The case involves a dispute between German football coach Theo Bücker and Egyptian football club Ismailia SC regarding the termination of Bücker's employment contract, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Petros Mavroidis, Mr. Martin Schimke, and Mr. Karim Hafez, issued an award on 29 October 2009, addressing key issues such as jurisdiction, applicable law, and the inapplicability of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) to coaches. The panel affirmed its jurisdiction despite Ismailia SC's non-participation, as proper documentation had been delivered. It ruled that the FIFA RSTP, specifically the 2005 edition, did not apply to coaches, as it explicitly concerned players, leading to the annulment of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's (DRC) decision for applying incorrect regulations.
The dispute stemmed from two contracts between Bücker and Ismailia SC. The first, signed in December 2005, was automatically extended unless either party objected. In April 2006, Bücker attempted to withdraw but later signed a second contract in May 2006 with better terms. By June 2006, Bücker sought to terminate the second contract, citing the club's breach of obligations, and offered to return part of his signing fee and a car. The club refused and demanded full repayment, leading to a claim filed with FIFA's DRC. The DRC ruled in favor of the club, but the CAS panel overturned this decision, citing the misapplication of the RSTP and insufficient evidence of damages under Egyptian law.
Under Egyptian law, the panel noted the absence of provisions equivalent to Swiss law regarding damages and burden of proof. The Egyptian Civil Code requires claimants to prove direct losses and mitigate damages, with courts determining unliquidated damages. The panel found Bücker failed to substantiate his claim for material loss, as he secured new employment immediately after terminating his contract. His claim for moral damages was also rejected due to insufficient proof of actual harm, despite allegations of defamatory statements by the club's president.
The CAS partially upheld Bücker's appeal, amending the FIFA Single Judge's decision to state that Ismailia SC was not entitled to compensation for early contract termination. However, it confirmed Bücker's obligation to repay a $50,000 signing-on fee to avoid unjust enrichment, as he had acknowledged this during the hearing. All other claims, including the $100,000 request for moral damages, were dismissed due to lack of concrete evidence. The panel emphasized the importance of applying the correct legal framework and meeting evidentiary burdens in contractual disputes.
The case underscores the necessity for claimants to provide substantiated evidence of damages and highlights the CAS's role in ensuring the correct application of legal principles. The panel's decision reaffirmed that coaches are not equated with players under FIFA regulations and that contractual disputes must be resolved under the relevant governing law, in this case, Egyptian law. The outcome demonstrates the legal principle that claimants must demonstrate actual harm to succeed in claims for compensation.