The case involves Moroccan footballer Ali Bouabé and Belgian club Sporting Lokeren Oost-Vlaanderen in a dispute with Moroccan club Association Sportive des Forces Armées Royales (ASFAR) over the unilateral termination of Bouabé's contract without just cause outside the protected period. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rendered its decision on January 31, 2008, addressing key legal principles related to contract termination compensation in football. Bouabé had signed a five-year contract with ASFAR in 2001, set to expire in August 2006. In August 2005, he joined Sporting Lokeren under a one-season contract with an option for three additional seasons. ASFAR contested the transfer, asserting Bouabé was still under contract until August 2006, and refused to issue an International Transfer Certificate (ITC). The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in November 2005 that Bouabé had terminated his contract without just cause outside the protected period, holding both Bouabé and Sporting Lokeren jointly liable for compensation to ASFAR. The DRC later set the compensation at €300,000 in November 2006, based on Article 17(1) of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2005 version).
Bouabé and Sporting Lokeren appealed to CAS, seeking a reduction of the compensation to €30,130.99, arguing that ASFAR's claimed damages were overstated. ASFAR counterclaimed for €1,000,000, citing Bouabé's status as an international and key player. The CAS analyzed the applicable legal framework, combining Article 17(1) of FIFA's regulations and Article 4.2(b) of the "Compensation for Breach of Contract" document. The tribunal outlined methods for calculating compensation, including amortizing costs over the remaining contract duration, averaging wages from the old and new contracts, and considering exceptional circumstances. The CAS also distinguished between training compensation and contract termination compensation, noting they address different scenarios but can apply cumulatively if conditions are met.
Regarding damages, the CAS differentiated between "loss of opportunity" and "loss of earnings," noting Swiss law generally requires near-certainty of damage for equitable compensation. The tribunal rejected ASFAR's €1,000,000 claim, finding no evidence of such significant financial loss, but upheld the DRC's €300,000 award as reasonable, considering Bouabé's status and the remaining contract term. The CAS confirmed the joint liability of Bouabé and Sporting Lokeren, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the FIFA DRC's decision. The ruling clarifies key principles in football contract disputes, emphasizing proportional compensation based on contractual and factual circumstances, while rejecting speculative damage claims. The CAS reinforced FIFA's regulatory framework, ensuring consistency in resolving unilateral termination cases.
In a subsequent appeal, the CAS partially upheld the claims of Bouabé and Sporting Lokeren, reducing the compensation to €183,610, calculated based on amortized costs and salary differences, with a multiplier of 2.5 due to aggravating circumstances, including Sporting Lokeren's bad faith in proceeding with the transfer despite being informed of Bouabé's existing contract. The tribunal also set a 5% interest rate from March 15, 2006, the date ASFAR first filed its claim. The CAS dismissed ASFAR's claims of lost opportunity for a potential transfer and sporting or commercial damages, citing lack of evidence and noting ASFAR's strong performance in the subsequent season. The decision underscores the importance of factual evidence in establishing compensable damages and adherence to contractual obligations in football transfers.