enforcement, not CAS merits.
* The coaches lacked a legally protected interest to request sanctions. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

==== Pacheco tried to introduce an additional EUR 50,000 claim for a “salary advance” not raised before the PSC. ====

CAS held:
* New claims are inadmissible unless justified by exceptional reasons (none existed).
* The claim exceeded the scope of the FIFA decision under appeal.

Result: Claim dismissed as inadmissible. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

==== - All appeals were heard jointly under Article R50 CAS Code. ====
* Witness objections were dismissed: witnesses may have interests, but credibility is a matter of weight, not admissibility.
* Vasco’s Brazilian restructuring/bankruptcy proceedings did not affect CAS jurisdiction or the merits; they may only affect enforcement before FIFA. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

=== 1. Pacheco’s appeal is partially upheld. Vasco must pay EUR 551,095.80 + 5% p.a. from 9 August 2024. ===
# José Teixeira’s appeal is partially upheld. Vasco must pay EUR 4,660.58 + 5% p.a. from 9 August 2024.
# Pedro Teixeira’s appeal is partially upheld. Vasco must pay EUR 2,132.50 + 5% p.a. from 9 August 2024.
# All other claims are dismissed.

Award date: 4 November 2025 (with grounds).
CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A litigation strategy note for similar coach disputes,
* A draft article for publication or LinkedIn,
* A comparison sheet contrasting this award with prior Annex 2 jurisprudence,
* Or a template argument for future cases involving termination clauses and liquidated damages under Swiss law.

=== Assistant: Below is a structured, concise, and authoritative summary of the CAS Award in CAS 2025/A/11604 Crystal Palace FC v. ===
Below is a structured, concise, and authoritative summary of the CAS Award in CAS 2025/A/11604 Crystal Palace FC v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest FC & Olympique Lyonnais, based solely on the uploaded award. 11604_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== ## ===

The case concerns the enforcement of UEFA’s Multi-Club Ownership (MCO) rules (Article 5.01 UEL Regulations 2025/26) following Crystal Palace FC (CPFC) and Olympique Lyonnais (OL) both qualifying for the UEFA Europa League (UEL). UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) held on 1 March 2025, at the mandatory assessment date, that both clubs were part of an MCO structure via John Textor and Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Ltd.

As a result, the CFCB admitted Lyon to the UEL and relegated Crystal Palace to the UECL. Palace appealed.

The CAS Panel dismissed the appeal in full.

=== The Panel addressed three core questions: ===
# Did CPFC breach Article 5.01(b) and/or (c) UEL Regulations as at 1 March 2025?
# Does UEFA have any discretionary practice allowing clubs to “cure” a breach after 1 March?
# If both clubs were in breach, which club was entitled to the UEL slot under Article 5.02?

All three were decided against CPFC.

=== ## ===

CAS found that:
* Textor was formally a director of Palace Holdco and a principal partner of Palace Manageco, the entities controlling Crystal Palace.
* His position necessarily placed him in the management/administration of CPFC.
* Actual involvement is not required; the rule applies to any involvement, direct or indirect, “in any capacity whatsoever”.

Thus, CPFC breached Article 5.01(b). 11604_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== The Panel additionally held that Textor/Eagle Football exercised—or were able to exercise—decisive influence over CPFC via: ====

===== - Eagle Football held 44.09% of Palace Holdco (Total shares) and 39.87% of voting shares. =====
* It held 93.95% of Lyon. This exceeded the 30% decisive influence threshold in the CFCB May 2024 Circular.

===== - Textor/Eagle Football injected GBP 123 million, equalling 49% of Palace Holdco’s premium reserve—well above the 30% benchmark. =====

===== - Textor had a 25% vote in Palace Manageco and Palace Holdco, giving him blocking rights on key matters. =====
* Several categories of transfers (above GBP 100,000) required unanimous approval of principal partners—including Textor.

===== - Seven CPFC → Molenbeek loans in two seasons, all after Textor acquired Molenbeek. =====
* This pattern was seen as evidence of influence within the meaning of Article 5.01(c)(iv).

Conclusion: A breach of Article 5.01(c) existed independently.

=== CPFC argued that: ===
* UEFA had a discretionary practice allowing post-deadline cures (especially through “blind trusts”) until qualification was confirmed.
* The sale of Textor’s shares in June–July 2025 cured any conflict.
* The ECA email suggested UEFA would not refer cases until qualification.

CAS rejected all arguments:
* The 1 March 2025 date is strict and binding, approved by UEFA’s Executive Committee.
* The 2024 blind trust flexibility (for Man City/Girona and Man United/Nice) was exceptional and expressly limited to 2024/25 only.
* No evidence of a permanent discretionary practice existed.
* The ECA email was not written by UEFA, had no authority, and could not modify UEFA rules.
* Any sale of shares after 1 March 2025 is irrelevant.

Result: CPFC could not cure its MCO breach after 1 March 2025. 11604_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== Since both CPFC and OL breached Article 5.01: ===

===== - Both clubs qualified for the same competition—the Europa League. =====
* Therefore Article 5.02(a) does not apply.

===== - OL: 6th in Ligue 1. =====
* CPFC: 12th in Premier League.

Thus, OL ranked higher. Article 5.02(b) applies.

Result: Lyon remains in UEL; Crystal Palace relegated to UECL.

=== CPFC argued UEFA’s conduct violated Articles 101 and 102 TFEU because: ===
* The 1 March deadline is discriminatory and anti-competitive.
* UEFA applied discretion inconsistently.

CAS dismissed these arguments because:
* CPFC admitted the arguments depended entirely on proving the existence of discretionary practice—which was not established.
* MCO rules have already been held compatible with EU law (ENIC award).
* No discrimination existed between CPFC and OL.

=== CAS dismissed the appeal in full and confirmed: ===
* CPFC breached Article 5.01(b) and (c) as of 1 March 2025.
* No cure is possible after 1 March.
* OL is entitled to the 2025/26 UEL slot under Article 5.02(b).
* CPFC competes in the 2025/26 UECL.

All other requests, including costs shifting, were rejected. 11604_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

If you want, I can also:
* Prepare a legal commentary on this award (e.g., implications for future MCO enforcement).
* Draft a client briefing or public communication summarizing the decision.
* Produce a comparative analysis with the ENIC case or the CPFC v OL case from your earlier uploads.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured and precise summary of the CAS Award in CAS 2025/A/11566 FK DAC 1904 v. ===
Below is a clear, structured and precise summary of the CAS Award in CAS 2025/A/11566 FK DAC 1904 v. UEFA, drawn exclusively from the uploaded award. 11566_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== ## ===

FK DAC 1904 (Slovakia) appealed a decision of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) First Chamber, dated 26 June 2025, excluding the club from the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League (UECL).

UEFA found that DAC and ETO Györ (Hungary) were part of the same Multi-Club Ownership (MCO) structure and non-compliant with Article 5.01 UECL Regulations as at the mandatory assessment date 1 March 2025. The CFCB therefore admitted Györ to the UECL and excluded DAC.

=== The Panel analyzed two principal questions: ===
# Was the new assessment date (1 March 2025) valid, enforceable and applicable?
# Was DAC in breach of Article 5.01(b) and/or (c) UECL Regulations on 1 March 2025?

If DAC failed on both questions, its exclusion stood.

=== ## ===

DAC argued that:
* The amendment had anticipated effect and violated non-retroactivity.
* The deadline was disproportionate, arbitrary, excessively formalistic.
* DAC had insufficient notice; legitimate expectations were violated.
* UEFA allegedly tolerated post-deadline cures for other clubs.

===== CAS rejected all arguments: =====
* The UEFA Executive Committee validly adopted the amendment on 24 September 2024, within its statutory competence.
* The change was properly communicated through the October 2024 Circular and the December 2024 letters.
* Under Swiss association law, once adopted and communicated, the regulation becomes binding.
* No evidence supported DAC’s claims of a UEFA “practice” allowing cures after 1 March.
* Deadlines are necessary for equal treatment and orderly competition management; the 1 March date was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.
* The Panel found no excessive formalism: the deadline was announced months in advance and applied uniformly.
* Any alleged statements from the ECA could not create binding expectations toward UEFA.

Conclusion: The 1 March 2025 assessment date was valid and enforceable. 11566_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== DAC argued the deadline violated Article 102 TFEU (abuse of dominance) because the change was disproportionate and discriminatory. ====

===== - DAC failed to define the relevant market or show any anticompetitive effects. =====
* The MCO rules pursue a legitimate sporting objective—competition integrity—as recognized in Meca-Medina.
* The 1 March deadline was transparent, objective, necessary, and not discriminatory.
* No violation of EU competition law occurred.

=== ## ===

UEFA claimed that familial relationships within the Világi–Van Daele family created decisive influence over both clubs.

CAS found it unnecessary to rule on this controversial point because Article 5.01(b) already clearly established a breach (see below). 11566_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== This was the decisive element of the case. ====

===== As at 1 March 2025, Mr Jan Van Daele simultaneously held: =====
* Managing Director and sole director of Györ
* Director, Vice-President and CEO of DAC
* Director of STAK Regia (holding company of DAC)
* Director of Circum (holding company of Györ)

===== DAC argued that: =====
* His roles at Györ were merely “on paper” and not exercised in practice.
* Actual involvement should be required.

