Pharco SC v. Moses Turay

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced first in writing and then at an oral hearing held on 12 June 2025. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in the present proceedings, he refers in his Award only to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain his reasoning.

A. The Contract and the Internal Regulations

The Contract

5. The Player signed a professional contract with the Club on 25 July 2023 (the “Contract”).

6. There was a dispute between the Parties as to the correct version of the Contract. By the end of the evidentiary phase of the appeal, there were four versions before the Sole Arbitrator: the first version was that adduced by the Player during the first instance proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “FIFA DRC”); the second version was exhibited by the Club to its Appeal Brief; the third version was referred to and included within the written report of the Club’s expert witness; and the fourth version was provided to the Sole Arbitrator by the Egyptian Football Association (the “EFA”) at the Sole Arbitrator’s request. Each version bore on every page the signature of a representative of the Club and the Club seal (via a stamp). Each page also contained, in a box titled ‘Signature of Second party’, a signature attributed to the Player.

7. The relevant substantive terms of the Contract were, save for one exception that is explained below, identical in each of the four versions and undisputed by the Parties.

8. The Contract was due to last four seasons, beginning from the start of season 2023/24, and concluding at the end of season 2026/27.

9. The ‘contract gross’ amount was stated to be USD 310,000, with USD 60,000 payable in the first season, 2023/24. That USD 60,000 amount was agreed to be payable as follows:

➢ One initial instalment of USD 15,000 was to be payable on 30 August 2023; and

➢ Thereafter, instalments of USD 3,000 were to be payable monthly on the 30th of every month.

10. The remainder of the payment terms of the Contract were similarly structured, with a larger initial payment forming the August instalment and smaller amounts payable on the 30th of the month for the remainder of the year. In season 2024/25, the initial payment rose to USD 17,500 and the monthly payment rose to USD 3,500. In season 2025/26, the initial payment rose to USD 20,000 and the monthly payment rose to USD 4,000. And in season 2026/27, the initial payment rose to USD 25,000 and the monthly payment rose to USD 5,000.

11. The Contract was silent as to the method by which payment would be made. In the event, all payments that were made to the Player by the Club were made in cash. At the hearing, both parties explained that this practice (which was routinely followed by the Club in respect of its foreign players) was as a result of a financial crash affecting Egypt’s domestic currency.

12. The Player was ‘obligated’ to ‘[t]o the extent reasonable, … respect the rules and regulations of the club and the association and compl[y] … with the reasonable instructions of the management ...’.

13. The Contract provided that it would be ‘signed in (4) four copies; one for the club; one for the player; one for the branch; one for the Egyptian Football Association. If the player does not have a copy of his employment contract, he can turn to the club and/or the Egyptian Football Association to request a copy which will be provided within 3 working days of such request.’ This explained the multiple versions that were ultimately before the Sole Arbitrator.

14. As regards termination provisions, the Parties agreed that:

➢ ‘The employment contract maybe [sic] terminated by mutual agreement’.

➢ ‘The Player or Club cannot unilaterally terminate the contract unless the right to terminate the contract is stipulated in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (‘FIFA RSTP’). Particular reference is made to art. 13, art 14, and art 14bis and 17 of the FIFA RSTP, which state that a party may terminate a contract where there is just cause If [sic] there is just cause, the contract may be terminated at any time, even during the course of a season.’

15. The Contract provided that it ‘should be certified and the club shall pay for the fees of certifying.’ It does not appear that this clause was complied with. No certified copy was adduced by either Party.

16. Finally, in a section headed ‘Additional Provision’, there were a number of hand-written clauses inserted, including the following:

‘Both Parties agreed That The financial and organizational executive regulations of The club’s first football Team for all contracting seasons are deemed an integral part of Those

contracts and complimentary Thereof. Items mentioned in That regulation To work accordingly and The new interpretation of some The regulations provisions and any decisions issued by The club’s board of directors in this regard without violating The regulations of The Egyptian football Association and The international football Association and shall be binding upon both Parties [sic].’

17. The Contract required that ‘[a]ny intermediary agent participating in the negotiation of the contract his name must be mentioned in this contract [sic].’ The Contact also included a section for details of any intermediaries involved in the transfer to be disclosed. This section was struck through in pen, with no such details added.

18. As to the differences between the four versions:

➢ In one of the versions (that adduced by the Player before the FIFA DRC) the handwritten clause referred to at paragraph 16, above, is missing. It features in the other three versions.

➢ Aside from the above, the content of the substantive clauses is identical in all four versions. The clauses and contact details that were handwritten appear to have been written by the same author but have been re-produced anew on each version.

➢ The cover page of the Contract provided spaces to enter relevant details of each Party. On the version exhibited with the Club’s Appeal Brief, the spaces for the Club’s phone number, fax number and email address were left blank. On both the versions referred to by the Club’s expert witness and provided by the EFA, those details were included. In the space for the Club’s email address to be provided, it appears that the following address was written in: ‘pharco-club@pharcocorp.com’.

➢ While on the version exhibited to the Appeal Brief, the Player’s address was included, it was omitted from the versions assessed by the Club’s expert and submitted by the EFA.

The Internal Regulations

19. As noted above, the Contract incorporated by reference the Club’s internal regulations. The version adduced by the Club was titled ‘Financial and Administrative Regulation for Organizing work at the football first team – Pharco Club in the Premium League [sic] in Season 2021/22’ (the “Internal Regulations”). Although the title of the Internal Regulations pointed to the season before the Player joined the Club, the version adduced by the Club ostensibly contained the Player’s signature on each page. The relevant provisions of the Internal Regulations are detailed below.

20. The ‘Preamble’ stated that ‘[t]he regulation is an integral part of the contract made between the club as First Party and the player as second party and the played agent signing on the contract if any third party. It includes the rights, duties and obligations agreed upon between the parties signing on the contract notarized by the Egyptian Football Association. If the board of directors of the club issues any instructions

regarding amendment or interpretation of some terms whether by addition or deletion, they constitute part of the player’s contract unless they violate the instructions of the Egyptian Football Association and FIFA …’.

21. In Article One, Part B (headed ‘Accommodation, Housing, internal and external camps’) it stated that ‘[a] suitable furnished housing shall be provided for the expatriate player accompanying his family or as stipulated in the contract in the term related to housing in the additional terms, if any.’

22. In Article One, Part C (headed ‘Foreign Players’), it stated that ‘[a]s stipulated in the players’ contracts in the special and additional terms stated in the contract regarding the player or his travel tickets. If there is no direct stipulation in the contract, 2 round trip tickets shall be paid from his original motherland to A.R.E. The foreign player has no right to travel outside Egypt unless upon the technical director and football manager’s written consent and upon the approval of Mr. General Supervisor.’

23. Under an unnumbered Article headed ‘Penalties and Sanctions’, the Internal Regulations provided that ‘[i]f the foreign or Egyptian player travels without written permission from the technical director and football manager and the approval of Mr. the General Supervisor and Mr. Head of the Club, 30% of the player’s contract shall be deducted.’

B. The Payments

24. It is undisputed that on 30 August 2023, in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Player received USD 15,000 in cash from the Club (the “August Instalment”). The Club adduced a cash receipt, ostensibly signed by the Player and bearing his fingerprint (the “August Cash Receipt”). The August Cash receipt stated that it related to ‘The First Installment [sic] an amount of 15000 Usd paid on 30/08/2023.’

25. The Club’s position is that, on 20 September 2023, in accordance with the terms of the Contract, a member of its finance team gave the Player USD 3,000 in cash. Again, the Club adduced a cash receipt ostensibly signed by the Player (but not bearing his fingerprint (the “September Cash Receipt”)). The September Cash Receipt stated that it related to ‘The Second Installment [sic] an amount of 3000 Usd paid on 29 September 2023’ (the “September Instalment”). As will be discussed below, the Player’s position is that he did not receive the September Instalment and the signature that the Club claims belongs to him on the September Cash Receipt is a forgery. As is also discussed further below, there are discrepancies in the Player’s account as to what happened next. For the first time during the proceedings, in oral evidence at the hearing the Player suggested that he had chased immediately and repeatedly for payment of the September Instalment after the date it fell due. The Club disputes this.

