The case revolves around an appeal by Chiapas Fútbol Club (Jaguares de Chiapas) against a FIFA Players’ Status Committee decision favoring Criciuma Esporte Clube in a dispute over a transfer agreement for player R. The agreement, dated 6 August 2004, stipulated that Chiapas would pay Criciuma $700,000 in two installments: $400,000 upfront and $300,000 by 6 November 2004. Chiapas paid the first installment but refused the second, arguing that no valid agreement existed, no receipt was provided for the initial payment, and the player had left for South Korea without returning. Criciuma filed a claim with FIFA, which ruled in its favor, ordering Chiapas to pay the outstanding $300,000.
Chiapas appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the agreement’s validity by claiming it was negotiated through an agent and thus unenforceable. The CAS panel rejected this argument, noting that Chiapas’s authorized representative had signed the agreement. The panel also found no credible evidence that Chiapas had requested a receipt for the first payment or that Criciuma had refused to issue one. Furthermore, the panel dismissed Chiapas’s claim that the player’s departure absolved its payment obligation, pointing out that Chiapas had breached its employment agreement with the player by failing to pay wages, canceling his return ticket, and showing disinterest in his services.
The CAS upheld FIFA’s decision, affirming the transfer agreement’s validity and enforceability. It ruled that Chiapas’s refusal to pay the second installment constituted a breach of contract and ordered the club to comply with the original terms. The appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA decision was fully upheld. The case highlights that clubs cannot avoid contractual obligations by disputing agreements they have signed, especially when their own actions contribute to the dispute.
Separately, the document confirms the receipt and acknowledgment of a committee communication dated 15 February 2006. While the communication’s content is not detailed, the confirmation serves as an official record of its receipt. Such acknowledgments are standard in formal or administrative contexts, ensuring transparency and accountability by documenting that the intended recipient has received and processed the communication. The summary emphasizes the procedural nature of these confirmations, which facilitate clear and traceable interactions within organizational or institutional settings. The brevity of the document suggests its primary purpose is to serve as a record rather than to convey detailed information. In summary, the text confirms the receipt of a committee communication, underscoring the importance of such procedural acknowledgments in maintaining orderly and documented formal exchanges.