===== The Panel rejected DAC’s theory: =====
* Article 5.01(b) deliberately uses extremely broad wording: “directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever”.
* The rule does not require proof of actual day-to-day involvement.
* A managing director or CEO necessarily counts as involvement.
* DAC itself had declared in its MCO submission that Van Daele was involved in both clubs.
* UEFA cannot be expected to investigate the internal functioning of every club to determine whether formal directors “actually” participate.

Conclusion:
DAC breached Article 5.01(b) unequivocally as at 1 March 2025.

This alone justified the exclusion. 11566_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== Since both DAC and Györ were non-compliant as at 1 March 2025, only one could enter the UECL. ===

Under Article 5.02(c), priority goes to the club whose association is ranked highest on the access list.
* Hungary was ranked 24th
* Slovakia was ranked 29th

Therefore, UEFA correctly admitted Györ and excluded DAC.

=== The CAS Panel held: ===
* The 1 March 2025 assessment date was valid and enforceable.
* DAC was in breach of Article 5.01(b) UECL Regulations.
* UEFA correctly excluded DAC from the UECL and admitted Györ.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. 11566_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal commentary contrasting the DAC award with the Crystal Palace and Lyon decisions;
* A strategic memo for future MCO cases;
* A client-facing summary suitable for publication or media use.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, authoritative and structured summary of the CAS Award in CAS 2024/A/10586 Abu Nayeem Shohag v. ===
Below is a clear, authoritative and structured summary of the CAS Award in CAS 2024/A/10586 Abu Nayeem Shohag v. FIFA, based strictly on the uploaded file. Award_10586__FINAL_for_publ._

=== ## ===

The Appellant, Mr. Abu Nayeem Shohag, was the General Secretary of the Bangladesh Football Federation (BFF). FIFA imposed a 3-year ban and a CHF 20,000 fine for violations of Articles 14, 16 and 25 of the FIFA Code of Ethics (FCE) relating to use of falsified documents in procurement processes involving FIFA Forward funds.

Mr. Shohag appealed to CAS.

=== Between September 2022 and February 2023, the BFF initiated four procurement processes (“Transactions 1–4”)—each involving competitive bidding for purchases intended to be funded via FIFA Forward funds: ===
# Zoom setup equipment
# Gym and training equipment
# Interior renovation – FIFA Consultant Room
# Interior renovation – Refereeing Consultation Room

FIFA’s Investigatory Chamber and Kroll (independent auditors) determined that multiple quotations submitted by vendors had been falsified or manufactured, and that the Appellant, as Secretary General, approved the procurement files relying on forged documents.

=== The Adjudicatory Chamber found that: ===
* Quotations across all four transactions displayed identical formatting, identical text, identical errors, identical tables, and in many cases were submitted by the same individual under different vendor names.
* The Appellant’s signature appeared on all key documents: - Requisition forms - Comparative Statements of Quotations - Quotations (in Transaction 2) - Purchase/Work Orders (Transactions 3 and 4)
* The Appellant acted at least recklessly, aware that: - BFF was under FIFA monitoring, and - he himself had been under investigation for similar conduct (case FED-299).
* His approval was indispensable for the release of funds.

FIFA therefore sanctioned him with a 3-year ban and CHF 20,000 fine.

=== The Appellant: ===
* Requested suspension of proceedings pending another CAS case (CAS 2023/A/9637) – denied.
* Asked for extensive document production (including FIFA’s files on other officials) – denied as irrelevant or overbroad.
* Sought to rely on alleged failures by FIFA consultants (Rafiqul Islam and Miftahul Zannat) to detect red flags – Panel found this irrelevant and noted Appellant did not call them as witnesses.
* Presented multiple witnesses from BFF headquarters; their testimony did not rebut the core documentary findings.

=== ### ===

CAS held yes, to the standard of comfortable satisfaction.

Key findings:
* Many quotations were submitted by the same person, using different vendor names.
* Several were retro-dated, submitted after Comparative Statements were already prepared.
* Graphic forensic analysis confirmed that across all transactions, quotations: - used identical templates, - had the same table structures, headers, spacing, misspellings (“celling”), formatting, - listed identical items (even when not requested), - contained identical errors.
* BFF repeatedly selected the only vendor already in its internal list, raising clear signs of collusion.

The Appellant did not submit any counter-expert report nor request cross-examination of FIFA’s expert.

===== CAS held yes. =====
* His signature was necessary and indispensable to validate each procurement file.
* As Secretary General he had a central administrative role and bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring procurement integrity.
* He signed Comparative Statements without comparing quotations, despite knowing of ongoing FIFA investigations into falsification.
* The Panel rejected his argument that his role was “purely formal.”
* The procurement process—though halted by Kroll before payments occurred—had proceeded far enough to constitute an attempted act under Art. 6(2) FCE.

Therefore, the Appellant negligently used falsified documents, which is sufficient to breach Article 25 FCE.

===== CAS held yes. =====
* Article 14 – Failure to act diligently, ethically, and in accordance with regulatory obligations.
* Article 16 – Breach of fiduciary duty: approving fabricated quotations was detrimental to FIFA and BFF and harmed their reputations.

=== CAS confirmed the 3-year ban and CHF 20,000 fine without modification, but not because the sanction was necessarily proportionate. ===

The Panel explicitly held:
* It identified both mitigating and aggravating factors, including: - mitigating: halted transactions, no financial loss, involvement of FIFA consultants, partial reforms in BFF; - aggravating: multiple repeated acts, Appellant’s senior role, prior ongoing investigation.
* HOWEVER, the Panel was procedurally barred from reviewing proportionality because the Appellant did not request a reduction of the sanction in his prayers for relief.

Under the ne ultra petita principle, CAS cannot modify a sanction unless asked expressly.

Thus, the sanction was upheld because CAS lacked procedural authority to reduce it, not because the Panel found it necessarily optimal.

=== - Appeal dismissed. ===
* FIFA’s decision confirmed in full.
* Appellant remains banned for three years and must pay CHF 20,000. Award_10586__FINAL_for_publ._

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal commentary on the standard of negligence under Art. 25 FCE.
* A comparison between this award and CAS 2023/A/9637 (same Appellant).
* A strategic advisory note for compliance reforms in national FAs.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured, legally-focused summary of the award CAS 2024/A/10658 Issamade Asinga v. ===
Below is a clear, structured, legally-focused summary of the award CAS 2024/A/10658 Issamade Asinga v. World Athletics, based exclusively on the uploaded file. Award_10658__for_publ._

=== ## ===

Issamade Asinga, an 18-year-old sprinter for Suriname, produced an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for GW1516 sulfone and sulfoxide from an out-of-competition test on 18 July 2023. GW1516 (Cardarine) is a non-Specified Substance prohibited at all times.

He immediately declared “Gatorade Recovery Gummies” on the Doping Control Form.

He did not dispute the presence of the substance. His defense rested entirely on establishing that:
# The source of GW1516 was contaminated Recovery Gummies manufactured by Better Nutritionals for Gatorade; and
# He bore No Significant Fault or Negligence, justifying a large sanction reduction under Rule 10.6.1 WA ADR.

The World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal rejected this theory and imposed:
* 4-year ban,
* disqualification of all results from 18 July 2023,
* £1,000 costs.

Asinga appealed to CAS.

=== The decisive legal questions were: ===

===== He claimed the Recovery Gummies were contaminated during manufacture. =====

===== He sought to rely on exceptional jurisprudence (Ademi, Shayna Jack). =====

===== CAS held the burden rested entirely on the Athlete (Rule 3.1 WA ADR). =====

=== ## ===
* SMRTL testing of two open gummy containers (sent by Athlete) showed GW1516, mostly on gummy exteriors.
* Athlete insisted contamination must have occurred in manufacturing, pointing to alleged production deficiencies.
* Gave personal and family testimonies denying manipulation.
* Sought scientific support from Prof. Kintz.

==== - SMRTL expressly warned that deliberate adulteration could not be ruled out. ====
* The Lausanne Laboratory successfully spiked gummies with GW1516 without deformation, using simple tools.
* One of the athlete’s two jars (Container 2) was not his, but obtained from another athlete (…); the Athlete failed to disclose this throughout the first-instance proceedings.
* The Athlete’s coach (Phiri) is provisionally suspended for GW1516-related violations, and two other athletes he coached also tested positive.
* Sealed jars from the same lot number were obtained and tested negative for GW1516, eliminating the manufacturing-contamination theory.
* Significant inconsistencies in testimony: timelines, who handled the jars, shipping paths, family’s access to jars, motivations for requesting jars from a third party.

=== ## ===

CAS emphasized that the athlete must show the asserted scenario is more likely than not.

===== - Lot numbers 22092117150213 (NSF-certified) and 22092117150234 were manufactured together on 21 September 2022, same line, same batch — therefore, if contamination occurred during production, both should test positive. ➤ But only the two open jars supplied by the athlete contained GW1516. ➤  Sealed jars from the same lot tested negative. =====
* SMRTL found non-homogeneous contamination, with much higher concentrations on gummy surfaces → not consistent with contamination within the production slurry.
* Scientific testimony confirmed that manufacturing contamination would produce homogeneous distribution, which was absent.
* Better Nutritionals’ facility had NSF GMP certification and had passed audits immediately before production.
* No evidence of a contamination vector at the plant (raw materials, cleaning tools, mixing tanks).

