The case involves a complex arbitration dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between FC Pyunik Yerevan, a football club from Armenia, and a professional football player, L., along with AFC Rapid Bucaresti and FIFA. The dispute arose from the unilateral termination of the player's employment contract with FC Pyunik during the "Protected Period," a timeframe under FIFA regulations where contractual breaches face stricter penalties. The CAS panel, composed of Rui Botica Santos, José Juan Pintó, and Michele Bernasconi, addressed several legal issues, including FIFA's standing in the appeal, the interpretation of time limits under FIFA regulations, and the calculation of compensation for contract breaches. The panel ruled that FIFA had standing as an intervening party, clarified that time limits under Article 25 of the FIFA Regulations (2005 edition) were distinct from disciplinary cases, and emphasized that contractual agreements should guide compensation, with Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations serving as a flexible guideline.
The dispute originated from a 2003 contract between FC Pyunik and the player, who left the club without permission in 2005 to join AFC Rapid Bucaresti. FC Pyunik alleged a breach of contract, while the player claimed he was naturalized as an Armenian citizen against his will. The case involved conflicting claims about the player's nationality, registration status, and transfer documents. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of FC Pyunik, awarding $15,000 in compensation and holding AFC Rapid jointly liable but declined to impose a transfer ban, citing insufficient evidence of inducement. FC Pyunik appealed to CAS, seeking higher compensation and sporting sanctions.
The CAS panel assessed the evidence, including submissions from the involved football federations, and rendered a decision on May 26, 2008. It upheld the financial compensation but increased the amount to $25,000, considering the player's higher salary at AFC Rapid as a reflection of his market value. The panel rejected FC Pyunik's claims for sporting sanctions against the player, citing his young age and the circumstances of his registration, and declined to sanction AFC Rapid due to lack of clear evidence of inducement. The decision highlighted the balance between contractual stability and fairness, emphasizing the unique dynamics of football as a sport and an industry.
The case underscores the complexities of international player transfers, contractual disputes, and the role of governing bodies like FIFA and CAS in resolving such conflicts. It also illustrates the importance of evidence in substantiating claims for compensation and sanctions, as well as the discretionary application of FIFA regulations to ensure equitable outcomes. The panel's ruling reinforced the precedence of contractual agreements in determining compensation while acknowledging the specificity of football as a market where player mobility and contractual stability must be carefully balanced. The decision serves as a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in applying sports governance rules.