26. It is undisputed, however, that on 30 October 2023, in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Player received USD 3,000 in cash from the Club (the “October Instalment”). The Club adduced a cash receipt, ostensibly signed by the Player and bearing his fingerprint (the “October Cash Receipt”). The October Cash receipt stated that it related to ‘The Third Installment [sic] an amount of 3000 Usd paid on 30/10/2023.’

27. Whilst this was not always the Player’s position (as explained below), by the time of the hearing, it was undisputed that on 28 November 2023, in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Player received USD 3,000 in cash from the Club (the “November Instalment”). The Club adduced a cash receipt, ostensibly signed by the Player and bearing his fingerprint (the “November Cash Receipt”). The November Cash receipt stated that it related to ‘The Fourth Installment [sic] an amount of 3000 Usd paid on 28/11/2023.’

28. A further instalment of USD 3,000 was payable under the terms of the Contract on 30 December 2023 (the “December Instalment”). As discussed below, events took over and the December Instalment was never paid to the Player. No further payments were made by the Club to the Player.

C. The Player’s absence

29. While the Player participated in training and several friendly matches, he did not make a first team appearance for the Club.

30. On 13 December 2024, the Player did not attend training and, it later transpired, had left Egypt to return to France.

31. The Club adduced a WhatsApp exchange between its Team Manager, Mohamed Hassam (known by many at the Club and referred to by the Player as ‘Tito’). That exchange shows the following:

➢ On 13 December 2023, Mr Hassam appears to send the following message to the Player: ‘You told whom you were traveling? [sic]’

➢ It appears that, on the same day, Mr Hassam makes two attempts to phone the Player, neither of which is successful.

➢ On 14 December 2023, the Player appears to respond to Mr Hassam, sending him the following message: ‘Hey. I was travelling because you told me anything I need to speak to Mr John.’

32. It became clear at the hearing (during counsel for the Player’s closing remarks, after the Player had provided oral evidence) that the Player denies that he ever participated in this WhatsApp exchange. This is discussed further below.

33. On 20 December 2023, the Club wrote to the EFA. The letter was addressed to Dr Walid Al Attar, the Executive Director of the EFA, and was not copied to the Player. The letter stated (in relevant part):

‘Whereas, on 7/25/2023, Pharco Club signed the Player Moses Touray – Nationality Sierra Leone for four seasons starting from the current season 2024/23 and ending with the season 2027/26. Whereas, on 12/13/2023, without any prior warning or any dispute with anyone within Pharco Club, the player left the club and was absent from training, and when the club searched for the player Haven’t found it yet.

Accordingly, we inform you that Pharco Sports Club maintains its full right to demand the player’s commitment With the contract concluded with the club, it also clarifies to you that the club has fulfilled all its contractual obligations with the player To date, the most important of which is that he has paid all of the player Moses Turay’s dues in accordance with what was agreed upon The terms of the contract concluded with the player.

Therefore, after all of the above, we ask you to take the necessary legal action regarding what happened to the player Moses Turay. In addition to preserving all the rights of the Pharco Sports Club, the most important of which is the club’s right to request the imposition of sanctions. Penalties are imposed on the player for violating the contract concluded with the club.’ [sic]

34. Despite the invitation to take legal action against the Player, no such action was commenced. Indeed, it does not appear that there was any communication whatsoever between the EFA and the Player. The Club stated during the hearing that the invitation was made without any expectation that it would be acted upon. The purpose of the letter was to protect its own legal position: whenever a foreign player is acquired it is the EFA that assists with the procurement of the necessary visa. If the foreign player then leaves, the Club is incentivised to inform the EFA straight away, lest it be alleged that it has procured the visa on a fraudulent basis. The Club called the letter ‘a standard procedure in Egypt’ to protect itself. Dr Al Attar provided evidence at the hearing, during which he concurred with this view and confirmed that – notwithstanding the terms of the letter – he did not understand that the Club seriously wished the EFA to take legal action against the Player.

35. On 15 January 2024, the Club wrote again to the EFA. The letter was again addressed to Dr Al Attar and was again not copied to the Player. The letter stated (in relevant part):

‘Whereas, on 12/20/2023, Pharco Club notified you of what happened to the player Moses Turay, a citizen of Sierra Leone, who left the club and travelled without permission despite having a valid contract with him until the season 2026/2027 Therefore we inform you that player Moses Turay is still absent from training and matches to date and this is the second notification from Pharco Sports Club.

Therefore, after all of the above, we ask you to take the necessary legal action regarding what happened to the player Moses Touray, In addition to preserving all the rights of the Pharco Sports Club, the most important of which is the club’s right to request the imposition of sanctions Penalties are imposed on the player for violating his contract concluded with the club.’ [sic]

36. Again, no action was instigated by the EFA (and, again, it appears that no such action was anticipated by the Club, notwithstanding the content of the letter).

D. The Player’s default and termination notice

37. On 1 January 2024, the Player’s counsel, Mr Dupovac, sought to send a letter to the Club, putting the Club on notice that it was in breach of the Contract by its alleged failure to

pay the November Instalment and the December Instalment (the “Default Notice”). The letter stated:

‘We are addressing you as a legal representative of the player Moses Turay regarding the current situation of the player in your Club.

Since the conclusion of the Employment contract dated 25th July 2023, your club has failed to pay to the Player salary for months of November and December amounting to debt of USD 6.000,00 (six thousand 00/100).

With regard to the player’s remuneration, we kindly give your club 15 (fifteen) days deadline from receipt of this email to pay the aforementioned amounts to the player Mr Moses and invite you to fulfil your contractual obligation.

To conclude, please note that your club is currently in breach of its essential obligations. We refer you to articles 12bis, 14 and 14bis of the FIFA RSTP, should you fail to remedy entirely these breaches, the player will have no other choice but to unilaterally terminate the employment contract and to seek redress before the FIFA Football Tribunal for breach of contract by the club.’

38. Mr Dupovac’s letter was emailed to the Club at the address: ‘pharcofc@pharcofootballclub.com’. The Club denies that this is an active email address of the Club and denies that it ever received the Default Notice. It appears undisputed that the Default Notice was never responded to.

39. On 17 January 2024, Mr Dupovac sent another letter to the Club (again to the ‘pharcofc@pharcofootballclub.com’ email address), notifying the Club that Mr Turay had terminated the Contract (the “Termination Notice”). The Termination Notice stated:

‘We make reference to our letter sent to your Club on 1st January 2023 and provided deadline, which unfortunately remained unanswered and without effect.

Given that you have not remedied the breach as outlined in our previous letter, we wish to inform you that in light of these continued contractual breaches, we hereby formally notify you of the player’s decision to unilaterally terminate the employment contract with just cause, effective immediately.

Mr Turay reserves his right to file a claim with the FIFA DRC.’

E. The Player’s subsequent employment

40. Since terminating his contract with the Club on 17 January 2024, the Player has entered into two further professional contracts.

41. The first was with the Finnish professional club, SJK Seinäjoki. This contract commenced on 12 August 2024 and apparently concluded on 31 October 2024. The Player was paid EUR 21,750 under the terms of this contract.

42. The second was with the Saudi Arabian professional club, Al Raed. This contract commenced on 1 January 2025 and concluded on 30 June 2025. The Player was paid USD 36,000 under the terms of this contract.

F. Proceedings before FIFA DRC

43. Consistent with the position adopted in the Termination Notice, the Player duly filed a claim with the FIFA DRC on 25 January 2024, eight days later.

44. By his claim, the Player:

➢ Argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract on 17 January 2024; and

➢ Requested payment of:

- The November Instalment;

- The December Instalment;

- USD 288,000 as compensation for the Club’s alleged breach of the Contract (being the residual amount payable by the Club to the Player); and

- Interest on the outstanding sums, calculated at 5% per annum.

