Zamalek SC v. Al-Duhail SC, Ferjani Sassi

II. INTRODUCTION

5. The present arbitration concerns an appeal against a decision (the “Appealed Decision”) rendered by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “FIFA DRC”) in an employmentrelated dispute whereby a claim of the Player against Zamalek was upheld. Zamalek’s response to the Player’s claim as well as its counterclaim (the “Response/Counterclaim”) directed at the Player and Al-Duhail was declared inadmissible.

6. Zamalek is seeking to overturn the Appealed Decision, that its Response/Counterclaim be declared admissible and that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) decides the contractual dispute in its favour, whereas the Respondents, inter alia, contest the admissibility of Zamalek’s appeal and seek for a confirmation of the Appealed Decision.

VI. JURISDICTION

62. The jurisdiction of CAS, which is not disputed, derives from Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes (2021 Edition), as it determines that “[a]ppeals against final decisions passed by FIFA’s legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues shall be lodged with CAS within 21 days of receipt of the decision in question”, and Article R47 CAS Code. The jurisdiction of CAS is not contested by the Parties.

63. It follows that CAS has jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide on the present dispute.

VII. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL

64. The Panel notes that the Parties are in dispute with regard to the admissibility of Zamalek’s appeal.

65. On the one hand, the Respondents maintain that Zamalek’s appeal is inadmissible as: i) Zamalek’s Appeal Brief was filed late and is therefore non-compliant with Articles R31, R32, and R51 CAS Code; ii) Zamalek did not exhaust the internal legal remedies at FIFA prior to filing an appeal with CAS as the Response/Counterclaim has the nature of a “new claim”; iii) Mr Azzam lacks authority to represent Zamalek; and iv) the Respondents lack standing to be sued and that FIFA should have been named as a respondent.

66. Zamalek, on the other hand, holds that its appeal is admissible and that the arguments raised by the Respondents are to be dismissed.

67. The Panel notes that the Statement of Appeal was filed within the deadline of 21 days set by Article 58(1) FIFA Statutes and that the appeal is therefore, in principle, admissible.

68. The Panel finds that some arguments raised by the Respondents do not concern the admissibility of the appeal, but are rather a matter of substance. Accordingly, the arguments raised by the Respondents that are not addressed in this section are addressed below in the section concerning the merits of the case. This particularly concerns the Respondents’ reasoning as to their alleged lack of standing to be sued and their argument that FIFA should have been named as a respondent.

A. The timely filing of the Appeal Brief

69. Article R32 CAS Code provides, inter alia, as follows:

“Upon application on justified grounds and after consultation with the other party (or parties), either the President of the Panel or, if she/he has not yet been appointed, the President of the relevant Division, may extend the time limits provided in these Procedural Rules, with the exception of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, if the circumstances so warrant and provided that the initial time limit has not already expired”.

70. Accordingly, unlike with respect to the Statement of Appeal, the time limit to file the Appeal Brief may be extended upon justified grounds and following consultation with the other party.

71. Zamalek filed three requests for extensions of the time limit to file its Appeal Brief, which were partially granted, as follows:

➢ On 23 February 2022, the CAS Court Office informed Zamalek that it was required to file its Appeal Brief within 10 days following the expiry of its deadline to appeal. This time limit was due to expire on 28 February 2022.

➢ On 28 February 2022, Zamalek filed a reasoned application for an extension of 30 days to file its Appeal Brief.

➢ On the same date, 28 February 2022, the CAS Court Office suspended Zamalek’s time limit to file its Appeal Brief.

➢ On 2 March 2022, the Player objected to Zamalek’s request for an extension of its time limit to file its Appeal Brief. Al-Duhail did not submit any position.

➢ On 4 March 2022, the Deputy of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division extended Zamalek’s time limit to file its Appeal Brief with 20 days. The Parties were also informed that the suspended time limit for Zamalek to file its Appeal Brief resumed.

➢ On 22 March 2022, Zamalek filed a reasoned application for a 10-day extension of the time limit to file its Appeal Brief.

➢ On 23 March 2022, the CAS Court Office suspended Zamalek’s time limit to file its Appeal Brief.

➢ On 24 March 2022, both Respondents indicated that they had no objection to the extension requested by Zamalek.

➢ On 25 March 2022, the CAS Court Office lifted the suspended time limit for Zamalek to file its Appeal Brief and extended it with 10 days.

➢ On 4 April 2022, Zamalek filed a reasoned application for an extension of the time limit to file its Appeal Brief until 8 April 2022.

➢ On the same date, 4 April 2022, the Player objected to Zamalek’s application for a further extension of the time limit to file its Appeal Brief. Al-Duhail did not submit any position.

➢ On 5 April 2022, the CAS Court Office extended Zamalek’s time limit to file its Appeal Brief until 7 April 2022.

➢ On 7 April 2022, Zamalek filed its Appeal Brief with the CAS Court Office.

72. On the basis of the chronology set forth above, the Panel is satisfied that Zamalek duly complied with the time limit to file its Appeal Brief and that all requirements for the various extensions of the time limit were duly complied with.

B. Zamalek’s Alleged Failure to Exhaust FIFA’s Internal Legal Remedies

73. The Appealed Decision is an internally final decision in the sense that no further internal legal remedies were available to challenge it within the organisation of FIFA. The only recourse against the Appealed Decision is filing an appeal with CAS. This is not in dispute between the Parties.

74. Rather, the argument of the Respondents with respect to Zamalek’s alleged failure to exhaust the internal legal remedies appears to be more nuanced. The Panel understands that the Respondents’ argument specifically concerns the counterclaim filed by Zamalek in

the context of the proceedings leading to the Appealed Decision. The Respondents appear to suggest that, if the Response/Counterclaim was wrongly declared inadmissible, CAS should not address the substance of such counterclaim, because this would first have to be assessed by the FIFA DRC.

75. The Panel notes that Article 9(3) FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020) provides, inter alia, as follows:

“In case the opposing party wishes to lodge a counter-claim, it shall submit within the same time limit applicable to the reply its petition […]”.