CAS conclusion:
➡ Manufacturing contamination not more likely than not.

==== CAS did not need to conclude that adulteration occurred, but only that the Athlete’s theory was not more probable than alternative scenarios. ====

Critical factors:
* Container 2 (the jar with very low levels of GW1516) was not the Athlete’s, but shipped to the athlete’s father’s veterinary address, then forwarded to the athlete — all undisclosed until CAS.
* Testimony from the Athlete and family was contradictory, internally inconsistent, and lacked clarity on crucial dates, access to jars, and who handled them.
* WhatsApp messages between Athlete’s father and coach Phiri on 10 August 2023 showed both men discussing GW1516’s 40-day excretion window, undermining claims they did not know about the substance.
* Lausanne Laboratory demonstrated adulteration was easily achievable, even without advanced tools.
* Athlete’s father, a licensed veterinarian, had ability to access controlled substances.
* GW1516 is readily purchasable online in pure form.

CAS conclusion:
➡ Athlete failed to establish his version was the most likely scenario.

==== Without proving the source, the Athlete could not even reach the second requirement (NSFN). ====
CAS held that Rule 10.6.1 could not apply.

==== CAS applied the strict jurisprudence: ====
* Protestations of innocence carry no weight without concrete supporting evidence.
* Athlete did not provide robust evidence excluding intentional use or designed manipulation.
* Negative tests on 11 June and 28 July 2023 do not exclude intentional ingestion between those dates.
* WhatsApp messages and family inconsistencies raised further doubts.

CAS conclusion:
➡ Athlete failed to prove the ADRV was not intentional.

=== ### ===

Award_10658__for_publ._

===== - 4-year period of ineligibility, starting 6 May 2024, with credit for provisional suspension (since 9 August 2023). =====
* All results from 18 July 2023 disqualified (including South American Championships results).
* Costs order maintained.

CAS emphasized that fairness did not require preserving any results.

=== 1. Contaminated-product defense requires airtight proof—manufacturing contamination must be more likely than not. ===
# Open containers sent for testing are inherently suspect; chain-of-custody breaches are fatal.
# CAS increasingly applies the strict version of the burden of proof: - Athletes rarely succeed without proving the exact source.
# WhatsApp messages and digital evidence carry substantial evidential weight.
# Inconsistencies in witness testimony can be decisive against the athlete.
# Even very low concentrations of GW1516 do not imply non-intentional use.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal commentary on the award’s approach to the “extremely rare cases” doctrine;
* A comparative analysis with Shayna Jack, Ademi, and other contamination cases;
* A presentation-ready slide deck summarizing the scientific findings;
* A media-safe summary for public explanation.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured, legally precise summary of CAS 2025/A/11178 – Eddy Van Bunder v. ===
Below is a clear, structured, legally precise summary of CAS 2025/A/11178 – Eddy Van Bunder v. UCI, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

=== ## ===

Eddy Van Bunder, Team Manager of the women’s cycling team Proximus Alphamotorhomes Doltcini (later Velopro-Alphamotorhomes), was sanctioned by the UCI Ethics Commission on 17 January 2025 for failures in safeguarding and ethical oversight concerning the conduct of Assistant Sports Director Gert Vervoort, who also performed massages on riders.

The UCI Ethics Commission found that:
* Several riders had raised concerns (2023–2024) about inappropriate massages by Vervoort, including contact with intimate areas, absence of consent, and misuse of authority.
* Van Bunder failed to take adequate, formal or enforceable measures despite repeated early warnings.
* Van Bunder failed to report these concerns to the UCI.
* This conduct violated Art. 6.4, Art. 2.5 and Art. 3.1 of Appendix 1 of the UCI Ethics Code.

He received:
* 3-year suspension (18 months suspended under conditions),
* CHF 5,000 fine,
* CHF 1,000 procedural costs.

He appealed to CAS.

=== CAS examined: ===
# Procedural fairness of UCI Ethics Commission proceedings, including use of anonymous complaints, lack of cross-examination, interpreter issues, and insufficient reasoning.
# Whether Van Bunder breached Articles 2.5, 3.1 and 6.4 of the UCI Ethics Code.
# Whether the sanction was proportionate.

CAS conducted a full de novo review.

=== ## ===

CAS held:
* UCI may accept anonymous complaints (Art. 30.3 UCI Ethics Code).
* However, the Ethics Commission did not properly justify maintaining anonymity or denying cross-examination.
* Conducting separate hearings without explaining the reasons failed to fully respect due process.

Yet CAS emphasized:
➡ Any defects were cured by the full appeal and evidentiary review before CAS. 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

The anonymous complaints remained in the file only as context, not as evidence of misconduct.

==== UCI correctly required an independent interpreter; refusal to accept the Team co-manager as interpreter was justified. ====

==== The UCI decision lacked clarity on: ====
* Which evidence it relied on,
* How it assessed credibility,
* How it applied the legal criteria.

CAS found the decision insufficiently reasoned, but again:
➡ Cured by CAS’s own de novo examination.

==== Because of these procedural shortcomings, CAS decided to set aside procedural costs imposed by UCI (CHF 1,000). 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._ ====

=== ## ===

CAS confirmed Van Bunder was bound by the Code because:
* he held a UCI licence,
* he signed the annual ethics acknowledgment forms,
* UCI regulations impose acceptance of all ethics rules. 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

==== CAS found that: ====
* February 2023: Rider [B.] emailed reporting uncomfortable massage involving groin contact without warning. Van Bunder responded but took no concrete action.
* July 2023: Rider Crabbé verbally reported further discomfort. Van Bunder allegedly issued an oral instruction limiting massages—but without monitoring or enforcement.
* September 2023: First Complainant resigned, stating she felt unsafe during massages and felt unable to speak because of Vervoort’s dual authority. Van Bunder took no follow-up action.
* 2024 Camp: No masseuse was provided; Vervoort again performed massages unsupervised. Van Bunder did not check whether previous limits were respected.
* April 2024: When De Groot reported invasive massage practices, Van Bunder waited days to act, failed to communicate the ban formally, and minimized concerns.

CAS held:

➡ Repeated inaction allowed harm and created imminent danger.
➡ He failed to provide the “minimum level of care” required.
11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

==== CAS interpreted “may reasonably be considered” objectively, not subjectively. ====

Given:
* the February 2023 email describing invasive massage in intimate zones,
* the July 2023 complaint,
* the September 2023 resignation letter describing unsafe conditions,
* the April 2024 report detailing non-consensual touching,

a reasonable manager must report such conduct to the UCI.

➡ Van Bunder never made any report.
➡ Duty to report was clearly triggered.
11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

==== Article 6.4 covers not only acts of harassment, but failure to safeguard riders. ====

CAS held:
* Direct misconduct is not required.
* Allowing a staff member to continue performing intimate massages after repeated complaints breached safeguarding duties.
* This constituted “poor practice”, expressly covered by Art. 6.4.

➡ Violation confirmed.
11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

=== ## ===

CAS applied deferential review and upheld:
* 3-year suspension,
* with 18 months suspended subject to compliance with conditions (no further breach + safeguarding training).

CAS found the suspension proportionate given:
* serious and repeated safeguarding failures,
* impact on rider welfare,
* power imbalance,
* managerial responsibility over vulnerable athletes.

==== CAS set aside the fine of CHF 5,000, because: ====
* UCI failed to justify imposing a fine in addition to the suspension,
* Van Bunder’s role was voluntary; he personally financed the team,
* Comparable UCI cases (e.g., Bracke, Van Gansen, Vervoort) did not include fines.

➡ CHF 5,000 fine annulled.
11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

==== Given irregularities in UCI proceedings, CAS also set aside: ====
* CHF 1,000 procedural costs.

=== ### ===
* Suspension (3 years, 18 months suspended) – CONFIRMED.
* Fine (CHF 5,000) – SET ASIDE.
* Procedural costs (CHF 1,000) – SET ASIDE.
* All other requests – dismissed. 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal brief comparing this case to Bracke, Van Gansen, and other UCI safeguarding cases;
* A sanction-analysis table showing proportionality trends in UCI Ethics jurisprudence;
* A team-safeguarding compliance checklist based on CAS findings;
* A media-safe summary suitable for publication.

=== Assistant: Below is a precise, structured, and legally grounded summary of CAS 2024/A/10797 – Vittoria Panizzon v. ===
Below is a precise, structured, and legally grounded summary of CAS 2024/A/10797 – Vittoria Panizzon v. NADO Italia, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

=== ## ===

Italian equestrian athlete Vittoria Panizzon was charged with a violation of Article 2.3 CSA (elusion of sample collection) following an unsuccessful out-of-competition doping control attempt on 18 November 2023 at Castello Lucheschi, the location declared in her whereabouts.

The Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNA) found intentional evasion, imposed:
* 4-year suspension,
* €3,000 fine,
* €500 procedural costs.

Panizzon appealed to CAS.

