The case involves a dispute between Kuwait Sporting Club and a professional footballer, Z., along with FIFA, concerning the unilateral termination of an employment contract due to a failed medical examination. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the matter, addressing several key issues. The employment contract between the player and the club was contingent on a successful medical examination, which the club later claimed the player failed due to a chronic knee injury. The club terminated the contract, citing clauses in the loan agreement that affirmed the player's good physical condition.
The CAS panel determined that conditioning the employment contract on a medical examination was null and void under FIFA regulations, as such clauses are unenforceable. However, this nullity did not invalidate the entire contract, meaning the club remained bound by its obligations. The panel emphasized that it is the responsibility of the buying club to ensure a player's fitness before signing a contract, a principle long upheld in football transactions. The ruling clarified that loan agreements are subject to the same contractual stability rules as permanent transfers, including protected period provisions under FIFA regulations. This prevents clubs from circumventing responsibilities through loan arrangements.
The CAS rejected the club's argument that the player's alleged injury justified termination, noting the player had participated in matches and training without issue before the MRI revealed the knee condition. The panel found no valid grounds for termination and ordered the club to compensate the player the full contractual amount of USD 120,000, plus interest if unpaid within the deadline. The decision reinforced the importance of contractual stability in football and the binding nature of employment agreements, regardless of loan arrangements.
The case also involved the club's appeal against a two-registration-period ban imposed by FIFA for breaching the contract within the protected period. The CAS upheld the ban, confirming that loan agreements are treated the same as permanent transfers under FIFA regulations. The club's request to merge the case with another pending FIFA dispute involving FC Tallinn was rejected, as the panel found the disputes independent and unrelated. The ruling underscored the limited scope of FIFA's authority in extending sanctions imposed by other federations, such as UEFA, and the binding nature of such disciplinary measures.
Ultimately, the CAS rejected the club's appeal, upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, and dismissed all other requests for relief. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, particularly concerning unilateral terminations, medical examinations, and the enforcement of FIFA disciplinary measures. The outcome reinforces the importance of adhering to contractual and regulatory obligations in player transfers and the consequences of unjustified contract terminations.