45. The Club resisted this claim and issued a compensation claim.

46. It argued that it had paid the November Instalment to the Player (as well as the August Instalment, the September Instalment and the October Instalment). As a result of this, it submitted that there were not two contractual instalments outstanding, the Player did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 17 January 2024 and that by his termination of the Contract without such just cause, the Player (not the Club) was in breach of the Contract.

47. It further argued that, as a result of this breach by the Player, he was liable to pay to the Club:

➢ USD 310,000;

➢ Interest on the outstanding sums, calculated at 5% per annum; and

➢ USD 5,000 towards the Club’s legal costs.

48. The Club also claimed that:

➢ Neither the 1 January 2024 Letter nor the Termination Notice were ever received by the Club (because it had been sent to the wrong email address); and

➢ The Player left Egypt on 13 December 2023 without authorisation from the Club.

49. In his reply to the Club’s compensation claim, the Player made a crucial change to his position. He – for the very first time – alleged that (in addition to the December Instalment) it was not the November Instalment that had not been paid by the Club, but the September Instalment. Further, he alleged that the signature attributed to him on the September Cash Receipt was a ‘forgery’.

50. To support this claim, he adduced expert evidence in the form of a report from Zlatko Dugandžić, who (it was said by the Player) ‘was able to conclude reliably that the Player did not sign himself receipts on the amounts of 3.000,00 USD dated 29 September 2023.’ (emphasis in original).

51. The Player therefore continued to argue that two instalments remained unpaid (the September Instalment and the December Instalment) entitling him to terminate the Contract for just cause.

52. He further argued that the email address to which the Default Notice and the Termination Notice were sent was acceptable, being displayed on the Club’s official website, that the Club had stopped paying him because it was no longer interested in his services and that this explained why no disciplinary or legal action was taken against him for his absences from Egypt.

53. Given that there was no oral hearing in the case, nor apparently any further opportunity to make written submissions or adduce evidence, the Club was never given an opportunity to rebut the Player’s claim that it was the September Instalment that was unpaid and his signature on the September Cash Receipt was a ‘forgery’.

G. Decision of the FIFA DRC

54. The decision of the FIFA DRC was passed on 13 June 2024 (the “FIFA DRC Decision”) and issued to the parties by FIFA on 15 July 2024.

55. The crux of the FIFA DRC Decision was whether or not the Player had been paid the September Instalment by the Club. As the FIFA DRC stated (at paragraph 6): ‘[t]he Chamber had to decide if such payment was indeed remitted to the player or not, and consequently if the player had just cause to terminate the contract or not.’

56. The FIFA DRC accepted the Player’s claim of forgery, ultimately on the basis that the signature on the September Cash Receipt ‘looks slightly different’. At paragraphs 9 to 13 of the FIFA DRC Decision, it stated:

‘9. At this stage, the Chamber considered appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. In order to be able to solve such disputes in a satisfactory and timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation and conclusion of a potential criminal investigation, the Chamber adopts a practical procedure in such cases, namely to request the party who claims the authenticity of the disputed document to provide its original version

via regular mail. If for a layman the document appears to be authentic and in line with the further documentation on file, such document is considered as authentic for the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.

10. The Chamber decided to follow the player’s argumentation and concluded that the payment was not remitted, since he disputed the signatures and in the view of the Chamber, it indeed looks slightly different.

11. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that the player had not received his remuneration corresponding to 2 monthly salaries at the time of the termination. Furthermore, the player has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default before unilaterally terminating the contract on 1 January 2024.

12. It has to be noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.

13. Consequently, on account of the above, considering that the club had thus repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the player, the DRC decided that the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 17 January 2024 and that, as a result, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause.’

57. Having concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract, the FIFA DRC accepted the Player’s claim in part and dismissed the Club’s counterclaim:

‘1. The claim of the [Player] is partially accepted.

2. The [Club] must pay to the [Player] the following amount(s):

- USD 9,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 January 2024 until the date of effective payment;

- USD 275,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 January 2024 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claims of the [Player] are rejected.

4. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

5. The counterclaim of the [Club] is rejected.

6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The [Club] shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods

2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

[…]’

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

58. On 5 August 2024, the Club filed a Statement of Appeal against the FIFA DRC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”), pursuant to Article R47 et seq of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”). The Statement of Appeal listed two respondents: (a) the Player; and (b) FIFA. It requested that the appeal be heard by a Sole Arbitrator and sought an immediate 20-day extension to the deadline by which it was required to submit its Appeal Brief.

59. On 26 August 2024, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Player, the Club and to FIFA, among other things, seeking confirmation as to the identity of counsel for the Player, seeking comments from the Player and FIFA on the Club’s request for an extension to the deadline by which it was required to submit the Appeal Brief, its request that the matter be dealt with by a Sole Arbitrator and its request that the language of the arbitration be English and making the parties aware of the possibility of CAS facilitating a mediation of the dispute. The CAS Court Office also confirmed that the costs of the procedure ‘must be paid by the parties [and] … the CAS Director General or the CAS Finance Director will shortly write to the Parties inviting them to pay an advance on such arbitration costs, in accordance with Article R64.2 of the Code.’

60. On 26 August 2024, FIFA wrote to the CAS Court Office stating that, by virtue of the nature of the dispute (being a contractual claim between the Player and the Club) and the role of FIFA vis-à-vis its DRC (with the FIFA DRC being an independent decisionmaking body) ‘FIFA cannot be considered a respondent in the present affair, an, in consequence, we request to be excluded from the procedure at stake. If this should not be the case, we reserve our right to claim against the Appellant for the legal costs incurred by FIFA as a consequence of the unnecessary involvement in the present procedure.’

61. On 30 August 2024, Mr Dupovac wrote to the CAS Court Office to confirm his representation of the Player and to indicate that the Player had no objection to the matter being determined by a Sole Arbitrator, to the language of the arbitration being English nor to the extension of time sought by the Club to file its Appeal Brief. Mr Dupovac also confirmed that the Player had ‘no interest in submission of this case to CAS mediation.’

62. On 2 September 2024, the Club accepted ‘the request of FIFA to be excluded from the procedure at stake. Therefore, the Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable

Tribunal to continue the present procedure against Mr. Moses Turay as Sole Respondent.’

63. On 22 September 2024, the Player informed the CAS Court Office that he ‘will not pay its share of estimate advance of cost in accordance with Article R64.2 of the CAS Code.’

64. On 19 November 2024, following several extensions of deadline which were requested by the Club and to which the Player did not object, the Club filed its Appeal Brief with the CAS, in which it inter alia requested the production of two documents and announced several witnesses. The next day, on 20 November 2024, the CAS Court Office invited the Player to file his Answer within 20 days.

65. On 29 November 2024, the Player sought a suspension of the deadline by which he was required to file his Answer Brief and a 64-day extension to that deadline to 12 February 2025. With no objection having been raised by the Club to this request, the extension was granted by the CAS Court Office by letter to the Parties on 10 December 2024.

66. On 30 December 2024, the Parties were notified by the CAS Court Office that the Panel appointed to determine the present matter had been constituted as follows:

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Jamie Herbert, Solicitor in London, United Kingdom

67. On 11 February 2025, the Player filed his Answer. He requested an oral hearing of the appeal. He exhibited two documents requested by the Club, being a copy of the Player’s passport, showing stamps for his entry and exit from Egypt and a copy of his professional contract with SJK Seinäjoki. Finally, he objected to the Club’s proposed tender of witnesses on the basis (in respect of Mr Hassam) ‘they cannot be admitted since they are subordinated to the Appellant, thus their impartiality and trustworthiness is compromised’ and, on the basis of Dr Al Attar, on the basis that the Club had ‘not provide any evidence regarding his apparent position and occupation nor for the matter of the dispute. The witness is proposed to the facts that need to be proved by material evidence. Additionally, the witness is proposed to state “common practices” which are of no relevance to this case and the witness should provide only relevant information for this case [sic].’

68. On 12 February 2025, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties to ask the Club whether it too wished there to be a hearing in this matter and to ask both Parties whether they wished there to be a case management conference.

