The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on February 16, 2010, in a dispute between Club Tofta Itróttarfelag, B68, and a professional football player, R., concerning the unilateral termination of the player's employment contract in April 2008. The club alleged the player failed to meet training expectations, lacked physical readiness due to an old injury, and displayed poor discipline, including being drunk before a match. The player countered that his inability to perform stemmed from injury, not misconduct. The case hinged on whether the club had just cause to terminate the contract under FIFA regulations and Swiss law, which governed the dispute.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands, addressed several legal principles. It clarified that a request for the grounds of a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision need not be formal; expressing intent to appeal in writing within ten days sufficed. The panel emphasized that FIFA rules and Swiss law primarily governed the dispute, with no room for other national laws unless mandated by Swiss law. It highlighted the principle of good faith, stating a party cannot repudiate an agreement it previously upheld through performance. The panel ruled that a player’s inability to perform due to illness or injury does not constitute a breach of duty, nor does failing to meet desired performance levels. However, neglecting efforts to maintain working capacity could justify termination.
The panel noted that immediate termination for just cause requires a serious breach, with warnings issued for lesser breaches. The burden of proof lies with the party invoking just cause. If termination occurs without just cause, the employee is entitled to compensation for the notice period or remaining contract term. In this case, the club failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for immediate termination, as the player’s conduct did not amount to a serious breach. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, ruling in favor of the player and ordering the club to compensate him for wrongful termination.
The club had argued the contract was invalid due to lack of approval by the Faroese Football Association, but the panel found no evidence supporting this claim. It also rejected the club’s allegations of the player’s misconduct, noting the player’s poor performance likely resulted from an old injury, not deliberate negligence. The panel underscored that immediate termination under Swiss law requires a serious breach, and the club had not previously warned the player about potential termination.
The FIFA DRC had initially ruled in the player’s favor, ordering the club to pay 103,900 Danish Krones (DKK) for unpaid wages from May to October 2008, plus interest. The club appealed, but the CAS dismissed the appeal, confirming the DRC’s decision. The panel emphasized the importance of contractual stability in professional football and the high threshold for proving just cause under FIFA regulations. The case highlights the necessity of procedural fairness and adherence to contractual obligations in employment disputes within football. The CAS’s ruling reinforced the player’s right to compensation and the club’s failure to meet the legal requirements for unilateral termination.
Ultimately, the CAS panel concluded that the club’s termination of the player’s contract was unjust, and the player was entitled to full compensation for the remaining value of his contract. The decision underscores the importance of evidence and procedural compliance in contractual disputes, with the burden of proof resting on the party alleging just cause for termination. The case serves as a reminder of the legal protections afforded to players under FIFA regulations and Swiss law.