76. Substantively the same is provided in Article 21(2) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021):

“The respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the claim. A counterclaim shall have the same form as a claim and shall be submitted within the same time limit as that for the response to the claim”.

77. Accordingly, if Zamalek had a counterclaim with respect to the Player’s claim filed against it before the FIFA DRC, it had to file such counterclaim within the time limit granted to it to file a response, otherwise its counterclaim would be inadmissible.

78. As a consequence, the Appealed Decision is relevant for Zamalek in the sense that, if its appeal would be dismissed by this Panel, it is barred from filing its counterclaim with the FIFA DRC at a later point in time.

79. The Panel finds that FIFA’s decision to declare the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible is not a decision that can be independently appealed before CAS. Rather, Zamalek had to wait until the issuance of the Appealed Decision to challenge, inter alia, the decision to declare the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible, not least because the FIFA administration specifically informed Zamalek on 8 December 2021 that “[W]e would like to point out that it will be up to the Dispute Resolution Chamber if it will take int o account the submitted documents or not and how it will proceed with the matter of reference”.

80. FIFA’s letter dated 24 November 2021 was therefore not a final decision with respect to the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim.

81. Consequently, both with respect to the claim filed against it by the Player before the FIFA DRC as well as concerning the counterclaim, Zamalek exhausted all internal legal remedies available to it and filing an appeal against the Appealed Decision does not result in the inadmissibility of Zamalek’s appeal.

C. Mr Azzam’s authority to represent Zamalek

82. Throughout the proceedings, the Player repeatedly questioned the authenticity of the power-of-attorneys provided by Mr Azzam. The Player also questioned whether the person that allegedly signed the power-of-attorney on behalf of Zamalek was authorised to do so.

83. The Panel granted Zamalek various opportunities to file an updated power-of-attorney, with which request it finally complied on 19 July 2022.

84. On 22 July 2022, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties, inter alia, as follows:

“The Parties are informed that the Panel confirms that, unless further objections are raised by the Respondents, [Zamalek] duly complied with its duty to provide a valid Power of Attorney in favour of Mr Nasr El Din Azam, as per the Panel’s order of 15 July 2022”.

85. No objections were raised by the Respondents with respect to the power-of-attorney presented to the CAS Court Office by Zamalek on 19 July 2022. In any event, the Panel has no reason to question the authority of Mr Mortada Mansour, President of Zamalek, to sign the power-of-attorney or question its authenticity.

86. The mere fact that Mr Azzam only presented a power-of-attorney at a relatively late stage of the proceedings does not render his correspondence with the CAS Court Office prior to such date inadmissible.

87. Consequently, the Panel finds that Mr Azzam is and was at all relevant times duly authorised to represent Zamalek.

88. It follows that the appeal is admissible.

VIII. APPLICABLE LAW

89. Article R58 CAS Code provides as follows:

“The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law that the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision”.

90. Article 56(2) FIFA Statutes provides the following:

“The provisions of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration shall apply to the proceedings. CAS shall primarily apply the various regulations of FIFA and, additionally, Swiss law”.

91. Zamalek maintains that, pursuant to Article R58 CAS Code, the regulations of FIFA are primarily applicable and Egyptian law subsidiarily, as Egypt is the place of execution of the Employment Contract.

92. Whereas Al-Duhail does not dedicate any specific submissions on the applicable law in its submission on the Bifurcated Issues, the Player objects to the application of Egyptian law and submits that the regulations of FIFA are primarily applicable and Swiss law subsidiarily, should the need arise to fill a possible gap in the various rules of FIFA.

93. On the basis of Article R58 CAS Code, the Panel finds that the applicable law is comprised of the Statutes and regulations of FIFA and additionally Swiss law to fill in any gaps or lacunae within those regulations. The Parties did not specifically devote any reasoning to the applicable versions of the various regulations of FIFA.

94. Since the Player filed his claim with FIFA on 16 July 2021, i.e. before the implementation of the August 2021 edition of the FIFA RSTP, the February 2021 edition of the FIFA RSTP applies to the substance of the matter at hand.

95. As to the applicable version of the procedural rules, since the Player filed his claim with FIFA on 16 July 2021, the procedure was in principle governed by the June 2020 edition of the FIFA Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020)”).

96. However, on 1 October 2021, i.e. during the proceedings before the FIFA DRC, the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) entered into force.

97. The Panel notes that whereas FIFA’s letters dated 11 August and 2 September 2021, whereby the time limit for the filing of its Response/Counterclaim was communicated to Zamalek, refer to the FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020), FIFA’s letter dated 24 Novembe r 2021 refers to the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021).

98. Article 31(1) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) contains the following transitory provision:

“Procedures that commenced prior to these Rules coming into force shall be subject to these Rules ”.

99. Accordingly, as from 1 October 2021, the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) entered into force, retrospectively governing the proceedings in the matter at hand before the FIFA DRC, including the timely filing of the Response/Counterclaim.

100. As a matter of principle, the Panel finds that Zamalek cannot be disadvantaged by the implementation of a new set of procedural rules that are implemented retrospectively insofar as for example the Response/Counterclaim would have been filed validly under the FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020), but does not comply with one or more admissibility requirements set forth in the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021). This is assessed in more detail with respect to the discussion below about the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim.

IX. MERITS — A. The Bifurcated Issues

101. In this award, the scope of dispute is limited to the following Bifurcated Issues:

i) the admissibility of the present appeal;

ii) the standing to be sued of the Respondents;

iii) the necessity of summoning FIFA as a respondent in the current arbitral proceedings;

iv) the Panel’s scope of review to rule on the admissibility of Zamalek’s Response/Counterclaim; and

v) the admissibility of Zamalek’s Response/Counterclaim.

102. The Panel considered it appropriate to bifurcate the present proceedings, because the arguments raised by the Respondents in this respect could potentially have the effect that the Panel would be barred from assessing the core of the contractual dispute between the Parties.