69. On 24 February 2025, both Parties wrote to the CAS Court Office. Both confirmed that a case management conference was not necessary. The Club also indicated that it too wished there to be a hearing of the present matter.

70. By letters of 31 March 2025, the Parties confirmed their availability for a hearing of the appeal on 12 June 2025 and indicated that they preferred the hearing to be in person, rather than via videoconference. The hearing date of 12 June 2025 was then confirmed by the CAS Court Office in a further letter to the Parties, dated 2 April 2025.

71. On 6 May 2025, the Order of Procedure was sent by the CAS Court Office to the Parties for their signature. These were returned, signed, by the Player and by the Club on 12 May 2025.

72. On 10 June 2025, at the invitation of the Sole Arbitrator, the Parties submitted a tentative schedule for the hearing, including opening and closing submissions on behalf of each Parties, the hearing and examination of both expert witnesses and witnesses of fact, including the Player.

73. On 12 June 2025, a hearing of the appeal took place at the CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. In addition to the Sole Arbitrator, his assistant, Rebecca Patton, a Solicitor in London, United Kingdom, and Delphine Deschenaux-Rochat, CAS Counsel, the following persons attended the hearing:

For the Club: Mr Ignacio Triguero, counsel [in-person] Mr Juan Ignacio Prieto Huang, counsel [via videoconference] Ms Marta Rubio Calvete, intern [via videoconference] Mr Alfred Gutiérrez Kavanagh, interpreter [via videoconference] Mr Yahya Muhammad, interpreter [via videoconference] Dr Walid Al Attar, witness [via videoconference] Mr Mohamed Hassam, witness [via videoconference] Ms Natalia González Stamm, expert [via videoconference]

For the Player: Mr Moses Turay, Player [via videoconference] Mr Feda Dupovac, counsel [in-person] Ms Renata Merzić, interpreter [via videoconference] Mr Zltako Dugandžić, expert [via videoconference]

74. No objections were advanced by either Party in respect of the Sole Arbitrator’s appointment. At the hearing, the Parties were given a full opportunity to present their case, submit their arguments, question the witnesses proffered and answer questions from the Sole Arbitrator. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Parties also confirmed that they were satisfied with the procedure throughout the hearing, and that their right to be heard and their right to a fair trial had been fully respected.

75. During the hearing, the Player objected to a different version of the Contract being considered by its expert witness. After hearing submissions from the Club to explain why there were multiple versions of the Contract (because terms contained an obligation that it be signed in quadruplicate), the Sole Arbitrator requested that a copy of the Contract held by the EFA be produced, so as to ensure that all four versions were before him. That request was repeated by a letter from the CAS Court Office to the Club, dated 16 June

2025. The EFA sent the version of the Contract that it held in its records to the Club, which was then provided to the Sole Arbitrator on 3 July 2025. The evidentiary phase of the proceedings thereby concluded on that date.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES — A. The Submissions of the Club

76. The Club’s prayers for relief were as follows:

‘1. To deem admissible and uphold in its entirety the Appeal filed by PHARCO.

2. To annul in its entirety and set aside the Appealed Decision.

3. To replace the Appealed Decision by a ruling:

3.1 Declaring that the Player did terminate the Contract without just cause.

3.2 Ruling that the Player shall pay PHARCO FC a compensation in the amount of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS (USD 286,000) as compensation for breach of contact (or an alternative compensation as ruled by the Sole Arbitrator in view of the specific circumstances), plus a five percent (5%) annual interest over any compensation from 17 January 2024 until final payment.

4. Only on a subsidiary basis, in the unlikely event that the Player is found to have terminated the Employment Contract with just cause, the compensation due to the Player is reduced or extinguished so that no compensation is payable, in the alternative that the compensation is reduced to such sum as the CAS shall award.

5. In all cases, to condemn the PLAYER:

5.1 To bear all the arbitration and administrative costs pertaining to these appeal proceedings before the CAS including the CAS Court Fee in the amount of CHF 1,000.00; and

5.2 To pay PHARCO FC a significant contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the H. Sole Arbitrator in accordance with Article R65(3) of the CAS Code, and of at least CFH 6.000.’

77. The Club’s submissions can be summarised as follows:

a. The Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract on 15 January 2024

78. As to the law and the relevant provisions of the FIFA RSTP, on the meaning of just cause, the Club submitted that ‘only material breaches’ of the Contract provide a party with the right to terminate under Article 14 or Article 14bis of the RSTP and that such a right ‘as an absolute last resort, where given the particularities of the situation at stake, it could not be expected that one of the parties could reasonably continue to be bound by the contractual relationship.’.

79. It submitted that the burden of proof lay on the Player as the contractual party seeking to terminate to ‘establish that the Contract was in fact terminated with just cause based on the circumstances of the case’.

80. It submitted that Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP (on which the Player relied when terminating the Contract), CAS jurisprudence and the RSTP Commentary published by FIFA in 2023, each limit the power of a contracting party to terminate for just cause to situations where, in the case of non-payment, ‘the outstanding amount is significant’ (which the Club claimed could only be the case if it amounted to no less than two months’ salary) and a valid default notice is sent to the party allegedly in breach, giving it no less than 15 days to remedy the situation. The Club says that neither of those factors was present in this case.

81. In respect of the outstanding sums, the Club submits that the FIFA DRC was wrong to conclude that the Club had ‘repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations.’ The Club’s primary objection to this finding was that at the time that the Default Notice was sent to the Club, there was only one contractual payment outstanding (the December Instalment, which had only been outstanding for two days) and – contrary to the Player’s submissions – the September Instalment had been paid in accordance with the Contract. It also noted that one ought to assess the ‘significance’ of any outstanding amount in the context of the wider contractual structure. The Player’s annual salary for Season 2023/24 was USD 60,000 (meaning that pro rata across the year, his remuneration was USD 5,000 per month). And his total contractual remuneration was USD 310,000 (meaning that pro rata across the whole four-year term, he received USD 6,458.33 per month). The Club’s position was that even if there were two USD 3,000 instalments outstanding (which it forcefully submitted was not the case), taken in the context of the whole Contract, such an amount was not ‘significant.’

82. In respect of the Default Notice, the Club claimed that it was both invalid on its terms and invalidly submitted.

83. The Club submitted that the Default Notice had alleged that the Club was in breach by its non-payment of the November Instalment and the December Instalment. On the Player’s own case now (and ultimately before the FIFA DRC) it is accepted that the November Instalment was paid by the Club. The Default Notice therefore referred to the wrong payments. This mistaken reference to the November Instalment simply rendered it invalid in that it did ‘not comply with the requirements under art. 14bis.’

84. As to the submission of the Default Notice (and subsequent Termination Notice), the Club submitted that that too failed to comply with Article 14bis because it was ‘sent to an address that is not operative.’ The address to which the two letters was sent by email was ‘pharcofc@pharcofootballclub.com’, which ‘does not belong to the club at all.’ The Club further suggested that it was both ‘suspicious’ and ‘in bad faith’ for the Player to elect to communicate with the Club via email in this way, given that there was a clear and active line of communication between the Player and Mr Hassam of the Club via WhatsApp.

85. Finally, the Club complained that the Player’s significant change of position during the FIFA DRC process, arguing for the first time that it was the September Instalment that remained unpaid, rather than the November Instalment, was in breach of a number of the Club’s legal rights. This was articulated in writing in a number of ways that ultimately amount to the same thing: as a breach of legitimate expectations; as the Player being estopped from amending his position in the way seemingly permitted by the FIFA DRC; and contrary to the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium.

86. As to the facts, the Club’s primary contention was that, at the time of the Default Notice, there were not two contractual payments outstanding: it had made payment to the Player (in cash) of the August Instalment, the September Instalment, the October Instalment and the November Instalment; and, in each case had a receipt signed by the Player confirming that the payment had been made. In the words of the Club: ‘[o]nly when confronted with the proof of payment corresponding to the salaries of the August, September, October and November 2023 …, the Player suddenly shifted its version of the facts and tried to remedy the unlawful termination by explaining that the debt was composed of the September and December 2023 salaries, and that in fact, it received payment corresponding to September 2023.’