=== ### ===
* At 05:05, the DCO arrived at the main gate of Castello Lucheschi (with visible nameplates “Lucheschi Giacomo / Carlo”).
* She rang repeatedly, received no answer, and called both athlete’s phone numbers between 05:24–05:44, unsuccessfully.
* At 05:50, Panizzon messaged the DCO stating she was trying to call, had poor reception, and did not see the DCO at the gate.
* The DCO sent photos of her location; the athlete claimed she could not download them due to lack of signal.
* The DCO checked another possible location (Villa Lucheschi) with negative result.
* At ~07:00, the DCO spoke with a staff member (Covre), who said no one was in the residence.
* The DCO left at 07:30.
* At 11:34, the athlete messaged again, apologizing for the failed meeting.

===== - She stayed in the guest house (without intercom) inside the estate. =====
* She was ill the night before and forgot her phone charger in the car of Carlo Lucheschi.
* Poor signal (roaming), low phone battery, and confusion with multiple gates prevented communication.
* She unsuccessfully tried to meet the DCO, moving between different entrances based on her understanding of the property layout.

=== ### ===

No.

CAS reaffirmed the settled jurisprudence (CAS 2004/A/718; CAS 2019/A/6612):
* Evasion does not require prior notification.
* Requiring formal notification would make the provision meaningless, as evasion typically prevents the notifier from giving notice.

➡ The lack of notification does not bar the charge.
10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

===== This is the central question. =====
* Article 2.3 CSA requires intentional evasion.
* Under Note 11 WADA Code: evasion requires deliberate conduct aimed at avoiding testing.
* Intent must be proven to the standard of comfortable satisfaction, higher than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt.

CAS reviewed:
* All communications between athlete and DCO,
* Testimony of DCO, Carlo and Giacomo Lucheschi,
* Physical layout of the estate,
* Phone signal issues,
* Circumstantial inconsistencies highlighted by NADO.

===== ➡ NADO Italia failed to prove intentional evasion. =====
10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

Reasons:
# No direct evidence the athlete was absent from the declared location.
# Testimony of the two Lucheschi family members credibly confirmed she was present in the estate.
# The staff member (Covre) could not reliably determine who was in the residence at 07:00.
# The estate layout (multiple gates; poor lighting; large area) plausibly caused confusion.
# Signal and battery issues were credible, not contrived.
# The athlete’s communications with the DCO showed attempts to locate her, not avoidance.
# Her conduct was inconsistent with an athlete seeking to flee a test (e.g., she continued messaging the DCO).
# The scenario of an elaborate fabricated evasion plan was implausible given her profile and career.

CAS emphasized:
Even cumulatively, the circumstantial evidence did not reach the threshold of comfortable satisfaction for intentional evasion.

=== CAS noted the athlete: ===
* was careless with whereabouts precision,
* was not fully diligent with phone battery,
* provided sub-optimal communication on the morning of testing.

But negligence alone is not intent.

➡ CAS held that these failings cannot transform the situation into an intentional violation under Art. 2.3.
10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

=== NADO did not request reclassification under Article 2.4 (whereabouts failure / missed test). ===

➡ CAS could not requalify ex officio.

=== ### ===

10797_Lodo_Arbitrale__for_publ._

CAS ruled:
# No violation of Article 2.3 CSA.
# 4-year suspension annulled.
# €3,000 fine annulled.
# All other requests dismissed.

=== This award confirms several important principles: ===
* Notification is not required for evasion under 2.3 CSA.
* Evasion requires specific intent, not negligence or logistical failures.
* Athletes’ whereabouts obligations remain strict, but failures in communication or poor coordination do not automatically equal evasion.
* CAS applies a high standard of proof in intentional evasion cases, mindful of the severe 4-year sanction.
* Where the federation does not plead alternative violations (e.g., 2.4), CAS will not impose them on its own motion.

If you wish, I can also prepare:
* A comparative analysis with Taplin, Kolasa, and other 2.3 CSA jurisprudence;
* A legal brief for use in future whereabouts/evasion disputes;
* A presentation slide deck summarizing evidential standards in intentional evasion cases.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured, and legally grounded summary of CAS 2024/A/10895 Dougra Club & Mohammad Al-Shloul v. ===
Below is a clear, structured, and legally grounded summary of CAS 2024/A/10895 Dougra Club & Mohammad Al-Shloul v. Jordanian Football Association, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 10895_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===

The case arises from promotion play-offs in the Jordanian Second Division. On 16 November 2023, Dougra Club beat Jarash SC 1–0 and secured promotion to the First Division.

Jarash SC filed two complaints (14–15 November 2023) alleging an attempt to manipulate the match, principally based on:
* A Legal Notice served by Dougra Club’s president, Mohammad Al-Shloul (a lawyer), on Jarash SC’s midfielder Nayef Al-Anbar two days before the match in an unrelated agency-fee dispute; and
* Alleged conversations between club personnel that, according to Jarash SC, indicated attempts to influence the match.

The JFA Disciplinary Committee twice found the Appellants guilty of match manipulation under Article 37 JFA Disciplinary Code, relegated the Club, annulled its season results, imposed fines, and banned the Club President for two years.

The JFA Appeals Committee affirmed the second decision.

Both Dougra Club and its President appealed to CAS.

=== The Sole Arbitrator identified three central issues: ===
# Applicable burden and standard of proof
# Whether Article 37 requires actual influence on the match outcome
# Whether the JFA proved a violation to the required standard

=== CAS held: ===
* Burden of proof rests with the JFA, per Article 121 JFA Disciplinary Code.
* Standard of proof: “comfortable satisfaction”, between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt.
* Because match-fixing allegations carry severe consequences, adjudicators must have a high degree of confidence in the quality of evidence.

10895_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== CAS rejected the Appellants’ argument that actual manipulation must occur for liability. ===

Holding:
* Conspiracy or attempt to manipulate a match is sufficient to constitute an offence under Article 37.
* This aligns with Article 7.2 JFA Disciplinary Code (attempts are sanctionable) and FIFA Disciplinary Code (criminalizes attempts, conspiracies, indirect acts).

10895_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===

The JFA’s case relied heavily on the fact that Al-Shloul served a Legal Notice on the Player two days before the match.

CAS accepted that:
* Serving a legal notice can be a legitimate act in the course of legal representation.
* The timing could be “imprudent” or questionable—but imprudence is not sufficient to establish deliberate match manipulation.

==== The JFA relied primarily on: ====
* The Player’s witness statement
* Head Coach Al-Thawahreh’s testimony
* Statements from others alleging discussions about influencing the match

CAS found:
* The testimonies were contradictory, inconsistent, and mutually accusatory.
* Both sides’ witnesses had vested interests, diminishing their credibility.
* Conversations described could have been taken out of context or were possibly “in jest,” and the record did not establish intent to manipulate.

==== Recordings allegedly containing incriminating conversations by the Second Appellant were excluded as illegally obtained. ====

CAS noted:
* Even if admitted, they lacked probative value sufficient to meet the comfortable satisfaction threshold.
* No robust link was established between the content and an actual conspiracy.

==== CAS held that: ====
* The totality of evidence did not reach the high standard of proof required.
* Contradictions and vested interests prevented a finding of intentional manipulation.
* The JFA did not discharge its burden of proof.

10895_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== The Appellants raised arguments concerning: ===
* Insufficient deliberation time
* Improper treatment of witness evidence
* Burden of proof errors

CAS found no procedural defect serious enough to affect the outcome, and decided the case on the merits.

=== ### ===
* Appeal UPHELD.
* Both JFA decisions (22 Aug 2024 and 4 Oct 2024) are SET ASIDE.
* No match-fixing violation was proven to the requisite standard.
* All other requests dismissed.

10895_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

===== - Dougra Club’s relegation annulled. =====
* Ban on Club President lifted.
* Fines and sanctions voided.

=== 1. Match-fixing requires a high-quality evidentiary basis to satisfy the comfortable satisfaction standard. ===
# Attempts and conspiracies are punishable, but only if proven with convincing and coherent evidence.
# Illegally obtained evidence may be excluded unless compelling probative value outweighs rights concerns.
# Legitimate legal or commercial actions (such as serving a notice) cannot be recharacterized as match manipulation without clear evidence of improper intent.
# Inconsistent witness evidence—especially with vested interests—will not meet the required standard in manipulation cases.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A strategic memo on match-fixing evidentiary thresholds in CAS jurisprudence;
* A comparative analysis with CAS 2018/A/5920 and CAS 2021/A/8012;
* A public press release or legal commentary summarizing the implications of this award.

=== Assistant: Below is a concise and authoritative summary of CAS 2024/A/10973 Lithuanian Triathlon Federation v. ===
Below is a concise and authoritative summary of CAS 2024/A/10973 Lithuanian Triathlon Federation v. Lithuanian National Olympic Committee, based solely on the uploaded award. 10973_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

=== ## ===

The Lithuanian Triathlon Federation (LTF) appealed the decisions adopted during the 11 October 2024 LNOC General Assembly Election Session, which determined:
* The LNOC President for 2024–2028
* The Executive Committee (EC) members
* The Independent Election Commission (IEC) composition

LTF alleged that the election was procedurally flawed and sought annulment and a new General Assembly.