103. The Bifurcated Issues are so-called threshold issues, i.e. the non-compliance with such prerequisites would result in the inadmissibility or dismissal of Zamalek’s appeal, without the Panel being required to assess the actual contractual dispute between the Parties and deal with questions such as, e.g. whether i) Zamalek has overdue payables towards the Player; ii) the Employment Contract expired or was terminated prematurely; and if so, iii) there was just cause to terminate the Employment Contract prematurely; iv) any of the contractual parties was liable to pay compensation for breach of contract to the counterparty, etc.

104. At the time of the bifurcation of the proceedings, the Respondents had not yet filed any written submission on the substance of the contractual dispute between the Parties. The Panel therefore considered it to be procedurally efficient and in the interest of justice to bifurcate the proceedings and have the Respondents file submissions on the core of the contractual dispute only if deemed appropriate.

105. The CAS Code does not regulate under what conditions a panel may bifurcate the proceedings. Absent an agreement between the Parties, the Panel is guided by Article 182(2) PILA, which provides as follows:

“Where the parties have not determined the procedure, the arbitral tribunal shall determine it to the extent necessary, either directly or by reference to a law or to arbitration rules”.

106. In this respect, the Panel took inspiration from Article 125 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”), which provides as follows:

“In order to simplify the proceedings, the court may, in particular:

a. Limit the proceedings to individual issues or prayers for relief; b. Order the separation of jointly filed actions; c. Order the joinder of separately filed actions; d. Separate the counterclaim from the main proceedings”.

107. The Parties did not raise any objection to the Panel’s decision to bifurcate the proceedings.

108. Notwithstanding Zamalek’s request for a hearing limited to the Bifurcated Issues, the Panel did not consider it necessary to do so, because, as argued by Al-Duhail, the Bifurcated Issues remained largely limited to legal questions and no witnesses were called by the Parties that could testify on any aspect related to the Bifurcated Issues.

109. As the Respondents’ objections to the admissibility of the appeal have already been dismissed above, the Panel will hereinafter discuss the remaining Bifurcated Issues.

110. In light of the foregoing, the main issues to be resolved by the Panel are the following:

i. Do the Respondents have standing to be sued and/or should FIFA have been called as a respondent?

ii. Does the Panel’s scope of review extend to the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim?

iii. Is the evidence filed by Zamalek with respect to the timely filing of the Response/Counterclaim admissible?

iv. Was the Response/Counterclaim admissible?

v. What are the consequences deriving therefrom?

i. Do the Respondents have standing to be sued and/or should FIFA have been called as a respondent?

111. The question of who has standing to be sued, or légitimation passive in French, is a question of the merits implying that if the Respondents’ standing to be sued is denied, then the appeal, albeit admissible, must be dismissed (CAS 2020/A/7144, para. 87 of the abstract published on the CAS website, with further references to SFT 128 III 50 of 16 October 2001, at 55; SFT 4A_424/2008 of 22 January 2009, para. 3.3; CAS 2008/A/1639, para. 3).

112. According to CAS doctrine “a party has standing to be sued only if it has some stake in the dispute because something is sought against it, and is personally obliged by the dispute at stake ” (MAVROMATI/REEB, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials, 2015, p. 411, nr. 65).

113. The Respondents claim that they have no standing to be sued and, at the same time, that FIFA should have been called as a respondent.

114. In its prayers for relief, Zamalek, inter alia, requests the Panel to declare that its Response/Counterclaim, as filed in the proceedings before the FIFA DRC, was admissible. Furthermore, it claims that the Panel has the right to decide on all of Zamalek’s prayers for

relief, including its alleged right to receive compensation for breach of contract from the Respondents and that sporting sanctions are to be imposed on them.

115. Whilst Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes provides that appeals against a decision of a FIFA body must be lodged with CAS, neither the FIFA Statutes, nor the CAS Code, specify against which party such appeal should be lodged, i.e. who has standing to be sued.

116. The Panel agrees with what has been stated in legal doctrine about the different approach between vertical and horizontal disputes, as also endorsed in CAS jurisprudence:

“‘Recent jurisprudence points towards a more nuanced approach, according to which there is room to differentiate in respect of the standing to be sued pursuant to article 75 SCC depending on what kind of decision is being appealed. Various reasons speak in favour of this (flexible) approach’ (HAAS U., Standing to Appeal and Standing to be sued, in International Sport Arbitration, Bern 2018, p. 53-88, para. 49).

This flexible approach consists in differentiating between decisions entailing a vertical element (“vertical disputes”) and decisions entailing a horizontal element (“horizontal disputes”) whilst acknowledging that some decisions may entail both vertical and horizontal elements.

According to Prof. Haas:

‘43. […] Vertical disputes, are characterized by the fact that the association issuing the decision thereby shapes, alters or terminates the membership relation between itself and the member concerned. Vertical disputes typically arise in disciplinary, eligibility or registration contexts’.

whereas

‘44. […] horizontal disputes do not affect the actual membership sphere, i.e. the participation rights of a member in the co-management of the federation’s affairs or the usage rights of an individual member with respect to the associations’ facilities. Instead, horizontal disputes originate in a legal relationship amongst individual members. Examples of horizontal disputes are conflicts relating to the performance or termination of employment contracts (between clubs and players or coaches), agency contracts (between clubs and agents) or transfer contracts (between clubs) All these (horizontal) relationships between the individual members are heavily regulated by the respective federations. FIFA -e.g.- imposes extensive rules with respect to the execution, content and termination of contracts between players (or coaches) and clubs or for the transfer of players between clubs (cfr. Regulations on the status and transfer of players) Those horizontal disputes relationships are, thus, not entered into or executed outside the regulatory authority, but remain under the strict umbrella of FIFA. …’.

Still according to Prof. Haas:

‘51. […] an association’s competence when deciding horizontal disputes is very different from the powers exercised in vertical disputes. The association only intervenes in horizontal disputes if the claim is brought before its association tribunal by one of the members. Thus, it cannot alter the relationship between the parties ex officio, but only intervenes upon a specific request of the parties.

In addition - and very different from vertical disputes - once the association tribunal has exercised its (adjudicatory) function, the association’s powers are at an end. In other words, as soon as the association (through its association tribunal) has exercised its jurisdictional powers, the only remaining persons entitled to freely dispose of the claim underlying the decision are the members’” (CAS 2020/A/7144, paras. 91-94 of the abstract published on the CAS website).