87. In support of this, they not only adduced the September Cash Receipt, but also what appears to be an internal document, dated 2 September 2024, signed by a Mr Muhammad Yousry Abdel Rahman (who appears from the document to be part of the Club’s financial management team), bearing the Club seal via stamp, addressed to the Club’s ‘CEO’, Amr Bargas. The document states: ‘[a]ttached is a statement of the amounts delivered to the player Moses Toure, nationality of Sierra Leone …’. The document (the “Payment Schedule”) lists that USD 15,000 was paid to the Player on 30 August 2023, USD 3,000 was paid to the Player on 29 September 2023, USD 3,000 was paid to the Player on 30 October 2023 and USD 3,000 was paid to the Player on 28 November 2023.

88. The Club also noted that it was given no opportunity during the FIFA DRC proceedings to respond to the Player’s new submission that the signature attributed to him on the September Cash Receipt was a forgery. This was made for the very first time on 20 March 2024, six weeks after the Club had submitted its written response to the Player’s claim.

Expert evidence

89. The Club argued that it was the Player’s signature on the September Cash Receipt and there had been no forgery. It adduced expert evidence from Natalia Gonzalez Stamm,

who’s conclusions it said ‘make perfectly clear that Pharco did not forged or altered [sic] the signature of the Player on the challenged payment cash receipt of September 2023.’

90. Ms Gonzalez Stamm is an expert calligrapher and graphologist, having worked in the field for over 25 years and having obtained a range or professional accreditations. To assist with the production of her report, Ms Gonzalez Stamm was provided with the hard copy original of the September Cash Receipt, featuring the wet ink signature. She expressly confirmed in her report that the September Cash Receipt ‘is considered to be of sufficient quality for the expert opinion.’

91. She compared this signature against 10 ‘specimen documents’, which incorporated 26 signatures of (or attributed to) the Player. These included the Player’s passport, the version of the Internal Regulations signed on each page by the Player, a document signed by the Player around the time of his transfer to the Club that declared no third party ownership of interest in his economic rights, the version of the Contract itself held by the Club, which had allegedly been signed by the Player on every page, a document conferring power of attorney on the Player’s counsel, Mr Dupovac, a bank account registration form and each of the cash receipts held by the Club.

92. The key conclusions reached by Ms Gonzalez Stamm in her report were as follows:

➢ “There are no additions in the challenged signature, no washings (chemical product that erases the inks), no scraping (words and fibbers disappear), no retouching (arrangements that are given to the letters to compose the imperfections that it may have), nor interleaving. An analysis of the original documents has been carried out, both with direct vision and with the aid of various instruments such as magnifying glasses of different magnifications, stereoscopic microscopes, grazing lights with different degrees of incidence, etc. to accurately evaluate the shape of the line, the direction, the dynamism or the spontaneity of the signatures and thus to know perfectly the graphic habits of which they are composed”.

➢ “It is relevant to note that the author of these firms was born in 2004, which may be related to the fact that his signature has not reached a full level of evolution. The signatures of young people are often in a developmental stage, especially regarding complex or detailed features, such as highly defined gestures or greater personalization in the stroke. In this case, the simplicity of the signatures examined ‐both the questioned and the specimen‐ is consistent with this phase of maturation, which could justify the lack of more elaborate and ornamental elements in their structure”.

➢ “After a thorough examination of the questioned signature in comparison with the authentic signatures, it is evident that there is a correspondence in several aspects that suggest a significant similarity. Both in the questioned and specimen signatures, there is a similar general appearance, with a layout that presents a simple design and is composed of one or two scriptural movements of speed average. This rapid and continuous execution of the signature has been consistently maintained in the years 2020, 2021 and 2023. However, in the specimen signatures

of December 2023 and January 2024, an alteration in the morphology of the signature is identified”.

➢ “During the analysis, no signs suggesting forgery were detected in the dubious signature. No tremors, distortions or interruptions in the stroke that could indicate forced or imitative execution were observed. The absence of doubts in the starting and ending points of the strokes, as well as the fluidity in the execution, rule out the possibility that the signature has been forged, since the elements of insecurity typical of an imitative signature are absent”.

➢ “In conclusion, the detailed analysis of the questioned signature in comparison with the twenty‐six specimen signatures strongly supports the hypothesis that they are of the same authorship. The morphological alterations observed in the specimen signatures of December 2023 and January 2024 are evident, but do not affect the conclusion of the present analysis, which is based on direct comparison of the dubbed signature with previous signatures of similar structure. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the dubious signature corresponds to Mr. Moses Turay, with no evidence of forgery or imitation in its execution”.

➢ “In the opinion of this expert, given his knowledge, the state of the art and on the basis of the data obtained and presented in this report on the analysed material, it is concluded:

That the dubious signature, which is the subject of the expert's report, corresponds to the indubitable and collated signatures analysed in this report, which belong to the handwriting of Mr. Moses Turay.”

93. In oral evidence, Ms Gonzalez Stamm confirmed her written conclusions in full. In addition, she underlined that it was ‘essential’, in order to provide an expert opinion as to the validity of a signature, to have the hard copy original at one’s disposal, and further stated that it was important ‘to become aware of the writing universe’ of the subject, by comparatively assessing a number of contemporaneous instances of their signature. She re-confirmed that her analysis had uncovered ‘no evidence’ of tampering or forgery.

94. Finally, in further support of the submission that the September Instalment has been paid in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Club submitted that the Player had not once asked where his September payment was, nor made any attempt to claim it (before 24 March 2024, while the Parties were engaged in the FIFA DRC process), which one would have naturally expected the Player to have done if it (as the Player claimed) remained unpaid. Mr Hassam gave oral evidence during the hearing in which he confirmed that the Player had never raised any issue with him (as the Team Manager and particularly responsible for the arrangements for foreign players) as to late payment of salary.

b. The Player himself breached the Contract

95. The Club made a number of submissions to the effect that it was in fact the Player, not the Club, who was in breach of the Contract.

96. First, the Club submitted that the Player had left Egypt, without the authorisation of anyone at the Club, on or shortly before 13 December 2023. The Club adduced a WhatsApp exchange between Mr Hassam and the Player (replicated at paragraph 31, above), which it claimed showed Mr Hassam’s enquiry as to where the Player was on 13 December 2023, two unsuccessful attempts by Mr Hassam to call the Player followed by a message including only three question marks (which it was said by Mr Hassam in the hearing was an attempt by him to enquire as to why the Player wasn’t answering) and the Player’s response on 14 December, confirming that he was travelling and stating that he had the permission of ‘Mr John’ to so do.

97. This exchange was confirmed by Mr Hassam in his oral evidence. Mr Hassam elaborated that he first became aware of the Player’s departure when, one hour before training on 13 December 2023, two of the Club’s other foreign players, Babacar N'Diaye and Mohamed Bangoura, arrived without the Player. Mr Hassam asked where the Player was and was told that he had packed his luggage and left. In response to further questions from Mr Hassam, Messrs N'Diaye and Bangoura informed him that the Player had not told anyone at the Club before he left the country and had done so because he was not being picked to play in matches for the Club. Neither Mr N'Diaye nor Mr Bangoura were tendered as witnesses by either Party.

98. Mr Hassam gave evidence that further attempts were made to contact the Player by the Club’s captain and ‘Mr John’ (who it was confirmed was the Club’s ‘General Supervisor’) both directly and via the Player’s agent. Mr Hassam stated that further attempts to call the Player on his Egyptian number revealed that it was out of service and further attempts to call the Player on his international number were unsuccessful.

99. It became clear in closing submissions, following questions from the Sole Arbitrator, that none of this evidence (including the WhatsApp exchange) was made available to the FIFA DRC. Counsel for the Club (who had accepted his instruction after the FIFA DRC proceedings were completed) had no real explanation for this.

