The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Brazilian professional football player Thiago Alberto Constancia and the Romanian club S.C. Dinamo 1948 S.A. The player signed a three-year contract with the club in June 2008, which included monthly salary payments and additional benefits. In December 2008, the player left Romania for Brazil, citing medical treatment, and subsequently failed to attend training in January 2009. On January 12, 2009, the player terminated the contract, alleging persistent delays in salary payments from September to December 2008 as just cause. The club contested this claim, arguing that payments had been made, sometimes in advance or with minor delays, and that the player had never previously complained about payment issues.
The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of the club. The DRC found that the player lacked just cause for termination, as payment delays were not severe enough to justify breach, and ordered the player to pay EUR 300,000 in compensation to the club for unamortized transfer fees and agent commissions. The player appealed this decision to CAS, maintaining that the delays constituted a breach of contract.
The CAS panel examined the evidence, including payment records and contractual terms, and concluded that the player had received most of his salary, with only minor delays. The panel noted that the player had not protested the delays before terminating the contract and that the unpaid amount at the time of termination was less than one and a half months' salary, which did not justify unilateral termination under Romanian labor law. The panel also upheld the club's deductions for expenses like flight tickets, phone bills, and rental costs, except for disciplinary fines, which lacked sufficient evidence.
The CAS dismissed the player's appeal, affirming the DRC's decision that the player must compensate the club EUR 300,000, plus interest if unpaid within 30 days. The ruling emphasized the principle of contractual stability in football and the financial repercussions of unjustified termination. The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the legal consequences of unilateral actions in professional sports. The CAS decision reinforced the balance between enforcing contractual terms and considering mitigating factors in disputes, ultimately upholding the club's claims and dismissing the player's arguments.