The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on January 25, 2010, resolving a dispute between RCD Mallorca, a professional football player, and FIFA and UMM Salal SC. The case centered on the player's unilateral termination of an employment contract with UMM Salal during the Protected Period, as defined by FIFA regulations. The player had signed contracts with both Mallorca and UMM Salal for the same period, leading to a conflict when he attempted to terminate the latter. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in May 2009 that the player breached his contract with UMM Salal without just cause, ordering him to pay $160,000 in compensation and imposing a four-month playing ban. Mallorca and the player appealed to CAS, challenging the decision.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. José Juan Pintó Sala, and Mr. Hendrik Willem Kesler, examined several legal principles. They affirmed that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim and that circumstantial evidence can be used where direct evidence is unavailable. The panel also clarified that FIFA regulations govern employment contracts for professional players, but domestic law, particularly Swiss law, applies to issues not explicitly covered by FIFA rules. The panel rejected the player's argument that his consent to the UMM Salal contract was invalid due to an essential error, ruling that his misunderstanding of termination consequences did not qualify as a material error under Swiss law.
The panel upheld the DRC's finding that the player breached his contract with UMM Salal, emphasizing that signing two conflicting contracts inherently violates contractual stability. The compensation amount of $160,000, as stipulated in the contract, was confirmed, with 5% annual interest from July 25, 2009. However, the panel rejected UMM Salal's claim for higher damages due to lack of evidence. The panel also ruled that Mallorca was not jointly liable for the compensation, as it was not the player's "new club" under FIFA regulations at the time of the breach.
Regarding the four-month playing ban, the panel acknowledged FIFA's discretion to impose sporting sanctions for breaches during the Protected Period but found exceptional circumstances justifying its removal. These included the unique context of the contract signing, the player's prompt declaration of termination, and his de facto suspension due to delayed ITC issuance. The panel set aside the playing restriction while confirming the financial compensation.
The panel dismissed Mallorca's counterclaim for $110,000 in damages from UMM Salal, finding no evidence of bad faith or wrongful conduct. The final award partially upheld the appeal, maintaining the financial compensation but overturning the playing ban. The decision reinforced the importance of contractual stability in football and the interplay between FIFA regulations and domestic law in resolving disputes. The case concluded with the CAS modifying the DRC's decision by removing the eligibility restriction while leaving the remainder intact.