The case involved Rémi Petit, a French football coach, and the Congolese Football Federation (FECOFOOT) in a dispute over unpaid salaries and benefits under a contract signed in 2004. Petit was appointed as the head of FECOFOOT's training center for a 31-month period, with responsibilities including training programs and youth development policies. His contract stipulated a monthly salary of €5,335, along with housing, a vehicle, and match bonuses. However, FECOFOOT failed to establish the training center or pay Petit any salary, leading him to terminate the contract in January 2005. Petit sought compensation for the full contract duration, totaling €165,385 in unpaid salaries and €42,532 in additional benefits, plus €50,000 for moral and material damages.
Petit initially filed a complaint with FIFA, which declared itself incompetent in 2006, arguing that his role did not qualify as a coach under its regulations. Petit appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which confirmed its jurisdiction and reviewed the case. The CAS panel, applying Swiss law, ruled that Petit's role aligned with coaching responsibilities despite his formal title, making FIFA's initial dismissal incorrect. The panel also found that Petit had just cause to terminate the contract due to FECOFOOT's non-payment, a breach under Swiss law. However, the panel adjusted the compensation, deeming the full salary claim excessive under Swiss Code of Obligations Article 163(3). It allowed a 16.8% non-deductible portion, considering FECOFOOT's severe breach.
The CAS rejected Petit's claim for moral damages, stating that non-payment constituted material harm, not moral injury. It also dismissed speculative claims like lost rental income but acknowledged the vehicle expense, awarding €7,750 based on amortized usage. The final ruling ordered FECOFOOT to pay Petit €165,385 for unpaid salaries and €7,750 for in-kind benefits, totaling €173,135, while rejecting all other claims. The case highlighted the importance of contractual obligations, the distinction between material and moral damages, and the need to assess roles beyond formal titles in employment disputes. The decision reinforced the enforceability of contracts under Swiss law while ensuring proportionality in penalty clauses.