By Christopher R. Deubert, Senior Writer
The Saudi Pro League is quickly becoming a force with which to be reckoned by the leading (largely European) soccer leagues. While the league has been around since 1976, Saudi Arabia, through its Public Investment Fund (PIF), has recently taken major steps to become a global player in soccer and other sports, including most notably its backing of LIV Golf in its challenge to – and now tentative partnership with – the PGA Tour. The biggest move yet occurred last December when Portuguese superstar Cristiano Ronaldo signed with Saudi club Al Nassr on a three-year deal worth a reported $75 million per year at a minimum. This summer it has reportedly spent more than $200 million acquiring European players, even though it failed to persuade French star Kylian Mbappe to join the league. Nevertheless, players from Western countries who are enticed by the pay should also carefully consider other provisions common to Saudi Pro League contracts.
Having advised a player about the terms of a contract in the Saudi Pro League, I believe the following provisions are concerning.
First, the contract requires players to “respect the rules, traditions and the religion of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy ruled nominally by King Salman but practically by his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). Further, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, consisting primarily of adherents to the ultraconservative Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam. Saudi Arabia follows Sharia (or Islamic) law. Sharia law is of course substantially different from the laws of Western democracies, such as the United States and its European allies. Further, Sharia law generally does not recognize or include the liberal values embodied in Western Constitutions and laws, such as an elected government, checks and balances, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, equality, non-discrimination, and protection from unreasonable government interference. Indeed, Saudi Arabia systematically engages in a variety of practices and policies in direct contravention and abhorrent to these values. For these and other reasons, Saudi Arabia is considered to have one of the worst human rights records in the world.
It is unclear what would happen if a foreign soccer player playing in Saudi Arabia were to criticize the Saudi government. He not only would be in violation of his contract, but probably also Saudi law. Many have faced harsh prison sentences or worse for such actions. Yet the Saudi Pro League, PIF, and MBS undoubtedly know that harsh treatment of a foreign athlete would have a substantial chilling effect on the league’s prospects, part of the country’s efforts to diversify its economy and improve its reputation. Indeed, golfer Phil Mickelson called the Saudis “scary mother**kers” and seemingly suffered no negative repercussions from his lucrative LIV Golf deal.
In some respects, the provision is akin to the moral turpitude clauses common in the contracts of American athletes and entertainers. The Saudis, experts in whataboutism, would probably make that analogy. In reality, the scope of conduct proscribed by the Saudi contract is almost certainly far broader than that in a Western contract.
Second, the contract provides that the player shall not leave Saudi Arabia without written consent of the club. As a practical matter, not many American athletes leave the country during the season, as it would be hard to do so and not miss required games or practices (except perhaps during an All-Star break). It is unclear whether the Saudi provision is meant in a similar vein to simply keep its players local and focused during the season or is a more insidious bar against travel.
Third, the contract provides that the Saudi Sports Arbitration Center has exclusive jurisdiction to hear any disputes arising out of the contract. The international governance of soccer is notoriously complex, including multiple forums for dispute resolution. FIFA, the sport’s governing body, generally directs that disputes should be heard in the first instance by a National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC). NDRCs are neutral adjudicatory bodies in the country from which the dispute arises. To be recognized by FIFA, NDRCs must be evaluated by FIFA and meet minimum requirements for fairness, such as an independent decision-maker, the right to be heard, and the right to counsel.
The Saudi Sports Arbitration Center has not been recognized by FIFA as an NDRC capable of fairly administering contract disputes. In a 2021 case between Ricardo Machado, a Portuguese player, and Al Taawoun, his Saudi club, concerning unpaid wages, Al Taawoun lost its efforts to have the case heard before the Saudi Sports Arbitration Center. The FIFA-appointed arbitrators in that case ruled that because FIFA had not recognized the Saudi Sports Arbitration Center as an NDRC, the Center did not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the dispute. For these reasons and the ones discussed above, there would be substantial questions whether a player could get a fair hearing before the Saudi Sports Arbitration Center.
Despite the issues identified above, soccer in Saudi Arabia is proceeding at pace. It recently hosted the 2023 Club World Cup, will be the host of the 2027 Asian Cup, and plans to bid for the 2030 World Cup. While concerns about life in Saudi Arabia were apparently too much for superstar Lionel Messi (now of Major League Soccer), other players who find themselves unable to turn down life-changing money should do so with a clear understanding of the risks.
Deubert is Senior Counsel at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP.