117. The Panel subscribes to these views and considers that for what concerns the case under review, except for the sporting sanctions requested by Zamalek, the present dispute is a purely horizontal dispute between Zamalek on one side and the Respondents on the other, both with respect to the claim as well as to the counterclaim.

118. Indeed, in the proceedings before the FIFA DRC, the Player sought a ruling from the FIFA DRC as the adjudicatory body in charge, requiring Zamalek to comply with its contractual obligations arising out of the Employment Contract.

119. At the same time, with its counterclaim (that was not assessed because it was declared inadmissible), Zamalek sought a ruling from the FIFA DRC as the adjudicatory body in charge, requiring the Player to comply with his contractual obligations arising out of the Employment Contract.

120. Besides potentially imposing sporting sanctions on any of the parties involved in the proceedings before the FIFA DRC, FIFA had no interest in the outcome of such proceedings.

121. FIFA’s decision to declare the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible does not alter the membership relations of any of the Parties vis-à-vis FIFA, but it exclusively alters the contractual rights and obligations between one another. By declaring the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible, the FIFA DRC disposed of Zamalek’s right to seek enforcement of the Employment Contract and thereby intervened in the horizontal relationship of Zamalek vis-à-vis the Respondents.

122. Moreover, once the FIFA DRC rendered the Appealed Decision, its power came to an end and FIFA could no longer dispose of the underlying dispute whilst the Parties can still reach a different agreement, amending partially or reaching an entirely different agreement than the content of the Appealed Decision, which is typical for horizontal disputes.

123. Also, the Panel finds that the FIFA DRC acted as a (quasi-) adjudicative first instance body ruling on the admissibility of a legal submission under the rules contained in the FIFA Statutes, the FIFA RSTP and the FIFA procedural rules. Such situation does not fundamentally differ from the situation in which a civil court assesses the admissibility of a legal submission under national procedural laws. In the latter case, if a party does not agree with the ruling of a first instance civil court considering a submission inadmissible, and such party appeals the first instance ruling, it is not required to direct its appeal against or include the first instance court as a respondent in its appeal. The same logic should apply to appeals before the CAS for what concerns purely procedural issues.

124. Moreover, the Panel is comforted in reaching the above conclusion, keeping in mind other CAS jurisprudence in which the following is held:

“With regard to the allegation that FIFA should have been summoned by the Appellant as a necessary party in the present proceedings (in order for the Panel to adjudicate the issue of FIFA’s jurisdiction), the Panel agrees with CAS consistent jurisprudence according to which in cases where FIFA merely acts as the legal body rendering the lower-instance decision, i.e. in cases which do not involve FIFA’s disciplinary powers (so-called “horizontal disputes”), as in the present case, FIFA has the opportunity to participate in the CAS proceedings but is not a necessary party, nor the Appellant has the burden to summon FIFA 2015/A/3896, para. 89 of the abstract published on the CAS website).

125. FIFA’s reliance on CAS 2016/A/4836 by means of its letter to the CAS Court Office in the matter at hand dated 7 March 2022, does not lead the Panel to any different view. Such CAS award concerns an issue related to jurisdiction, while the present matter concerns the admissibility of a response/counterclaim. CAS 2016/A/4836 is further to be distinguished from the matter at hand because the appellant in such case did not request CAS to rule on the substance of the contractual dispute, while Zamalek does request the Panel to do so. Finally, the appellant in CAS 2016/A/4836 “emphasised that the contractual dispute between the Parties is not the issue of the present proceedings and that his Appeal is only directed against the decision of the FIFA PSC declining jurisdiction” (CAS 2016/A/4836, para. 73 of the abstract published on the CAS website), while Zamalek maintains that the contractual dispute between the Parties is at stake. In any event, the Panel finds that the appeal before it is horizontal for the reasons set forth in this section of the award and favours the approach set forth in CAS 2015/A/3896.

126. The consequence of the above analysis is that the Player has standing to be sued. Indeed, should the Player not have been called as a respondent, the Panel would not have been able to set aside the Appealed Decision, because the Player would be prejudiced by such decision as he would not be able to enforce the Appealed Decision against Zamalek, while not being heard in the appeals proceedings.

127. Also Al-Duhail has standing to be sued. While Al-Duhail was not a party to the proceedings before the FIFA DRC that resulted in the Appealed Decision, had Al-Duhail not been called as respondent, it would arguably no longer have to fear a claim being filed against it by Zamalek at a later stage, because such claim would be inadmissible on the basis of Article 9(3) FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020) or Article 21(2) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021), as set out above. However, if the Response/Counterclaim is retrospectively declared admissible in the present appeal arbitration proceedings, Al-Duhail’s liability cannot be definitely discounted. Such potentially prejudicial decision cannot be issued without respecting Al-Duhail’s right to be heard.

128. However, as to FIFA, based on the reasoning set forth above, the Panel finds that it was not necessary for Zamalek to call FIFA as a respondent, as Zamalek is not seeking anything from FIFA.

129. Should FIFA have desired to be heard as a party in the present proceedings, it could have applied for its intervention on the basis of Articles R41.3 and R52.2 CAS Code, but it explicitly renounced to such right on 7 March 2022. Also, should the Respondents have desired that FIFA would be included as a party, they could have filed an application for joinder on the basis of Article R41.2 CAS Code, but the Respondents did not avail themselves of such opportunity.

130. As already alluded to above, the Panel finds that there is one caveat. Without FIFA being called as a respondent in the present appeal arbitration proceedings, the Panel is prevented from imposing sporting sanctions on the Player and/or Al-Duhail. This is because imposing sporting sanctions is primarily the prerogative of FIFA, which renders it a vertical element in the present proceedings the Panel cannot dispose of without FIFA’s involvement as a party.

