The case involves a dispute between Brazilian professional football player Sandro da Silva and Sudanese club Merriekh SC, concerning an employment contract and related financial and medical claims. The dispute was initially handled by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) before being appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The key issues revolved around the applicable law, the club's responsibility for the player's medical expenses, and claims for unpaid salaries and moral damages. The CAS panel, consisting of a sole arbitrator, determined that Swiss law applied due to the arbitration being seated in Lausanne, Switzerland, as there was no express or implied choice of law by the parties. The employment contract, signed in December 2003, stipulated a one-year term with a total remuneration of USD 90,000, along with additional benefits. Clause 8 of the contract addressed medical treatment, stating the club would cover costs within Sudan but not abroad, unless authorized. The player sustained an injury during training in February 2004, and the club authorized and paid for his travel to Brazil for treatment, implying responsibility for these costs despite the contract's wording.
The player claimed breach of contract, alleging he received only USD 12,000 of the agreed salary and was owed unpaid bonuses and medical expenses of USD 1,900. He also sought USD 45,000 in moral damages. The club argued the contract was never approved by the Sudan Football Association (SFA) and that the player was registered as an amateur, thus falling outside FIFA DRC's jurisdiction. The club also contended the player failed to follow the contract's grievance procedures before filing his claim. FIFA's DRC requested translations of Arabic documents submitted by the club, but these were not provided, hindering the player's ability to respond fully. The DRC partially accepted the player's claim, ordering the club to pay USD 18,000 for outstanding salary but rejecting the claim for medical expenses incurred in Brazil, citing the contract's terms.
The player appealed to CAS, arguing the DRC overlooked evidence, including a fax from his attorney, which he claimed proved his authorized absence and the club's failure to meet contractual obligations. He also disputed the validity of a "declaration" he signed, alleging it was coerced and written in English, which he did not understand. The club did not file an answer to the appeal, and a hearing was held at CAS where the club was absent. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the DRC's jurisdiction and applied Swiss law, finding the club responsible for the unpaid salary balance of USD 48,000 and the medical expenses of USD 1,900, given their authorization of the treatment and duty of care. The claim for moral damages was dismissed, as only financial losses were substantiated. Interest was set at 5% per annum from the contract’s end date, December 15, 2004.
The CAS partially allowed the appeal, ordering the club to pay the player USD 49,900 (USD 48,000 in unpaid contractual amounts and USD 1,900 in medical expenses) plus 5% annual interest from December 15, 2004. All other claims were dismissed. The decision replaced the earlier ruling by the DRC, concluding the club’s obligations under the contract and subsequent agreements. The case underscores the importance of contractual clarity, the responsibilities of clubs toward their players, and the role of FIFA and CAS in resolving employment-related disputes in football.