=== The Panel examined three main allegations: ===
# Irregularities in the election of the LNOC President
# Unlawful exclusion of eight candidates (including all LTF nominees) from the LNOC EC election
# Lack of independence and neutrality of the IEC

=== ### ===
* Both presidential candidacies (Gudzinevičiūtė and Marcinkevičius) were submitted after the Agenda was “approved” on 5 September 2024, violating Article 52.9 LNOC Articles.

===== - No violation. =====
* The “approval” relevant under Article 52.9 refers not to the preliminary EC meeting on 5 September but to the final approval process, which remained open until: - Members’ right to propose amendments (until 26 September 2024), and - Circulation of final agenda (1 October 2024).
* Candidates filed on 10–11 September 2024—before final agenda approval.
* LTF itself submitted its own candidacy on those dates, contradicting its own interpretation.

===== ➡ Election of President Gudzinevičiūtė was valid and compliant. =====

=== Eight candidates were excluded at the Election Session due to lack of formal authorisation to represent a Member, including: ===
* Marcinkevičius
* Čivilis
* Gustas
* Janušaitis
* Balčiūnaitė
* Others

===== CAS considered both parties’ translations, concluding: =====
* Article 21 links: (a) the right to represent a Member at the General Assembly (b) the right to vote (c) the right to be elected to the EC

Thus, a candidate must be the President of a Member or a duly authorised representative with a power of attorney at the General Assembly.

===== - None of LTF’s eight candidates were: - Presidents of a Member, nor - In possession of powers of attorney on election day. =====
* They appeared in the “guest list” at registration, meaning no voting right and therefore no eligibility for EC election.

===== - IEC acted properly by checking authorisation on the day of the Election Session, not earlier. =====
* No evidence showed that LTF was obstructed or misled.
* No procedural defect undermined the election.

===== ➡ Exclusions were valid and consistent with Article 21 LNOC Articles. =====
➡ Elections of the EC were lawful.

=== ### ===
* IEC members participated in voting during the General Assembly, compromising neutrality.

===== - Composition changed on election day: Only Okinčic served on both the previous and new IEC; the others (Mačianskas and Bilius) who voted were no longer IEC members. =====
* LNOC Articles contain no prohibition preventing IEC members from voting.
* Voting was secret, eliminating risk of influence.
* LTF raised no objection at the time of IEC appointment.

===== ➡ No breach of independence or neutrality. =====

=== CAS dismissed the appeal in its entirety: ===
* Election of the President – confirmed
* Election of the Executive Committee – confirmed
* IEC conduct – no violation
* No basis to annul or redo the elections 10973_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

The Panel added a governance recommendation:
LNOC should reconsider the practice of appointing a new IEC immediately before the Election Session to avoid governance risks.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A governance analysis of Article 21 and best practices
* A comparative table mapping election rules to IOC standards
* A draft communication for the federation or media.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured and authoritative summary of CAS 2024/A/10366 WADA v. ===
Below is a clear, structured and authoritative summary of CAS 2024/A/10366 WADA v. ADAK & Jackline Wambui, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 10366_final_Award__for_publ._

=== ## ===

Kenyan athlete Jackline Wambui tested positive on 21 September 2021 for metabolites of nandrolone (19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone), a non-specified anabolic steroid prohibited at all times.

The Kenyan Sports Disputes Tribunal (first instance, 29 September 2022; appeal instance, 25 January 2024) found:
* ADRV for Articles 2.1 and 2.2 ADAK ADR
* Two-year ban (crediting provisional suspension since 20 December 2021)
* Acceptance of the Athlete’s explanation that she received an injection (Deca-durabolin) during medical treatment and did not intend to dope

WADA appealed to CAS, seeking:
* A four-year period of ineligibility,
* Disqualification of results from 21 September 2021 until the CAS award.

The Athlete did not participate in the CAS proceedings.

=== CAS confirmed jurisdiction under Article 13 ADAK ADR. ===

The Athlete could not be reached physically, but CAS accepted:
* DHL proof of delivery of the appeal brief to her physical address,
* Emails sent to three addresses, including the one registered in ADAMS and the one she herself provided on the DCF,

Thus, the Athlete was duly summoned under Article R44.5 CAS Code. 10366_final_Award__for_publ._

=== - Nandrolone metabolites were present in the A sample. ===
* The Athlete waived B-sample analysis.
* Under Article 2.1.2 ADAK ADR, this is sufficient proof of an ADRV.
* No challenge was made to laboratory procedures; the Bloemfontein lab is WADA-accredited.

CAS confirmed the Athlete committed violations of Articles 2.1 and 2.2. 10366_final_Award__for_publ._

=== Since nandrolone is a non-specified substance, the sanction is 4 years unless the Athlete proves the ADRV was not intentional. ===

CAS examined:

===== The Athlete claimed: =====
* She sustained a knee/ankle injury.
* She visited Oloolua Dispensary on 25 & 30 August 2021.
* She told the clinician she was an athlete.
* She received Cox-B injection and Deca-durabolin.
* She believed the treatment caused the AAF.

===== WhatsApp messages obtained by AIU showed: =====
* The Athlete brought the Deca-durabolin herself to the clinic, having purchased it from a chemist.
* She did not inform the clinician that she was an athlete.
* The clinic did not stock Deca-durabolin.

CAS found this evidence credible and unchallenged.

===== Even assuming she said she was an athlete, CAS held: =====
* There was no medical emergency,
* The Athlete failed to conduct even basic checks on the injectable (Deca-durabolin),
* A simple look at packaging or an internet search would have revealed it contained nandrolone,
* She previously underwent multiple doping controls (2017–2021) yet did no diligence,
* Relying blindly on a doctor is insufficient—Athletes must “leave no reasonable stone unturned.”

CAS applied established jurisprudence (CAS 2014/A/3798; CAS 2016/A/4609).

===== ➡ The Athlete failed to prove lack of intent. =====
➡ At minimum, this was a case of indirect intent (dolus eventualis).
10366_final_Award__for_publ._

=== ## ===
* 4-year ban, starting on the date of the CAS Award.
* Credit given for: - Provisional suspension (20 Dec 2021), and - The two-year ban previously served.
* Because she resumed eligibility on 20 December 2023, she must still serve two additional years.

==== Two periods were considered: ====

===== Automatic disqualification. =====

===== WADA argued disqualification must extend until the CAS award, unless fairness requires otherwise. =====
* CAS agreed Article 10.10 ADAK ADR permits disqualification until the start of the (new) period of ineligibility, even after an athlete resumed competing under a wrongly lenient national decision.
* The Athlete did not invoke fairness or provide evidence to protect her results.
* CAS found no fairness basis to preserve results; moreover, she appears not to have competed after December 2023.

===== ➡ All competitive results from 21 September 2021 through the date of the CAS Award are disqualified, including medals, points, prizes. =====
10366_final_Award__for_publ._

=== - WADA’s appeal upheld. ===
* Kenyan tribunal decision set aside.
* 4-year ineligibility imposed (crediting time served).
* All results disqualified from 21 September 2021 until award date.
* All other requests dismissed. 10366_final_Award__for_publ._

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A comparative summary with similar nandrolone jurisprudence (e.g., CAS 2020/A/6978 – Iannone).
* A legal note on indirect intent under the Code.
* A table summarizing burden of proof in origin cases involving anabolic steroids.

=== Assistant: Below is a structured, clear, and authoritative summary of CAS 2025/A/11160 Pyramids FC v. ===
Below is a structured, clear, and authoritative summary of CAS 2025/A/11160 Pyramids FC v. Al Masry SC & Egyptian Football Association, based solely on the uploaded award. 11160_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===

This appeal concerns Article 3.2 of the Transfer Agreement between Pyramids FC and Al Masry SC, dated 9 September 2022, relating to the transfer of Hussein El-Sayed.

The clause stipulates a one-time bonus of EGP 1,000,000, payable “in the event that the player joins the national team’s first team camp.”
* On 3 November 2022, the EFA publicly announced the squad for Egypt’s first-team camp.
* The Player was included.
* On 17 November 2022, the final squad list for the friendly against Belgium again included the Player.
* He attended the camp and was on the matchday bench.

Pyramids invoiced Al Masry for the bonus, which was unpaid.

The EFA Players Affairs Committee awarded the amount.
The EFA Appeal Committee overturned that decision, holding that:
* The Player allegedly did not “actually participate” or “officially enrol” in an official match,
* The national-team presence was “merely a trial,”
* Therefore, the bonus was not triggered.

Pyramids appealed to CAS.

=== ## ===

Confirmed on three independent bases:
# EFA Statutes (Art. 69) – CAS is the final appeal forum after EFA internal remedies are exhausted.
# Article 9 of the Transfer Agreement, providing a direct arbitration clause in favor of CAS.
# No objection from either Respondent; both signed the Order of Procedure.

==== - Appeal filed within 21 days under Art. R49 CAS Code. ====
* Objections alleging lack of contract authentication and failure to include the Player were substantive, not procedural.

➡ Appeal admissible. 11160_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===

No.

CAS found:
* The dispute concerned only the inter-club bonus obligation.
* The Player was not a party to EFA proceedings, nor affected by the CAS outcome.
* CAS jurisprudence allows exceptions to Art. 75 SCC when the association acts merely as adjudicator, not when the award will affect a third party.

➡ Player not a necessary party; no standing to be sued.

