Leeds United reportedly appeal FIFA ruling of huge Jean-Kevin Augustin payout on contract breach

A report from The Athletic has revealed that Augustin, who is now at Swiss side Basel, took his case to FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber who found partially in his favour. Leeds, though, are believed to be appealing the ruling. Leeds United have said that the club cannot comment on an ongoing legal matter.

Leeds announced in December that they had reached an amicable resolution with Augustin’s former club RB Leipzig of the transfer dispute surrounding a player that the Whites signed on loan in January 2020 with an obligation to buy permanently for 21m euros (£18m) if the club were promoted. The Whites reached a settlement of £15.5m with Leipzig but are now being ordered to pay the player himself £24.5m.

Leeds United's annual accounts for the 2021-22 Premier League season were released on Sunday morning – which detailed the £15.5m settlement to Leipzig for the transfer of Augustin. Leeds signed Augustin on loan from the German club in January 2020 with an obligation to buy if they won promotion to the Premier League.

Leeds won promotion but only after the end of the season was delayed by the Covid-19 lockdown, meaning that they sealed a return to the Premier League after the original deadline to sign Augustin permanently had passed.

In November, Leeds said they were “surprised and disappointed” after being ordered to pay Leipzig £18m for Augustin as their appeal at FIFA’s ruling was dismissed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Leeds had appealed against FIFA’s ruling in June that they must honour their "purchase obligation". Leeds planned to appeal the CAS ruling but in December the Whites revealed they had reached an ‘amicable resolution’ with the Bundesliga club.

The Contingencies section of Leeds United’s annual accounts revealed that: “At the year end there were a number of legal claims outstanding against the company. These claims are being challenged by the directors and so there is significant uncertainty over their outcome. For this reason no provision has been included.”