131. Consequently, on the basis of all the above, the Panel finds that the Respondents have standing to be sued and that Zamalek was not required to call FIFA as a respondent to potentially obtain the relief requested, except insofar as it concerns the request to impose sporting sanctions on the Player and Al-Duhail.

ii. Does the Panel’s scope of review extend to assessing the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim?

132. The Player maintains that the scope of the Panel’s jurisdiction is defined in Article R57 CAS Code. In the present case, contrary to Article R57 CAS Code, pursuant to Article 75 SCC, the Panel’s scope of review is of a strictly “cassatory” nature. On this basis, the Player argues that the Panel may only confirm or annul the Appealed Decision.

133. The Player also submits that the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim falls outside of the scope of appeal as the Respondents lack standing to be sued in this arbitration procedure. In this regard, he refers to the fact that the contractual dispute between the Parties is not the issue in the current procedure.

134. In this respect, Al-Duhail submits that, if one were to reassess FIFA on its own competence, Article 21 FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) would be obsolete. In Al-Duhail’s opinion, Article 21 FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) effectuates that it is within FIFA’s own competence whether documents filed meet the requirements under the applicable procedural rules and can be admitted. Therefore, Al-Duhail holds that the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim falls outside the Panel’s scope of review.

135. Zamalek maintains that it did not commit any procedural default pertaining to the present appeal, and hence the Panel shall have an absolute scope to rule on the admissibility of Zamalek’s Response/Counterclaim.

136. As discussed above, the Panel finds that it was not necessary for Zamalek to summon FIFA as a party in these proceedings given the horizontal nature of the dispute and, conversely, that the Respondents have standing to be sued. Except for the element of Zamalek’s request for

sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondents, the Panel’s scope of review is not limited, but it is competent to rule on Zamalek’s prayers for relief.

137. Article R57 CAS Code provides for a de novo review:

“The Panel has full power to review the facts and the law. […]”.

138. It has been consistently held in CAS jurisprudence that the principle of de novo review means that procedural defects that occurred before the previous instance are, in principle, cured by means of an appeals arbitration procedure before CAS.

139. CAS panels decide de novo and therefore have full competence to review the facts and the law, without restriction. If this would be otherwise, procedural flaws at the previous instance could not be healed in a proceeding before the CAS.

140. This view is supported by CAS jurisprudence:

“CAS jurisprudence shows that the type of decision which an appeal panel may make is described in the second sentence of Article R57 of the CAS Code which states that the appeal panel “may issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and refer the case back to the previous instance”. This description does not seek to limit the powers of the appeal panel or that it can only act if it finds error in the initial decision or award (CAS 2008/A/1574). Indeed, CAS appeals arbitration proceedings allow the parties ample latitude not only to present written submissions with new evidence, but also to have an oral hearing during which witnesses are examined and cross-examined, evidence is provided and comprehensive pleadings can be made (CAS 2009/A/1880-1881, §18). CAS does not act as an administrative court reviewing an act of an administrative authority where, usually, the scope of review is characterised by minimum standards of scrutiny, mostly procedural, and the administrative court may not substitute its own judgement for that of the administrative authority. Typically, administrative courts may only control the fairness and correctness of the previous procedure, the way in which the decision was arrived at, the reasons given for the decision, the competence of the body adopting the decision and the like. In contrast, it is the duty of a CAS panel in an appeals arbitration procedure to make its independent determination of whether the Appellant’s and Respondent’s contentions are correct on the merits, not limiting itself to assessing the correctness of the previous procedure and decision (CAS 2009/A/1880- 1881, §22)” (CAS 2012/A/2900, para. 98 of the abstract published on the CAS website).

141. In view of its full power of review, the Panel rejects the Respondents’ argument that it would not be entitled to review the FIFA DRC’s decision to declare the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible. Such decision forms part of the Appealed Decision and is therefore appealable.

142. Article 21(1), (2) and (3) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) provide as follows:

“1. After determining that the claim is complete, and (where relevant) if the procedure is to continue following the conclusion of any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA general secretariat will request that the respondent(s) submit their response to the claim within the time limit granted. If the

respondent(s) fail(s) to submit a response to the claim within the time limit, a decision will be made based on the file.

2. The respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the claim. A counterclaim shall have the same form as a claim and shall be submitted within the same time limit as that for the response to the claim.

3. If a party submits a new claim which is related to an existing case in which it is a respondent, the new claim shall be joined with the existing case and treated as a counterclaim in the existing case. Where the party has already been notified of the existing case, the new claim must have been submitted within the same time limit as that for the response to the claim in the existing case in order to be considered”.

143. The Panel rejects the argument submitted by Al-Duhail that Article 21 FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) restricts the Panel’s full power of review, and adheres to the view supported by the prevailing CAS jurisprudence that, based on Article R27 CAS Code, a federation cannot deviate from the full power of review of their case by the CAS (RIGOZZI/ HASLER, n. 13, in: ARROYO (Ed.), Arbitration in Switzerland – The Practitioner’s Guide, p. 1039).

144. Of course, the FIFA DRC was entitled to decide on the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim. However, in view of the decision to declare the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible, Zamalek is entitled to challenge the Appealed Decision, including the decision to declare the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible, and the Panel is entitled to review such decision. Indeed, if the Panel finds that the Response/Counterclaim was illegitimately declared inadmissible, the Panel can cure such default.

145. Unlike suggested by the Respondents, this does not mean that Article 21 FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) is obsolete. Rather, the Panel shall assess whether the Response/Counterclaim is inadmissible or not and is guided in this respect by the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021), including Article 21.

146. Consequently, the Panel finds that its scope of review extends to assessing the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim filed before the FIFA DRC.

iii. Is the evidence filed by Zamalek with respect to the timely filing of the Response/Counterclaim admissible?

147. The Respondents maintain that the evidence provided by Zamalek as to the alleged timely dispatch of its Response/Counterclaim is to be disregarded by the Panel, as they consider it to be filed in violation of Articles R44.2, R56 and R57(3) CAS Code, as such evidence was available to Zamalek or could reasonably have been discovered by Zamalek before the Appealed Decision was rendered, and as there are no exceptional circumstances justifying submitting the proof of timely delivery of the Response/Counterclaim as new evidence.