==== No. ====
* Art. 9 of EFA Players Status Regulations applies to player contracts, not to club-to-club transfer agreements.
* Even if authentication were required, failure to register is an administrative omission, not a validity defect (CAS 2007/A/1351; CAS 2006/A/1008 & 1104).
* EFA itself processed the transfer, meaning it implicitly accepted the contract’s validity.

➡ No impact on enforceability; objection rejected. 11160_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

==== CAS held: ====
* Even if procedural defects occurred (e.g., failure to notify the appeal),
* CAS de novo review under Article R57 cures all prior procedural irregularities.

➡ No effect on the CAS determination.

=== ## ===

: 

CAS applied Art. 18(1) Swiss Code of Obligations (subsidiary law) to ascertain:
# True common intention, and
# Failing that, objective interpretation in good faith.

===== 1. Clear, unambiguous wording - The clause requires only that the Player “joins the camp.” - No requirement of: - match participation, - official match, - official enrolment, - playing time, - continuing throughout the full camp. =====
# Evidence confirms the condition was fulfilled - Player appeared on the official national team lists (3 Nov and 17 Nov). - Player attended training. - Player was on the bench for the Egypt v Belgium international friendly. - Even if EFA and Al Masry considered it a "trial," a trial is still participation in the camp, as physically joining the camp satisfies the clause.
# No contrary intention proved - Al Masry failed to demonstrate any alternative common intention or drafting history. - The parties could have drafted a clause requiring official caps, but did not.
# EFA Appeal Committee committed legal error - It inserted conditions not found in the contract (“participation in official match”). - It adjudicated ultra petita, contradicting the plain language and pacta sunt servanda.

➡ Bonus clause was triggered.
➡ Al Masry owes EGP 1,000,000 plus interest. 11160_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== CAS ruled: ===
# Appeal upheld.
# EFA Appeal Committee decision (6 Jan 2025) set aside.
# EFA Players Affairs Committee decision (18 July 2024) confirmed.
# Al Masry ordered to pay Pyramids: - EGP 1,000,000, plus - interest at 5% per annum from 18 November 2022 until full payment.
# All other requests dismissed. 11160_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== - Contractual clarity prevails: “joins the camp” means exactly that, not “plays in a match.” ===
* National-team call-ups are binary events: inclusion in official lists & participation in the camp suffice.
* Administrative authentication failures do not nullify club-to-club transfer agreements.
* Failure to add a player as respondent does not bar inter-club contractual claims.
* CAS de novo review cures domestic procedural defects.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A contract-drafting note on bonus clauses and national-team triggers;
* A one-page internal briefing for club management;
* A model clause avoiding the ambiguity exploited by Al Masry;
* A public statement or media summary of the award.

=== Assistant: Below is a structured and precise summary of CAS 2024/A/10882 Comitato Italiano Paralimpico & Giacomo Perini v. ===
Below is a structured and precise summary of CAS 2024/A/10882 Comitato Italiano Paralimpico & Giacomo Perini v. World Rowing & Erik Horrie, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== ## ===

The case arose from the PR1 Men’s Single Sculls Final at the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games on 1 September 2024.

Provisional finish order:
# Great Britain
# Ukraine
# Italy – Giacomo Perini
# Australia – Erik Horrie

Immediately after the race, Horrie protested that Perini had a mobile phone on board during warm-up and the race.

The Umpire questioned Perini twice; Perini first denied possession, then—after the ITO inspection—produced a phone wrapped in a towel in his wrist bag.

The Race Umpire excluded Perini for “using communications equipment”, promoting Horrie to bronze.

Two internal appeals followed:
* Board of Jury (BoJ): confirmed exclusion (possession of a phone = breach).
* World Rowing Executive Committee: also confirmed exclusion, stating all elite rowers know phones are prohibited.

Perini and the Italian Paralympic Committee appealed to CAS.

=== Appellants challenged: ===
* The interpretation and application of the rule (“Contested Rule” – Bye-Law to Rule 28, R2.5),
* The validity of exclusion,
* Sought reinstatement of original race order and award of bronze.

Respondents argued:
* The decision is protected by the field of play doctrine,
* The rule prohibits possession of phones,
* Exclusion was proportionate,
* CAS cannot award a medal without the IPC.

=== CAS held: ===
* Although exclusions after technical protests generally receive deference,
* This case does not fall under the field-of-play immunity because: 1. The exclusion was post-race, not during competition. 2. Internal bodies changed the factual and legal basis (from “use” to “possession”). 3. The dispute is purely legal: interpretation of WR regulations. 4. The alleged violation concerns application of a rule, not a technical judgment. 5. Potential legal errors in interpreting the rule.

➡ Field of play doctrine does NOT bar CAS review. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== ### ===
* Prohibits communication with the crew “using electric/electronic equipment”
* Allows only four types of allowable data (time, stroke rate, velocity/acceleration, heart rate)
* Prohibits transmitting/receiving other data.

===== 1. Textual: - The rule bans actions: “using”, “sending”, “receiving”. - The rule does not speak of mere possession. =====
# Systematic: - Rule sits in a section regulating boat construction and fixed devices. - Smartwatches worn on the body are allowed; this contradicts a general ban on “connected devices.”
# Teleological: - Purpose is to prevent advantage through active communication, not to impose a strict ban on carrying a phone.
# Historical: - Evidence showed WR wanted an enforceable standard, but never drafted a possession ban.
# Customary practice: - WR argued “everyone knows” phones are banned. - CAS rejected this—custom cannot substitute for a clear legal rule (nulla poena sine lege clara).

➡ CAS held: the rule does NOT prohibit mere possession of a mobile phone.
➡ A violation occurs only if actual communication or exchange of non-allowable data is proven. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== ### ===
* Phone found in wrist bag wrapped in a towel.
* Digital Forensic Report (independent expert): - Phone ON and connected. - No calls, no messages sent, no apps interacted with during race. - Only automatic OS/fitness-sensor traffic. - Received “messages of encouragement” during race but not opened, and receiving them gave no competitive advantage.

===== - Receiving unread encouragement messages ≠ prohibited data. =====
* No communication occurred.
* No use of the device.
* WR never inspected the phone during its decision-making process.

➡ No breach of the Contested Rule. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== Since Perini committed no violation, the exclusion: ===
* Lacked a legal basis,
* Violated principles of predictability and legality,
* Could not stand.

➡ CAS annulled the exclusion and reinstated the original finishing order. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== - CAS can restore the race ranking because WR organizes the competition. ===
* CAS cannot order the IPC to award medals without IPC being a party.
* Request for bronze medal was therefore inadmissible, but reinstating the ranking was allowed.

➡ Perini’s third place is reinstated, but medal allocation must be handled by IPC separately. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== 1. Appeal partially upheld. ===
# Original race order reinstated: - Perini – 3rd, Horrie – 4th.
# Medal request dismissed (IPC not party).
# All other requests rejected. 10882_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== - Strict textual limits: Regulations must clearly state prohibited conduct; assumptions or customs are not enforceable. ===
* Possession ≠ use: Especially in sports technology cases.
* Field of play doctrine is limited: Does not apply where the dispute is legal rather than sporting/technical.
* De novo review allows CAS to correct legal errors by internal bodies.
* Federations must draft technology rules clearly, especially in evolving digital environments.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A short legal brief explaining how this award reshapes communication/device rules in Olympic/Paralympic sports;
* A comparison with other field-of-play jurisprudence;
* A strategic memo for federations on rewriting communication/device regulations.

=== Assistant: Below is a structured, authoritative summary of CAS 2025/A/11173 Tullio Tinti v. ===
Below is a structured, authoritative summary of CAS 2025/A/11173 Tullio Tinti v. FIFA, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 11173_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===

Italian agent Tullio Tinti, licensed by FIFA on 2 September 2023, was provisionally suspended by the FIFA General Secretariat (FIFA GS) on 16 January 2025.

The suspension was based on Article 5(1)(a)(iii) FFAR—a clause requiring that an agent must “never have been subject to suspension of two years or more … for failure to comply with rules relating to ethics and professional conduct.”

In 2012, Tinti accepted a 36-month suspension from FIGC (Italian FA) in a settlement procedure (Art. 23 CGS) and paid a EUR 80,000 fine. He resumed professional activity in 2015 and had no disciplinary issues since.

FIFA later received FIGC information in October 2023 confirming the 2012 sanction and initiated Article 17 FFAR proceedings, leading to the provisional suspension.

Tinti appealed to CAS.

=== Although the parties raised extensive arguments—non-retroactivity, ne bis in idem, proportionality, Swiss personality rights, EU law (Arts. 101, 102, 56 TFEU)—the decisive question for the Panel was: ===

===== CAS answered no. =====

All substantive arguments became unnecessary once the Panel concluded that FIFA GS had acted ultra vires.

=== The relevant FFAR provisions: ===

===== Sets eligibility criteria for obtaining and maintaining a license. =====

===== - FIFA GS may investigate compliance. =====
* If it believes an agent fails to meet eligibility requirements, it must: 1. Notify the agent; 2. Impose an automatic provisional suspension; 3. Refer the case to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (DC) for a final decision (Article 17(3)(b)).

===== - The FIFA DC is competent to impose sanctions. =====
* Article 21 FFAR was temporarily suspended by FIFA Circular 1873.