100. In light of the Player’s departure, letters were sent by the Club to the EFA on 20 December 2023 and 15 January 2024, confirming that the Player was no longer in the country. Mr Hassam and Dr Al Attar gave evidence to confirm this. Mr Hassam also confirmed that, aside from these letters, no legal or other action was taken against the Player for leaving the country. Dr Al Attar under cross-examination from the Player’s counsel gave evidence that there is ‘no way’ that there could be two versions of the same employment contract for the same player covering the same period.

101. He further confirmed that the Club had not hired a replacement for the Player. The regulations of the EFA limited the number of foreign players that a club can register under a certain age. The Player had filled one of those limited spots but the Club has not recruited another foreign player under the age limit to take his spot.

102. The Club’s position was that this departure from Egypt without the Club’s authorisation was a breach of the Contract by the Player. In support of this, they pointed to the incorporation of the Internal Regulations into the Contract by reference and the provision of those Internal Regulations stating that ‘the foreign player has no right to travel outside

Egypt unless upon the technical director and the football manager’s written consent and the approval of the General Supervisor.’ They also pointed to CAS authority to the effect (in its submission) that where ‘a player had been absent for over several weeks (despite warnings and messages from the club) and failed return to the Club … there was just cause for the club to terminate the contract as the player failed to demonstrate justifiable reasons for his absence …’.

103. Finally, as a subsidiary argument, the Club submitted that, if the Player’s unauthorised departure from Egypt was not in and of itself a breach of the Contract of sufficient significance to give the Club a termination right, it was sufficient at least for the Club to withhold the December Instalment. The Club cited in support the doctrine of exception non rite adimpleti contractus, endorsed by CAS jurisprudence and Article 82 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (the “SCO”), to the effect that ‘a party to a bilateral contract may not demand performance until he has discharged or offered to discharge his own obligation.’ In this case, this boiled down to an argument that the Player could not demand payment while in breach by his travel abroad.

c. Consequences

104. The Club advanced alternative submissions on consequences, covering scenarios where the Appeal was upheld and it was held that the Player was in breach of Contract, and where it was dismissed and the Club was held responsible. Taking each in turn:

Consequences if the Player is in breach

105. The Club submitted that, if it demonstrated that it was the Player who had terminated the Contract without just cause, Article 17(1) of the RSTP required payment of compensation by the Player to the Club. It characterised this right as ‘an entitlement to a whole reparation of the damage suffered according to the principle of “positive interest”, under which compensation for breach must be aimed at reinstating the injured party to the position it would have been had the contract been performed until its expiry.’.

106. The Club accepted that, if it had sustained damage, it has a duty to mitigate that damage, though gave no evidence (or explanation in submissions) as to what steps it had taken to do so.

107. It simply stated that the appropriate calculation was the residual value of the Contract at the point of termination (being USD 286,000) and that it was entitled, pursuant to Article 104 of the SCO, to interest at 5% per annum from 17 January 2024.

Consequences if the Club is in breach

108. Finally, the Club submitted that, if the substantive appeal was dismissed and it was found to have been in breach, the damages awarded by the FIFA DRC to be paid to the Player should be substantially reduced to take account of ‘the specific circumstances of the case at hand’. Those circumstances included: (a) the fact that the Player had subsequently signed professional terms with two other clubs; and (b) ‘the bad faith of the Player and the several breaches from his side.’ (paragraph 110 of the Club’s Appeal Brief).

d. Conclusions

109. In oral submissions at the hearing, counsel for the Club juxtaposed the evidence of the Player with that of the Club and its witnesses. He explained that the Club’s position throughout the present appeal and before the FIFA DRC had been consistent, supported by documentary evidence and (in part) by an independent witness in the form of Dr Al Attar. He submitted that this consistency underlined its reliability.

110. He submitted that, in contrast, the Player’s position was inconsistent and unreliable, having evolved throughout the proceedings before the FIFA DRC and CAS. In particular, he focused on the change in position from the Player from claiming that it was the November Instalment that remained unpaid to the September Instalment and the allegation (made substantively for the first time at the hearing) that the WhatsApp exchange between Mr Hassam and the Player on 13 and 14 December 2023 was fake. The Club’s position was that any time the Player was faced with documentary evidence that conflicted with his position, his default response to was to question the authenticity of that evidence.

111. Further focus was drawn to the new explanation as to why the Player left Egypt in December that was delivered in the hearing and the range of new claims (including, for example, that he had chased Mr Hassam and his agent for payment of the September Instalment, as discussed in greater detail below). Not only were these entirely novel, but they were also unsupported by any documentary evidence.

112. In respect of the expert evidence, counsel for the Club placed particular emphasis on the limitations in the exercise conducted by Mr Dugandzic, caused by his analysis of scanned soft copies, rather than hard copy originals. It was said that not only had Ms Gonzalez Stamm’s work considered the hard copy, wet ink original, it had spanned a much greater range of comparables, over a greater period of time, so as to allow her to develop a wider understanding of the Player’s signature style. It was noted that the Player could have – at any time during the FIFA DRC or CAS proceedings – asked for the hard copy original of the September Cash Receipt so as to allow Mr Dugandzic to analyse it. No such request had ever been made.

113. As to the differences between the versions of the Contract in the bundle, the Club explained that the answer lay in the multiple versions of the Contract required by its terms. It took issue with the Player’s challenge and the suggestion (inferred from the Player’s position rather than clearly set out) that the signatures on the version provided to Ms Gonzalez Stamm were not authentic. Counsel for the Player pointed out that this challenge was completely unevidenced and amounted to a submission that not only one signature had been forged (on the September Cash Receipt) but a further nine signatures had been forged. No evidence had been adduced by the Player to that effect and Mr Dugandzic had not been asked to opine on the nine signatures in issue.

114. The Club argued that, even if there were two USD 3,000 payments outstanding, that did not entitle the Player to terminate, either under Article 14 or 14bis of the FIFA RSTP, given the total annual value of the Contract, and the requirement to conduct a pro rating exercise.

115. Finally, the Club submitted that if it was found to be in breach, any compensation payable to the Player must be reduced to take account of the two subsequent professional contracts he signed, with SJK Seinäjoki II and Al Raed.

B. The Submissions of the Player

116. The Player’s prayers for relief were as follows:

‘1. The appeal filed by the Appellant against the decision of the FIFA DRC no FPSD- 13490 dated 13 June 2024 is dismissed and rejected

2. The decision rendered by the FIFA DRC no FPSD dated 13 June 2024 is confirmed.

3. The costs of the present arbitration proceedings shall be borne by the Appellant in their entirety.

4. The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent an amount as contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

5. Any other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.’

a. The Player’s oral evidence

117. The Player provided oral evidence. Given that he did not produce a witness statement in advance (nor during the FIFA DRC process) much of the evidence that he provided was delivered at the hearing for the first time. That evidence can be summarised as follows:

118. In 2023, the Player was in France when he was contacted by a football agent, named Abdul Aman, to tell him about the Club and its interest in him. The agent bought a plane ticket for the Player and he flew to Cairo. On arrival, he signed the Contract in the presence of a Club representative and (notwithstanding the fact that no agent is identified on the Contract) Mr Aman. He confirmed that he understood the terms of the Contract. He stated that he was not provided with a copy of the Contract on the date of signature, but subsequently received a copy via WhatsApp.

119. After signing the Contract, his primary contact within the Club was Mr Hassam, who the Player described as ‘responsible for anything the players need.’ He complained that, while his Contract had stipulated that he would have an apartment for himself, in the event, the apartment provided to him was to be shared with two other players: Mr N'Diaye and Mr Bangoura. This meant that his family were unable to visit him. He complained both to Mr Aman (who claimed that the Club had changed its mind regarding the accommodation arrangements) and to Mr Hassam but the issue was never remedied. He confirmed that he never missed a training session. He was selected to participate in some friendly matches but was never selected for an official first team match. When it was put to him that this might be the reason for his departure in December, he rejected this, stating that he was a professional player and the risk of not being selected is ‘just football.’

120. The Player accepted that he was paid the August Instalment, signed the August Cash Receipt and affixed his fingerprint thereto.