148. As indicated above, on 7 December 2021, Zamalek provided FIFA with information about sending a hardcopy of the Response/Counterclaim with ABS on 15 September 2021. Annexed to this correspondence are way bills of ABS and of DHL.

149. The Panel notes that, in the Appealed Decision, the FIFA DRC assessed Zamalek’s letter dated 7 December 2021 and the evidence annexed thereto. Indeed, the Appealed Decision provides as follows in this respect:

“In this regard, the Chamber noted the allegation of [Zamalek] that it had delivered the submission to a local courier on 15 September 2021, before it was given to DHL on 20 September 2021. The DRC analysed the documentation on file, especially the alleged receipt of the local courier and concluded that the Respondent did not submit sufficient proof of its allegation. The alleged receipt of the courier does not contain the date of 15 September 2021 and there is no reference to the case.

On account of the above, the DRC concluded that the [Response/Counterclaim] was submitted on 20 September 2021, the date it was dispatched to DHL and five days after the time-limit had expired”.

150. Accordingly, the evidence annexed to Zamalek’s letter dated 7 December 2021 formed part of the case file in the proceedings before the FIFA DRC, was not declared inadmissible, and was assessed in the Appealed Decision. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the re is no reason to exclude such evidence from the present appeal arbitration proceedings before CAS.

151. Article R51 CAS Code, inter alia, provides as follows:

“Within ten days following the expiry of the time limit for the appeal, the Appellant shall file with the CAS Court Office a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal, together with all exhibits and specification of other evidence upon which it intends to rely”.

152. Zamalek duly submitted the evidence it wished to rely upon with its Appeal Brief. For such filing no exceptional circumstances are required. This is only the case for evidence submitted after the filing of the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, also this aspect of the Respondents’ objection is to be dismissed, as no evidence was submitted by Zamalek after the filing of its Appeal Brief.

153. The Panel however notes that, in trying to establish that the Response/Counterclaim was filed timely with the FIFA DRC, Zamalek also relies on evidence that was not relied upon in the proceedings before the FIFA DRC. Indeed, with its Appeal Brief, Zamalek submitted a statement allegedly issued by ABS on the letterhead of ABS, but undated and unsigned, providing as follows:

“To whom it may concern,

We, Express Courier, is a courier & freight systems company, we work with DHL Company as an agency such that collect shipments from clients to be sent via DHL which proceeds with sending the clients’ shipments to abroad.

On 15 September, we, ABS Express Courier, collected from Sport Makers Law Firm a shipment with code 5078777830 to be delivered to Zurich, Switzerland and we provided them with a receipt dated 15 September 2021.

The aforementioned shipment was sent via the DHL after completing the internal procedures. According to our system, this is the only shipment we received from Sport Makers on 15 September 2021.

Should you have any queries or comments on any of the above, please feel free to contact us at: [email address]”.

154. Article R57 CAS Code, inter alia, provides as follows:

“The Panel has discretion to exclude evidence presented by the parties if it was available to them or could reasonably have been discovered by them before the challenged decision was rendered. Articles

155. As to the newly provided evidence, the Panel subscribes to CAS jurisprudence and legal doctrine, according to which the possibility of dismissing evidence on the basis of Article R57 CAS Code is to be used with restraint:

Regarding the discretion a CAS panel has to exclude evidence on this basis, the Panel observes that legal scholars have expressed the opinion that such discretion should be exercised by a CAS panel with caution:

“The new provision raised some criticism, and it has been (rightly) supported that it should be used with restraint in order to preserve the fundamental de novo character of the review by the CAS” (MAVROMATI/REEB, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, 2015, p. 519).

This provision appears to excessively limit the right to be heard (which includes the right to submit evidence (SFT 4A_600/2010, §4.1)) and to contradict the de novo character of CAS proceedings, by creating an unwarranted link between the evidence presented during the internal proceedings of a sports organization and the evidence presented before the CAS. Given that CAS arbitration is alternative to State jurisdiction, and has thus a legal nature which is very different from that of the intra-association proceedings held within sports organizations, it is submitted that CAS arbitrators should resort to this discretionary power to exclude evidence only in the most extreme cases, e.g. when it is utterly evident that a party is acting in bad faith and is ambushing the other party” (COCCIA M., International Sports Justice: The Court of Arbitration for Sport, European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin, Issue I-2013, p. 58).

[T]his new provision should be applied with caution, so as not to impinge upon the fundamental principle of de novo review by the CAS. The amendment may make sense in those cases where the CAS acts as a second instance arbitral tribunal, reviewing an award rendered by another arbitral panel at the end of genuine arbitral proceedings. But in appeals proceedings against decisions rendered by the hearing bodies of sports-governing organizations, where the curing effect of a full, de novo review by the CAS assumes all its importance, we believe Panels should use the discretion now granted to them by Article R57 only in those cases where the adducing of pre-existing evidence

amounts to abusive or otherwise unacceptable procedural conduct by a party” (RIGOZZI/HASLER/QUINN, The 2011, 2012 and 2013 revisions of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Jusletter, 3 June 2013, p. 14)” (CAS 2016/A/4704, para. 81 of the abstract published on the CAS website).

156. Submitting additional evidence of sending the Response/Counterclaim with FIFA timely is, in principle, admissible. There is no indication that Zamalek would have intentionally withheld such evidence in the proceedings before the FIFA DRC. Rather, since the FIFA DRC was not convinced by the evidence provided by Zamalek, the Panel considers it legitimate for Zamalek to try and gather additional evidence to convince the Panel in the present appeal arbitration proceedings that the Response/Counterclaim was filed with FIFA already on 15 September 2021.

157. Consequently, the Panel finds that the evidence filed by Zamalek with respect to the timely filing of the Response/Counterclaim before the FIFA DRC is admissible, which conclusion is however without prejudice to the evidentiary value thereof, which is assessed separately below.

iv. Was the Response/Counterclaim admissible?

a. Was the Response/Counterclaim to be sent by Zamalek on 15 September 2021 or did FIFA have to receive it by such date?

