The case CAS 2010/A/2240 involves a contractual dispute between the Shanxi Zhongyu Professional Basketball Club and professional basketball player Lee A. Benson, along with his agent José F. Paris. The conflict arose from multiple contracts with conflicting terms, primarily concerning salary payments and termination clauses. The initial contract, signed in September 2009, stipulated a six-month term with a monthly net salary of $60,000 for Benson, along with agent fees of $18,000 each for Paris and another agent, plus a 10% commission on future deals. However, the Club later presented a second contract, dated the same as the first, which reduced Benson’s salary to $30,000. Benson denied signing this document, leading to a dispute over its authenticity. The Club argued this second contract superseded the first, terminating its obligations under the original agreement.
The dispute escalated with additional contested documents, including a "Contract Termination Agreement" and a fourth contract, which Benson also claimed were forged. The Club admitted some contracts were shams to circumvent Chinese Basketball Association (CBA) regulations limiting foreign players' salaries. The case was brought before the FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT), which ruled in favor of Benson, ordering the Club to pay unpaid salaries and agent fees. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the parties agreed to resolve the dispute ex aequo et bono, meaning decisions would be based on fairness rather than strict legal rules.
The CAS panel addressed several critical issues, including the authenticity of disputed signatures. A graphology expert from the University of Lausanne confirmed Benson’s signatures on the second and fourth contracts but could not verify others. The panel found the fourth contract valid, superseding prior agreements and allowing the Club to terminate Benson’s employment unilaterally. The Club’s termination was deemed justified under the contract’s terms, and Benson was not entitled to further compensation. However, the panel upheld the agent’s claim for unpaid fees, awarding Paris $10,500 plus interest, as the original contract did not provide for fee reduction upon early termination.
The CAS partially upheld the Club’s appeal, reforming the FAT’s decision. The ruling emphasized the importance of contractual clarity and good faith, while acknowledging the irregularities in the parties' dealings. The case highlights the complexities of sports contracts, the role of expert evidence in disputes, and the principles of equity in arbitration. Ultimately, the Club’s termination of the fourth contract was upheld, and Benson’s claims for additional compensation were dismissed, though the agent’s fees were enforced as originally agreed. The decision underscores the enforceability of contractual terms and the need for transparency in professional sports agreements.