121. The Player denied that he received the September Instalment. He claimed that the signature attributed to him on the September Cash Receipt was ‘fake’. When questioned, he confirmed that he had not made a complaint to the Egyptian police or any other authority regarding this alleged forgery.

122. The Player’s oral evidence as to what happened next differed from the position taken in his written submissions. In the latter, there is no reference to him asking the Club where the September Instalment was or when he was going to get it. Instead, the position adopted by counsel was that ‘the Player believed that the payments in October and November 2023 are due payment for September and October that he previously did not receive. The Player was not provided with any documentation regarding the confirmation of receipt of the salaries, therefore he was not able to provide that to the counsel not to have exact recollection of contents of it. Therefore, without any information provided to him from the club the Player regarding the manner of registration of the payment, the Player dd not have any manner to establish how the Club registered those payments and believed that the salaries are paid according to their maturity.’

123. However, in oral evidence the Player contradicted this. He was very clear that he was expecting to be paid in September and when he was not, his evidence was that he asked Mr Hassam in person ‘every day’ where his money was, as well as asking Mr Aman via WhatsApp.

124. Thereafter, the Player accepted that he received the October Instalment and November Instalment, signing the relevant cash receipt in each case and adding his fingerprint. He claimed to have signed the two cash receipts without reading the text included on the document in each case. In his words, ‘I was told it was salary so I signed it.’

125. This takes us to December and the Player’s departure from Egypt where, again, there is a deviation between his written submissions and oral evidence. In the latter, he argues that his departure from Egypt was not unauthorised.

126. However, a new explanation arose at the hearing. The Player described an incident in December 2023 when Mr Aman attended the Player’s apartment, accompanied by two men, and asked him for money. When the Player told Mr Aman that he did not have (or would not give him) the requested money, Mr Aman asked for the Player’s passport. The Player did not have this with him. There was a suggestion in his oral evidence that he had given it to a friend, potentially as a protective measure in anticipation that someone (whether Mr Aman or otherwise) would demand it from him. The Player further described that he was then threatened with violence, but his friends at the apartment at time were able to protect him. The Player explained that, the following day, he complained to Mr Hassam of this episode, given Mr Aman’s links to the Club. The Player claims that Mr Hassam told him that he would inform others within the Club but nothing came of this. The Player felt unsafe as a result of the episode and alone in Egypt. For this reason, he ‘went to France and ended the contract.’ He made no complaint to the Egyptian police or anyone else about what had happened at his apartment.

127. His evidence was that he had told Mr Hassam that he would leave the country but, when presented with the WhatsApp exchange purported to be between him and Mr Hassam (see paragraph 31, above), he denied any knowledge of this exchange, saying that the message attributed to him was in fact not him. No further explanation was provided.

128. He claimed that he received no contact from anyone at the Club after his conversation with Mr Hassam. He maintained that the Club knew that he was leaving for France but conceded under cross-examination that no one authorised this travel.

b. Procedural Issues

129. In written and oral submissions, the Player sought to draw attention to the fact that some of the evidence adduced by the Club before the CAS had not been adduced at first instance before the FIFA DRC. The Player claimed this was without explanation. In particular, the Player focused on the provision by the Club to Ms Gonzalez Stamm of a version of the Contract ‘which is different from the one that both the Player and the Club have submitted in the first instance proceedings’. It was said that ‘[t]his is a clear indication of the intention of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts.’ The Player’s position was that ‘[a]uthenticity of such documents is strongly disputed.’

130. The Player further complained about the production of the August Cash Receipt in these proceedings and the fact that it was provided to Ms Gonzalez Stamm as a comparator for her analysis. The basis of the complaint was that it was ‘not referenced anywhere in the first instance proceedings nor in the Appeal Brief .’ It is not entirely clear from the Player’s written submissions whether he wished to bring the authenticity of the August Cash Receipt into question. Indeed, as noted above, the Player accepted that he had signed it and affixed his fingerprint to it.

c. The alleged breach of Contract by the Club

131. The Player’s central submission was that, on 1 January 2024, he was owed two month’s salary by the Club. This was a significant portion of his remuneration. The Club’s nonpayment entitled him to notify the Club that it was in breach of the Contract and then, when no payment was forthcoming within the 15-day deadline imposed, he was entitled to terminate the Contract for just cause, in accordance with Article 14 bis of the RSTP.

132. The Player accepted (consistent with the ultimate position adopted before the FIFA DRC) that he had been paid the August Instalment, the October Instalment and the November Instalment. However, he submitted that he had not been paid the September Instalment, nor the December Instalment. That was of course different to the position detailed in the Default Notice and the Termination Letter (which referred to non-payment of the November Instalment and December Instalment) and maintained at least part way through the first instance proceedings. The Player did not accept that this was a change in position. His submission was that he had ‘acted to best of his knowledge given the situation he was put in. … [He] believed that the payments in October and November 2023 are due payment for September and October that he previously did not receive.’ In an effort to explain the claimed confusion, the Player stated that he ‘was not provided with any documentation regarding the confirmation of receipt of the salaries, therefore he was not

able to provide that to counsel nor to have exact recollection of contents of it. Therefore, without any information provided to him from the club the Player regarding the manner of registration of the payment, the Player did not have any manned to establish how the Club registered those payment and believed that the salaries are paid according to their maturity.’

133. Instead, he sought to place the responsibility on the Club. He first noted that CAS and FIFA jurisprudence ‘establishes that clubs performing cash payments should be very diligent while doing so, meaning that they should do all they can to ensure that record of such payment is made in clear and precise amount.’ The Player accepted that the Club adduced an internal document titled ‘Financial Statement’ and dated 9 February 2024 providing a list of cash payments, including to the Player, but states that it is ‘a unilateral document made purposes for use in the first instance proceedings.’ He noted that ‘[n]o further documents such as balances, accounting documents, payment schedules of the team, manner of obtaining the cash, nor payment towards the government authorities were provided.’ In respect of the various cash receipts that have been adduced by the Club as evidence of payment, aside from the specific complaint of forgery in respect of the September Cash Receipt, the Player again refers to these as ‘unilateral documents’ and complains that, in each case, it is ‘without the signature of the person who created it.’

The September Instalment

134. As to whether or not the Club paid the September Instalment to the Player, the Player’s position is that the burden of proof lies with the Club to demonstrate that the payment was made. ‘The Club has failed to do so and, in the process, provided forged documents.’.

135. In support of this allegation, he adduced the expert report of Zlatko Dugandzic that had been supplied to the FIFA DRC in the first instance proceedings. Mr Dugandzic also gave oral evidence before the Sole Arbitrator, during which he confirmed that he stuck to the findings of his written evidence.

136. Mr Dugandzic was described as a ‘criminal graphology expert, with expertise in analysis of money, documents and signatures.’ The exercise he conducted in his report was to compare the signature on the September Cash Receipt with the nine signatures that the Player accepted were his on the copy of the Contract he had in his possession. When conducting this comparison, both the September Cash Receipt and the Contract were in the form of soft copy scans. In this regard, Mr Dugandzic’s report noted the following:

➢ ‘Given that the entire disputed and undisputed material is presented in the form of photocopies, please note that, as a rule, the expert examination of the handwriting in the signature is carried out on the original documentation and, above all, on the original material, while the expert examination on photocopies is more or less problematic and is often possible perform only a preliminary expert examination, except where there are certain graphic-graphological advantages. Namely in relation to the problem of photocopy in tracelogical-graphical-graphological exp3rtise, it can be stared that there are at least two previous questions, i.e., the following: 1. Whether the photocopy represents an actual copy of the original, i.e., whether the photocopy is faithful to the original … or possibly it is about the

photomontage of the segment being examined (signature, text, seal impression, etc.), and 2. Does the photocopy enable research and determination of relevant graphic-graphological traces and characteristics on the basis of which it is possible to draw reliable conclusions. On the condition that the first question can be resolved positively, then certain circumstances are considered in connection with the second question, i.e. the possible existence of graphological advantages is determined, and these advantages relate first of all, to the expert examination of manuscripts in extensive manuscript content, or manuscripts in signature which are graphically extremely complex and as such contain very valuable graphicgraphological features that enable reliable conclusions, and expertise in the case when there is a so-called general eliminating factor, i.e, a marked difference in the rank of quality of disputed versus undisputed handwriting, as well as an evident relevant difference in the design of letters and graphic morphology, which can be determined with certainty on a photocopy, so in such cases a scripted can be eliminated with certainty. Contrary to what has been stated, distinguishing an authentic signature from a signature forged by a skilled impersonator, as a rule, cannot be determined on a photocopy, but solely on the basis of the original. In this case, the first previous question can be resolved by comparing the photocopies with original copies that probably exist with the party that paid the money and, in connection with the second previous question, certain graphic-graphological advantages have been gained here, which enable a certain conclusion about the scripter of the disputed signature.’