Because Art. 21 was suspended, the FIFA GS stated it could not send the matter to the DC “as would otherwise be required.”

=== ## ===
* CAS held that the GS's powers are strictly limited to investigation and temporary (provisional) suspension.
* A provisional suspension must be truly temporary—i.e., followed promptly by adjudication before the DC.

But:
* Article 21 FFAR (which would allow DC review and decision) was suspended.
* FIFA could not indicate when or whether Article 21 would be reinstated.
* The Agent therefore had no path to a final merits determination.
* The suspension was therefore indefinite, not provisional.

➡ A measure of indefinite duration imposed by an investigative body = a de facto definitive sanction, which the GS is not authorized to impose.
11173_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

==== CAS found: ====
* Forming a “belief” under Article 17(1)(a) is NOT equivalent to a finding of ineligibility.
* The GS made determinations about the meaning of Article 5(1)(a)(iii) and the applicability of a 2012 settlement—but lacked authority to make legal findings on eligibility.
* Only the FIFA Disciplinary Committee may issue a final, reasoned decision confirming or rejecting ineligibility.

==== CAS stressed several failures: ====
# No assessment of FIFA’s own prior licensing decision (2023) - FIGC and FIFA had both cleared Tinti in 2023. - FIFA never explained why the 2023 evaluation did not detect or consider the 2012 sanction.
# The 2012 Sanction was a settlement (Art. 23 CGS) - Article 5(1)(a)(iii) FFAR does not mention settlements (unlike Art. 5(1)(a)(ii)). - FIFA GS failed to analyze whether settlements fall under the eligibility rule.
# Criminal acquittal ignored - Tinti was acquitted of all criminal charges related to the 2012 matter. - This was not considered in FIFA’s reasoning.
# Proportionality analysis missing - No consideration of the lapse of 13 years with no misconduct. - No analysis of whether reliance on a decade-old sanction is appropriate.
# Lack of due process safeguards - No avenue to challenge the provisional suspension before a disciplinary body.

➡ The GS’s investigation was “superficial and overly simplistic” and “lacked the diligence required” for a measure with such severe impact.
11173_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ### ===

“The FIFA General Secretariat lacked competence to determine that the Agent failed to comply with the eligibility requirements and to impose what, in effect, is a definitive suspension.”

As a result:
* The Appealed Decision is set aside.
* FIFA is ordered to reinstate Tinti’s license No. 202309-3517.
* No substantive evaluation of non-retroactivity, ne bis in idem, EU law, or proportionality was required. 11173_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ### ===
# Appeal upheld.
# FIFA GS decision of 16 January 2025 set aside.
# FIFA ordered to reinstate the Agent’s license.
# All other motions dismissed. 11173_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== - Follows and reinforces the Beckett Case (CAS 2024/A/10918): FIFA GS cannot act as de facto disciplinary authority. ===
* Provisional suspensions under Article 17 FFAR cannot become permanent due to FIFA's internal regulatory suspension (Article 21 FFAR).
* Raises serious structural concerns regarding FIFA’s enforcement of FFAR during the suspension of the DC’s jurisdiction.
* Highlights that FIFA licensing decisions cannot be re-evaluated lightly, especially when based on old, settled, served sanctions and where the individual has been acquitted of criminal conduct.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal brief analyzing the implications for all ongoing FFAR eligibility cases.
* A template appeal strategy for other agents provisionally suspended under Article 5(1)(a)(iii).
* A comparative analysis of FIFA GS competence in Beckett, Tinti, and upcoming FFAR litigation.

=== Assistant: Below is a structured, clear, and authoritative summary of CAS 2024/A/10880 Ngezi Platinum Stars FC v. ===
Below is a structured, clear, and authoritative summary of CAS 2024/A/10880 Ngezi Platinum Stars FC v. Bongani Mafu & FIFA, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 10880_Arbitral_Award__for_publ.…

=== ## ===
* Ngezi Platinum Stars FC engaged Bongani Mafu as First Assistant Coach under an employment contract from 20 March 2022 to 31 December 2026.
* On 25 July 2022, the Club unilaterally terminated the contract, alleging poor performance.
* On 26 March 2024, the Coach filed a claim before the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber (PSC) seeking compensation for breach of contract.
* The PSC issued a decision on 27 August 2024, holding that: - Ngezi FC breached the contract without just cause, and - must pay the Coach USD 196,750.

The decision was notified through the FIFA Legal Portal on 30 August 2024.

The Club failed to request the grounds of the decision within the 10-day deadline and filed a CAS appeal on 20 September 2024.

=== The key legal question was whether the CAS appeal was admissible, given: ===
* the Club’s failure to request the grounds of the PSC decision through the FIFA Legal Portal within the regulatory 10 days under Art. 15(5) FIFA Procedural Rules, and
* whether the decision therefore became final and binding, with the right to appeal deemed waived.

CAS ruled that the appeal was inadmissible.

=== ## ===

CAS meticulously reviewed the Legal Portal regime:
* Circular 1795 (Apr 2022) – Announced creation of the FIFA Legal Portal, online case management, mandatory use.
* Circular 1839 (Mar 2023) – Clarified that the Portal would replace email communications.
* Circular 1842 (Apr 2023) – Declared mandatory use of the Portal from 1 May 2023 for all PSC and judicial proceedings.
* User manuals & FAQs – Reiterated that: - Parties must create and maintain their accounts, - Notifications are valid when uploaded to the Portal, - Users must check the Portal daily, - Contact details in TMS are binding.

➡ CAS held that clubs were fully and repeatedly informed of the mandatory nature of the Legal Portal.

=== The Club received: ===
* An email via its TMS-registered address on 30 April 2024, notifying it of the claim and instructing it to create a Legal Portal account within 3 days.
* Multiple automated emails from the Portal (including on 30 August 2024) notifying that new documents had been uploaded.

Ngezi FC, however:
* Never registered an account until 13 September 2024,
* Failed to review the PSC decision on the Portal,
* Submitted its grounds request by email only, and 11 days late.

CAS emphasized that:
* Ignorantia legis non excusat: a club cannot avoid consequences by claiming it was unaware of the Portal.
* Under long-standing CAS jurisprudence, a decision is deemed notified once it enters the recipient’s sphere of control—which occurred when it was uploaded to the Portal and the automated email was sent.

➡ Notification date = 30 August 2024.

=== ## ===

If the party does not request the grounds via the Legal Portal within 10 days:
* The decision becomes final and binding, and
* The party is deemed to have waived the right to appeal.

CAS confirmed that:
* The deadline ended on 9 September 2024.
* The Club’s request (20 September by email) was: - Too late, and - Invalid (not filed via the Portal).

CAS refused the Club’s argument that “deemed to have waived” creates a rebuttable presumption—holding instead that the rule is clear, mandatory, and absolute, based on modern CAS jurisprudence (e.g. CAS 2023/A/9943; CAS 2023/A/9424; CAS 2020/A/7296; CAS 2019/A/6253).

➡ The PSC decision became final and binding on 9 September 2024.
➡ CAS held the right to appeal was irrevocably waived.

=== Given the failure to request grounds properly and on time: ===
* CAS held that the PSC decision was final,
* The appeal was inadmissible,
* The merits (jurisdiction of PSC, contract validity, international dimension) were not examined.

CAS found that:
* The Club’s failure to create a Legal Portal account despite four prior warnings,
* And its failure to monitor the Portal daily,
* Amounted to a procedural fault entirely attributable to the Club.

➡ The appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.

=== 1. Appeal inadmissible. ===
# All other motions dismissed. 10880_Arbitral_Award__for_publ.…

=== - FIFA Legal Portal is mandatory—failing to register or check it daily bars procedural rights. ===
* Notification occurs upon upload + automated email to TMS-registered contact = valid service.
* 10-day deadline to request grounds is strict, regulatory, and cannot be extended.
* Failure to request grounds = final and binding PSC decision + waiver of right to appeal.
* CAS will not rescue parties from their own negligence regarding Portal compliance.

If you wish, I can also prepare:
* A practical compliance guide for clubs on Legal Portal obligations;
* A summary of recent CAS jurisprudence on Art. 15(5) Procedural Rules;
* A template internal protocol for clubs to avoid similar admissibility failures.

=== Assistant: Below is a clear, structured, and authoritative summary of CAS 2025/A/11154 Al Safa FC v. ===
Below is a clear, structured, and authoritative summary of CAS 2025/A/11154 Al Safa FC v. Bourhen Hkimi, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 11154_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===

Al Safa FC (Saudi Arabia) engaged Tunisian player Bourhen Hkimi under:
* Contract 1 (2023/24 season),
* Contract 2 (2024/25 season),
* Contract 3 (3 August 2024), a financial settlement rescheduling unpaid salaries and bonuses under Contract 1, adding: - A penalty of SAR 5,000 per late instalment - 18% annual interest on each delayed payment.

The player suffered an injury on 30 August 2024. On 11 September 2024, the Club unilaterally terminated his employment, accusing him of simulating injury and failing to follow medical instructions.

The FIFA DRC found termination without just cause, awarded outstanding remuneration, a contractual penalty, and USD 150,090.51 in compensation.

Al Safa appealed to CAS.

