Citation: 4A_16/2024 E. 5.2

5.2. Le recourant indique avoir soutenu, lors de la procédure arbitrale, que l'intimée n'avait pas formellement contesté, en se conformant aux exigences procédurales applicables, l'allégation de fait selon laquelle l'accord transactionnel litigieux avait effectivement été signé le 4 juillet 2023. Or, la Formation n'aurait, à son avis, pas examiné cet argument. Semblable argumentation tombe à faux. En l'occurrence, le TAS a correctement exposé les positions respectives des parties s'agissant de la problématique relative à la date à laquelle l'accord transactionnel avait effectivement été conclu. Sous n. 62 let. l. et m. de sa sentence, il a en particulier mentionné ce qui suit: " l. The First Respondent [l'intimée] raises several questions as to the correctness of the sequence of events that took place in and around the time that the Settlement Agreement was allegedly signed by the Player and the Club on 4 July 2023. It is the strong conviction of the First Respondent that the Club and the Player had in fact signed the Settlement Agreement after the Appealed Decision and pursued only the avoidance of the sporting sanctions imposed against the Appellant by claiming that the signature took place on 4 July 2023. m. These question marks lead the First Respondent to conclude that " none of the elements presented by the Appellant are persuasive enough to hold the idea that indeed on 4 July 2023 the Player and the Club reached a Settlement Agreement. It seems more reasonable to think that the Settlement Agreement was the result of a negative outcome for the Appellant who had to compensate the Player and, principally, the fact that it had to serve sporting sanctions ". "