137. In summary then, Mr Dugandzic appeared to acknowledge that, in most cases, any analysis of comparing signatures that does not incorporate the original hard copies can only ever be preliminary. However, there are instances where there is a clear difference between the undisputed and disputed signatures where a photocopy will be sufficient. This is recorded in his report as follows:

‘[i]t can be stated that such general and specific differences are evident in the disputed signature on the mentioned money receipt in the amount of 3000 US dollars, which are not found in any of the nine (9) presented undisputed signatures of Moses Turay, and the differences are also visible on the photocopies, so the conclusion can be given with certainty based on the photocopy, that is, that the named scripter can be reliably eliminated.’

138. However, his report continued to acknowledge that while clear differences may allow for conclusions to be drawn from photocopies, such conclusions can only ever be preliminary. This is evidenced by the final passage of his report:

‘On the basis of the performed preliminary criminalistic-traceological-graphological expert examination of disputed and undisputed material and their mutual comparison, digital and computed-made attachments and obtained results, the forensic expert gives the following expert opinion. Moses Turay from Sierra Leone, as the recipient of the money, did not personally sign the disputed cash receipt in the amount of 3000 USD, which was issued by Pharco Football Club on 29 September 2023, allegedly paid to the player (footballer) Moses Turay.’

139. Mr Dugandzic concurred with this in oral evidence. Under cross-examination, he accepted that ‘due to principles of certification and authentication the precondition [to provide a ‘final’ rather than preliminary conclusion] is presentation of the original documents.’

140. When asked why he had not sought hard copy originals of the relevant documents, he simply said that he was working with what he was given and, had counsel for the Player been in possession of the originals, he was sure they would have been provided. No request was made of counsel by Mr Dugandzic. And when pressed by counsel for the Club as to the degree of certainty he attributed to his findings, his response was: ‘with the material at my disposal’ it was his finding that the signatures were not the same.

141. Aside from the evidence of Mr Dugandzic, the Player referred to the fact that, unlike the August Cash Receipt, October Cash Receipt and November Cash Receipt, the September Cash Receipt did not bear the Player’s fingerprint.

142. In submissions, the Player advanced a number of attacks to the expert evidence of Ms Gonzalez Stamm. These included challenges to the techniques used in her analysis but focused most heavily on the appropriateness of the comparators. The Player’s position was that everything other than what he considered to be the ‘undisputed signatures’ (which appeared to be limited to a passport and power of attorney executed before a notary) was ‘ungenuine’ and should be dismissed as a basis of comparison. Despite characterising many of the signatures in this way, as noted below, no substantive, evidenced case was seriously advanced by the Player to challenge the authenticity or genuineness of the other signatures. No expert evidence was adduced to seek to the effect that these other signatures were not the Player’s.

143. Finally, the Player rejected the suggestion by the Club that one should assess the significance of an outstanding debt in the contact of the wider contractual structure. The Player submitted that the FIFA RSTP and FIFA RSTP Commentary are clear that, where remuneration is payable monthly, failure to pay two months’ salary will constitute just cause to terminate the contract.

The Default Notice and Termination Notice

144. The Player rejected the submission by the Club that the Default Notice and Termination Notice were invalidly submitted because they were not actually received by the Club. The Player highlighted that the Club’s position on this point had evolved: at first, during the FIFA DRC proceedings, the Club had stated that the email address to which the letters were sent did ‘not belong to the club at all’; before the CAS, the Club’s position was that the email address ‘was not operative.’

145. The Player placed the blame on the lack of clarity as to the appropriate email address squarely on the Club. He noted that the space on the Contract into which email contact details were to be listed had been left blank (at least in the version that had been provided to him), explained the steps by which the Player’s counsel had tried to ascertain the correct email address, indicated that no ‘bounce-back’ message had been received to indicate to the Player that the delivery of the letters had been unsuccessful and it had been

natural to assume that the suffix of the email address would be the same as the domain name of the Club’s website (‘pharcofootballclub.com’). For all of these reasons, it was said, the notice of default and then termination of the Contract by the Player were validly served, notwithstanding the fact that they were not received by the Club.

d. The alleged breach of Contract by the Player

The Player’s departure from Egypt

146. The Player’s account in evidence as to why he left Egypt and who he told is set out in paragraphs 126 to 128, above. As noted therein, the Player adopted a different approach in submissions. Variously, it was argued that the Player’s absence was not, in fact, unauthorised (or at least there is no evidence that it was unauthorised), that no efforts were made to contact the Player to encourage him to return (and, instead, it was alleged that the Club went so far as to sign a replacement player) and that there was a responsibility on the Club to proactively bring him back. The Player also argued that, even if the absence was unauthorised, that did not provide the Club with an actionable breach of the Contract by the Player because: (a) the Internal Regulations (which impose the prohibition on leaving Egypt without authorisation) were not in force for the relevant season, given that they are headed as relating to Season 2021/22; and (b) those Internal Regulations provide that the remedy for the Club in the case of an unauthorised absence is not termination, but a reduction in salary.

The Player’s purported termination

147. The Player maintained throughout that he had just cause to terminate the Contract, and rejected the element of the Club’s counterclaim to the contrary.

e. Consequences

The Club’s counterclaim

148. The Club claimed that, if the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Player breached the Contract, it should be entitled to compensation. The Player rejects this, citing CAS jurisprudence to the effect that a CAS Panel (or Sole Arbitrator) ‘cannot go beyond the scope of the previous litigation and is limited to the issues arising from the challenged decision.’. Further, he quotes the Award in CAS 2016/A/4379 that ‘[t]he Sole Arbitrator is not in a position to decide on a claim that has not been previously reviews within FIFA and for which the internal remedies are not exhausted.’

149. The Player advanced a variety of further arguments to the effect that, if it is he that is found to be in breach, the Club should not be awarded any compensation. These included the submission that the Club, by its actions, contributed to the Player’s termination, the fact that the Club’s conduct evidenced a ‘destruction of trust’ and that no damage has been sustained by the Club. In support of this final submission, the Player notes that no transfer fee was paid for the Player and the Club did not attribute any meaningful value to the Player’s services during his five months there.

f. Conclusions

150. In oral closing submissions, the Player’s position was simple: the Club owed the Player two months’ salary in January 2024, which entitled the Player to terminate the Contract under both Article 14 and Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP.

151. The Player underlined that the burden of proof lay with the Club to demonstrate that it had complied with the terms of the Contract. In respect of the September Instalment, the burden lay with the Club to prove the authenticity of the September Cash Receipt and adduce additional banking and internal finance documents to establish that the monies had been paid. The Club had failed to discharge this burden.

152. As to the experts, the Player dismissed the complaints regarding the lack of analysis of the original September Cash Receipt by explaining that if the differences between the two signatures are readily apparent from soft copies, there is no need to analysis the originals. The Player’s counsel maintained his complaint to the exercise carried out by Ms Gonzalez Stamm and her use of comparator signatures that were of ‘disputed authenticity.’ Pressed by the Sole Arbitrator as to what was meant by this and, in particular, whether the Player was advancing a positive case that all but 17 of the 26 signatures analysed by Mr Gonzalez Stamm were forgeries, counsel for the Player demurred – it was clear that he was not comfortable in going that far. Instead, his position was that they were disputed because ‘the Player is not sure he signed [them]’.