The case involves a dispute between Brazilian football player M.P. and FIFA, along with the Russian club PFC Krilja Sovetov. The player signed a contract with the Russian club in 2004 but terminated it unilaterally, claiming the club failed to meet financial obligations. He later joined Brazilian club Cruzeiro Esporte Clube in 2005. The Russian club filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), alleging the player breached his contract without just cause and that the Brazilian club induced the breach. In 2006, the DRC partially upheld the claim, ordering the player to pay compensation and imposing a four-month suspension from official matches. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to overturn the ruling and requesting a stay of execution for the suspension, arguing it would cause irreparable harm to his career and livelihood.
The CAS evaluated the request based on three factors: the likelihood of success on appeal, the risk of irreparable harm, and the balance of interests between the parties. It found that denying the player the opportunity to play for four months would cause irreparable harm if the suspension were later overturned. The balance of interests favored the player, as postponing the suspension would not undermine its deterrent effect, while immediate enforcement would disproportionately harm him. The CAS derived its jurisdiction from FIFA’s statutes and its own procedural rules, applying FIFA’s regulations supplemented by Swiss law. The appeal was deemed admissible as it met procedural requirements and was filed within the required timeframe.
The player argued the suspension would damage his career by hindering his fitness and financial opportunities, while FIFA opposed the stay, asserting the appeal had little chance of success and emphasizing contractual stability in football. The CAS acknowledged the player’s plausible case but noted it required further evidence. It recognized the potential irreparable harm to the player’s career if the suspension were enforced immediately, while also considering FIFA’s interest in upholding contractual stability. The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division concluded that delaying the sanction would not undermine its deterrent effect and that the risks to the player outweighed the disadvantages to FIFA and the Russian club.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal’s definition of irreparable damage was referenced, highlighting that denying the player the opportunity to play for four months would constitute such damage if the suspension were later overturned. The CAS found the three cumulative conditions for granting a stay were met and allowed the application to stay the DRC’s decision. The Deputy President formally granted the stay, with the case identified as CAS 2006/A/1141 M.P. v. FIFA & PFC Krilja Sovetov, dated 31 August 2006. The decision underscores the need to balance the potential harm to the player against the interests of the opposing parties, ultimately favoring the player’s request to delay the suspension pending the appeal’s outcome.