158. It is undisputed between the Parties that the deadline for Zamalek to file its Response/Counterclaim was 15 September 2021.

159. While Zamalek maintains that it submitted the Response/Counterclaim in a timely manner by delivering it to ABS on 15 September 2021, the Respondents argue that this was not the case, as did the FIFA DRC in the Appealed Decision.

160. In assessing whether the Response/Counterclaim was filed timely, and in light of the discussion above as to the applicable version of the FIFA procedural rules, the Panel will first assess whether the Response/Counterclaim was filed timely in accordance with the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021), because of the transitory provision determining that such rules are also applicable to procedures that commenced prior to the implementation thereof. However, should this result in a conclusion that the Response/Counterclaim was inadmissible, the Panel will assess whether such conclusion would be different if the FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020) were applied, because the Panel finds that Zamalek cannot be disadvantaged by the retrospective implementation of a new set of procedural rules that could not have been taken into account at the time of filing of the Response/Counterclaim.

161. First of all, the positions of the Parties differ as to whether the Response/Counterclaim had to be received by FIFA on 15 September 2021 or whether it was sufficient for Zamalek to send the Response/Counterclaim to FIFA on such date.

162. Article 21(1) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) provides as follows:

“After determining that the claim is complete, and (where relevant) if the procedure is to continue following the conclusion of any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA general secretariat will request that the respondent(s) submit their response to the claim within the time limit granted. If the respondent(s) fail(s) to submit a response to the claim within the time limit, a decision will be made based on the file” (emphasis added by the Panel).

163. Pursuant to Article 21(2) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021), the aforementioned time limit applies ipso facto to the filing of a counterclaim.

164. Article 11(4) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) provides as follows:

“A time limit is deemed to have been complied with if the action required or requested has been completed by latest the last day of the time limit at the location of the party’s domicile, even where the party has appointed an authorised representative with a different domicile”.

165. Reading Article 21(1) in conjunction with Article 11(4) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021), the Panel finds that the relevant element for the timely submission of the Response/Counterclaim is whether it was submitted in Egypt on 15 September 2021 at the latest.

166. The Panel is further comforted in this understanding based on the reasoning of the FIFA DRC in the Appealed Decision, insofar it indicates that Zamalek provided insufficient proof of its allegation that it had delivered the Response/Counterclaim to a local courier on 15 September 2021 and that “the DRC concluded that the [Response/Counterclaim] was submitted on 20 September 2021, the date it was dispatched to DHL and five days after the time-limit had expired”.

167. Indeed, this suggests that the FIFA DRC considered that the Response/Counterclaim was “submitted” on 20 September 2021. 20 September 2021 was the date of sending, not the date of receipt, which was 22 September. Accordingly, should Zamalek be able to establish that, contrary to the FIFA DRC’s conclusion, the Response/Counterclaim was not submitted on 20 September 2021, but already on 15 September 2021, the Response/Counterclaim should have been considered to have been filed timely.

168. Furthermore, if the Response/Counterclaim should have been received by FIFA on 20 September 2021, any discussion as to whether the Response/Counterclaim would have been filed on 15 September 2021 or on 20 September 2021 would be obsolete, because under either scenario the Response/Counterclaim would have been filed late, given that it was only received by FIFA on 22 September 2021.

169. The same applies to the reasoning of the FIFA administration in its letter dated 24 November 2021, where it was concluded that the Response/Counterclaim was “sent on 20 September 2021, i.e. after expiry of the time-limit set by the FIFA administration (15 September 2021)”.

Indeed, the reference to 20 September 2021 is only relevant if the Response/Counterclaim had to be filed on 15 September 2021, rather than received.

170. Finally, although not discussed between the Parties, the Panel notes that the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) no longer appear to allow for the submission of documents to FIFA by regular mail or by courier, because Article 10(1) FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021) provides that “[c]ommunications may be undertaken via email or the Transfer Matching System”.

171. Since it is not in dispute that Zamalek only filed its Response/Counterclaim to FIFA by courier, this would in principle appear to be an invalid submission.

172. The Panel notes that, pursuant to the FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020), submission of documents shall in principle be conducted by email. However, Article 9bis(1) FIFA Procedural Rules (June 2020) provides, inter alia, that “[a]lternatively, submissions may also be transmitted by regular mail or courier”.

173. On this basis, and given that the Response/Counterclaim was submitted by Zamalek before the implementation of the FIFA Procedural Rules (October 2021), the Panel finds that transmission by courier of the Response/Counterclaim was valid.

174. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Response/Counterclaim had to be sent by Zamalek on 15 September 2021.

b. Was the Response/Counterclaim timely submitted by Zamalek?

175. As to the submission of the Response/Counterclaim, the Panels considers it to be particularly relevant to look at the contemporaneous evidence, i.e. the evidence related to the moment of filing that was available before FIFA declared it inadmissible.

176. In this respect, the Panel notes that FIFA, by letter dated 24 November 2021, informed Zamalek and the Player, inter alia, that “[a]ccording to the documentation from DHL, such correspondence was sent on 20 September 2021, i.e. after expiry of the time-limit set by the FIFA administration (15 September 2021)”, and attaching such documentation received from DHL to its letter.

177. The relevant documentation of DHL is depicted below. For present purposes, it is relevant to note that in the top left corner reference is made to “2021-09-15 MYDHL”:

178. From the document depicted above, FIFA inferred that the Response/Counterclaim was dispatched on 20 September 2021.

179. While the Panel notes that it is true that the label on the right side refers to the date of 20 September 2021, it is not clear to the Panel why FIFA did not consider the reference to 15 September 2021 on the label on the left side to be relevant.

180. The two labels depicted above contain the same way bill number. Indeed, both contain the following information: “WAYBILL 50 7877 7830”. The Panel finds that this supports Zamalek’s argument that both labels are connected as well as the dates of 15 September 2021 and 20 September 2021.

181. Indeed, the Panel considers this to be very strong evidence in support of Zamalek’s position that it filed the Response/Counterclaim on 15 September 2021 via a local courier and that the shipment was subsequently handed over from the local courier to DHL on 20 September 2021 and was ultimately delivered at FIFA on 22 September 2021.

