The case involves a dispute between Brazilian professional football player M.P. and Russian club PFC Krilja Sovetov regarding the unilateral termination of an employment contract. The conflict arose when M.P. left Russia in October 2004 to visit his sick mother in Brazil, which the club claimed was unauthorized. The club initiated disciplinary proceedings, accusing M.P. of neglecting his obligations, while M.P. argued that late salary payments justified his termination. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the case, focusing on whether M.P. had just cause to terminate the contract. The panel ruled that while non-payment or late payment of remuneration can constitute just cause, M.P. failed to demonstrate he had complained about the delays or that they severely impacted his ability to fulfill the contract. The panel also found that the club did not take concrete measures to enforce M.P.'s obligations, disqualifying it from claiming replacement costs.
The dispute escalated when M.P. did not return after a two-day leave in March 2005 and instead terminated his contract, citing unpaid wages and breach of trust. He subsequently signed with Brazilian club Cruzeiro Esporte Clube. PFC Krilja Sovetov contested the termination, leading to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruling in March 2006 that M.P. was responsible for the breach due to unauthorized absences. The DRC ordered M.P. to pay $2,040,000 in compensation and imposed a four-month playing ban on him and a two-transfer-period ban on Cruzeiro. M.P. appealed to CAS, which reviewed the case de novo, applying FIFA regulations and Swiss law where necessary.
The CAS panel found that M.P. lacked written authorization for his extended absences and failed to prove the club agreed to pay his salary during his leave. While acknowledging that late payments could justify termination under certain conditions, the panel noted M.P. had not formally complained or shown how the delays affected him. The panel adjusted the financial compensation to USD 1,058,000, reflecting the unamortized transfer fee minus pending wages, and upheld the four-month suspension, as FIFA regulations mandate sanctions for unilateral breaches without just cause. The decision emphasized the importance of clear contractual terms, written authorizations, and proper communication in employment disputes. The case underscores the balance between player rights and club obligations, highlighting the consequences of unilateral breaches and the role of governing bodies like FIFA and CAS in resolving such conflicts. The panel's ruling reinforced the principle that contractual obligations must be fulfilled unless clear just cause is demonstrated.