=== The Sole Arbitrator addressed: ===
# Was the termination with just cause?
# If yes, could the player be sanctioned and owe compensation?
# If no, what amounts are owed to the player under Article 17 RSTP?

=== ### ===

The Club relied entirely on two letters from its physiotherapist alleging:
* Missed physiotherapy/rehab sessions,
* Non-compliance with medical protocols,
* Independent training against medical advice,
* Late arrivals.

===== - No dates or specifics of absences, sessions, instructions, warnings. =====
* No communications (WhatsApp, emails, notices) showing the Club warned the player.
* Physiotherapist’s letter of 10 September 2024 allegedly existed before the FIFA proceedings but was never submitted.
* The Club did not present any defence at FIFA DRC level.

===== The player produced: =====
* A bailiff-certified transcript (14 April 2025) of the physiotherapist denying the truth of the statement and claiming Club pressure.
* Clear MRI evidence (1 September 2024) confirming a legitimate injury.
* Evidence he attended therapy sessions daily.

===== - CAS preferred the player’s evidence, especially the physiotherapist’s later admission. =====
* Even if the Club’s version were accepted, no prior warning to the player was ever given.
* Termination was not an ultima ratio measure.

===== ➡ Termination was without just cause under Article 14 RSTP. =====
11154_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== ## ===
* USD 43,363.50 (June–August 2024)
* Interest: 5% p.a. from the respective due dates.

==== CAS accepted only one payment (SAR 109,091) proven by evidence. ====
The Club attempted to deduct an additional earlier payment (SAR 7,272) unrelated to Contract 3 — CAS refused.

➡ Amount due: SAR 182,637.01 + 5% interest on each instalment from rescheduled due dates.
11154_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

==== - SAR 12,500 (even though more was contractually due; the player only claimed this amount). ====

==== ### ====
* USD 150,090.51

===== The player signed a new contract on 7 January 2025 (USD 30,000 total value). =====
Mitigation applies until the CAS award (consistent with CAS jurisprudence).

CAS therefore deducted USD 30,000.

➡ Revised compensation: USD 120,090.51
* - 5% interest p.a. from 12 September 2024 11154_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

===== CAS rejected Al Safa’s request to deduct: =====
* USD 6,600 for use of the club apartment/car,
* USD 29,091 for alleged misconduct.

Reasons:
* Evidence insufficient,
* Termination was unlawful,
* Club bore responsibility for the situation,
* Deductions inconsistent with Article 17 RSTP.

=== The player asked CAS to revise the interest rate to 18% (the rate in Contract 3). ===
CAS rejected this because:
* It would constitute a counterclaim,
* Counterclaims are inadmissible in CAS appeals.

➡ Interest remains 5%, as in the FIFA DRC decision.

=== ### ===

CAS replaced only paragraph 2 of the FIFA DRC decision with:
* USD 43,363.50 (+5% interest)
* SAR 182,637.01 (+5% interest)
* SAR 12,500 penalty
* USD 120,090.51 compensation (+5% interest)

All other findings unchanged.
11154_Arbitral_Award__FINAL_for…

=== - Unilateral termination requires clear, objective evidence and prior warnings. ===
* The ultima ratio principle is decisive.
* Clubs must provide detailed evidence (dates, communications, warnings).
* Physiotherapist statements obtained under pressure may be disregarded.
* A CAS appeal allows de novo review, including updated mitigation (new contracts).
* Contractual penalties apply broadly unless contract wording limits them.
* Counterclaims are inadmissible at CAS appeal stage.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal opinion on how this award affects Saudi clubs’ termination strategies,
* A template just-cause termination letter compliant with FIFA/CAS standards,
* A comparison table with recent CAS decisions on injury-related dismissals.

=== Assistant: Below is a structured, authoritative, and concise summary of CAS 2025/A/11495 Drogheda United FC v. ===
Below is a structured, authoritative, and concise summary of CAS 2025/A/11495 Drogheda United FC v. UEFA, based exclusively on the uploaded award. 11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== Summary of the Award ===

==== 1. Background ====

Drogheda United FC (“DUFC”) qualified on sporting merit for the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League (UECL) by winning the FAI Cup on 10 November 2024.

However, DUFC and Silkeborg IF (SIF) were both majority-owned by Trivela Group as of 1 March 2025, meaning both clubs were part of the same multi-club ownership (MCO) structure. Under Article 5.01 UCC Regulations (2025/26), clubs owned or controlled by the same entity cannot both be admitted to the same UEFA competition.

On 5 June 2025, UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) First Chamber ruled:
* DUFC and SIF were non-compliant with the MCO rule on 1 March 2025; and
* Applying Article 5.02, only one club could be admitted;
* SIF, ranked higher domestically (7th in Denmark vs. DUFC’s 9th in Ireland), was admitted;
* DUFC was excluded from the 2025/26 UECL.

DUFC appealed to CAS seeking reinstatement and permission to execute a blind trust before the competition began.

CAS dismissed the appeal in full.

=== 2. Core Issue Before CAS ===

Was UEFA entitled to apply the new 1 March 2025 assessment date to DUFC, and did DUFC receive sufficient notice and equal treatment?

The Panel (majority decision) held: Yes. UEFA acted lawfully, proportionately, and consistently.

=== 3. Key Legal Findings ===

==== A. DUFC was indisputably non-compliant on 1 March 2025 ====
* As of 1 March 2025: - Trivela Pathway LP held 100% of DUFC, - Trivela held 80% of SIF, - Both clubs were owned/controlled by the same ultimate party.
* This violated Articles 5.01(b) and 5.01(c) UCC Regulations.

➡ No dispute on the facts. DUFC could not meet the MCO criteria on the assessment date.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== B. The 1 March assessment date was validly adopted ====
* UEFA Executive Committee formally approved the amendment on 24 September 2024.
* UEFA communicated the change to all 55 member associations on 7 October 2024.
* The October 2024 Circular clearly stated the new date.
* “Submission for approval in full at a later date” referred to the complete annual edition of the Regulations—not to further approval of the rule change.

➡ The amendment took effect immediately upon ExCo approval in Sept 2024 and was properly communicated.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== C. DUFC had actual notice well before 1 March ====

The Panel found the Club was aware or should have been aware, because:
# The October 2024 Circular was provided to: - All national associations (including FAI), - The Danish FA (which passed it to SIF), - All ECA member clubs (DUFC and SIF received it directly from ECA on 25 October 2024).
# The Circular was publicly available and uploaded to UEFA’s club portal, accessible to DUFC.
# DUFC’s owners (Trivela Group) received it.

➡ DUFC knew or should have known the 1 March date months in advance.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== D. No violation of the principle of equal treatment ====

DUFC argued it was treated unequally because UEFA emailed certain clubs directly in December 2024.

CAS rejected this:
* The 35 reminders targeted only clubs already in known MCO structures at that time.
* In December 2024, Trivela had not yet acquired SIF (acquisition completed 18 December, but UEFA was only notified on 28 January 2025).
* UEFA cannot contact clubs it does not know are part of an MCO structure.

➡ UEFA’s additional reminders were not discriminatory.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== E. No legitimate expectation for “blind trust” solutions ====

DUFC relied on the May 2024 Circular and past cases (Man City/Girona, Man Utd/Nice).
CAS rejected this:
* The blind trust solution was expressly: - Temporary; - Exceptional; - For the 2024/25 season only; - Not binding for future seasons.

➡ DUFC could not expect a blind trust to be accepted in 2025/26.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== F. No breach of proportionality or excessive formalism ====

CAS held:
* The 1 March date is necessary for: - Integrity of competitions, - Adequate time for investigation, - Respecting appeal timelines.
* Allowing DUFC to fix ownership after 1 March (even before the draw) would: - Undermine legal certainty, - Endanger appeals of other clubs, - Jeopardize the competition calendar.

➡ Strict application of the deadline is justified and proportionate.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== G. No violation of Swiss personality rights or EU competition law ====

DUFC alleged:
* Abuse of dominance (Art. 102 TFEU),
* Anticompetitive agreements (Art. 101),
* Violation of Swiss CC Art. 28 personality rights.

CAS dismissed all:
* DUFC failed to define any relevant market, anti-competitive conduct, or injury.
* MCO rules are eligibility criteria, not sanctions.
* Protecting integrity of competitions is an overriding public interest.

➡ No breach of EU or Swiss law.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== 4. Final Holding ===

===== Appeal dismissed in full. =====

CAS upheld the CFCB decision:
* SIF remains admitted to the 2025/26 UECL.
* DUFC is excluded due to non-compliance on 1 March 2025.
* No order for blind trust implementation.
* All other requests rejected. 11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

=== 5. Significance of the Award ===
* Confirms strict enforcement of MCO rules and assessment dates.
* Clubs must monitor regulatory updates and cannot rely on member associations.
* Blind trust solutions are not a permanent tool.
* UEFA’s procedural communications (Circulars + ECA alerts) satisfy notice requirements.
* Reinforces the ENIC principle: integrity of competitions outweighs club hardship.

If you want, I can also prepare:
* A legal opinion on the implications for future MCO ownership structures;
* A model due-diligence checklist for investors acquiring European clubs;
* A comparison with the Crystal Palace / Lyon and DAC decisions.