182. Furthermore, included in the documents provided to FIFA by Zamalek on 7 December 2021 is a “Shipment Receipt”, which contains, inter alia, the following information:

“Shipment From

Sport Makers Law& Management Firm”

[…]

Shipment To

FIFA

[…]

Shipment Date: 2021-09-15

Waybill Number: 5078777830

[…]

Estimated Del date: Thursday, 23 Set. 2021”.

183. Finally, although the evidentiary value is somewhat limited because the document is neither signed nor dated, the statement from ABS relied upon by Zamalek also confirms Zamalek’s argument that the Response/Counterclaim was submitted on 15 September 2021.

184. The Respondents provided no evidence that the evidence presented by Zamalek was forged. Indeed, as indicated above, the Panel finds that in particular the waybill referred to by FIFA in its letter 24 November 2021 is convincing as it predates the dispute a s to the timely submission of the Response/Counterclaim. At such point in time, there was no incentive for Zamalek to forge any document, because it submitted its Response/Counterclaim to FIFA in a timely manner.

185. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Response/Counterclaim filed before the FIFA DRC was admissible.

v. What are the consequences deriving therefrom?

186. The Panel first of all finds that, by declaring the Response/Counterclaim inadmissible, the FIFA DRC violated Zamalek’s right to be heard with respect to the claim filed against it by the Player and illegitimately did not address Zamalek’s counterclaim.

187. This situation needs to be repaired insofar as possible.

188. As indicated above, based on Article R57 CAS Code, the Panel is authorised to issue a new decision which replaces the Appealed Decision or annul the Appealed Decision and refer the case back to the FIFA DRC. The Panel is afforded discretion in this respect and no particular request from any of the Parties is required to choose for either of these options.

189. Notwithstanding its competence to decide on the contractual dispute between the Parties itself, the Panel believes it would be fair and appropriate to refer the present case back to the FIFA DRC for adjudication and a decision on the merits.

190. Indeed, because of the severe violation of Zamalek’s right to be heard, the Panel finds it appropriate that the FIFA DRC assesses the merits of the case first, before CAS can potentially do so on appeal, as this is what should have happened in the first place.

191. In this respect, the Panel also takes into account the Respondents’ implicit stance/request to refer the case back to FIFA in case Zamalek’s Response/Counterclaim would be deemed admissible:

➢ Al-Duhail argues that CAS should not and cannot enter in the present appeal proceedings into the substance of such new claim. In the present matter, CAS acts as an appeal body, not as a court of first instance with respect to Zamalek’s counterclaim.

➢ The Player argues that, if Zamalek is granted the relief it seeks, the matter will be referred to the FIFA DRC who will consider Zamalek’s Response/Counterclaim and Zamalek will have the right to defend itself.

192. The Panel finds that it would indeed be appropriate for the FIFA DRC to assess the full case file and issue a new decision, fully respecting all parties’ right to be heard. If the Panel would issue a decision on the substance of the Parties’ contractual dispute, the Parties would be deprived of one level of jurisdiction. Because the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim may have a major impact on the outcome of the proceedings, the Panel decides to refer the case back to FIFA for a new decision on the merits.

193. The Panel therefore only rules on Zamalek’s prayer for relief no. 1 and intentionally leaves Zamalek’s additional prayers for relief undecided.

194. Zamalek’s prayer for relief no. 1 provides as follows:

“To declare that the Appellant’s Counterclaim dated 15 September 2020 submitted to the FIFA is admissible and thus that the Honorable panel has the right to decide on all the requests of the Appellant against the Respondents including the right to receive compensation and imposing sporting sanctions”.

195. For the reasons set out above, the Panel decides to grant prayer for relief no. 1, albeit that the case is referred back to the FIFA DRC rather than that the Panel exercises its right to decide on the substance of the dispute itself. However, as considered above, one element

of this prayer for relief is to be dismissed, because the Panel is not competent to rule on Zamalek’s request to impose sporting sanctions on the Respondents without FIFA being called as a party. As a consequence thereof, Zamalek’s appeal is only partially upheld.

196. Finally, for the sake of completeness, the Panel wishes to note that, as the present case is referred back to the FIFA DRC, this arbitral award is not a final award, but an incidental award. In this regard, the Panel refers to ATF 140 III 520 par. 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. and cases quoted, which stipulates as follows (in a free translation into English):

“The decision of the appeal authority to annul the contested decision and to refer the case back to the authority of first instance for investigation and a new decision on the merits is qualified as an incidental decision by the federal case law, even though it puts an end to the appeal proceedings (cf. ATF 137 V 314 consid. 1 p. 315; ATF 135 V 141 consid. 1.1; ATF 135 III 329 consid. 1.2). It is justified to apply the same principle by analogy to the appeal procedure before the CAS, the idea being that, in this case too, the aim is to ensure that the Federal Supreme Court only has to deal with a case once, subject to the exceptions allowed by the case law (ATF 130 III 755 recital 1.2).

[…]

The CAS annulled the decision submitted to it after having found a major defect in the procedure relating to it; then, using the option granted to it by art. R57 para. 1 of the Code, it referred the case back to the DRC for a new decision. In so doing, it undoubtedly closed the appeal procedure pending before it; it did not, however, render a final award, in the particular sense of this notion”.

B. Conclusion

197. Based on the foregoing, the Panel holds that:

i) The Respondents have standing to be sued and Zamalek was not required to call FIFA as a respondent to potentially obtain the relief requested, except insofar as it concerns the request to impose sporting sanctions on the Player and Al-Duhail.

ii) Its scope of review extends to assessing the admissibility of the Response/Counterclaim filed before the FIFA DRC.

iii) The evidence filed by Zamalek with respect to the timely filing of the Response/Counterclaim before the FIFA DRC is admissible.

iv) The Response/Counterclaim filed before the FIFA DRC was admissible.

v) The proceedings are referred back to the FIFA DRC for adjudication and a new decision, this time considering the Response/Counterclaim admissible.

vi) All other and further prayers for relief are deliberately not addressed.