The case involves a contractual dispute between Arie Haan, a professional football coach from the Netherlands, and the Cameroon Football Federation (FECAFOOT). The dispute arose from a contract signed on 25 August 2006, appointing Haan as the coach of Cameroon's national football team. The agreement was signed by Haan, the Ministry of Sports and Physical Education of Cameroon, and FECAFOOT. The contract outlined Haan's responsibilities, including technical training, player selection, and organizing youth football, and required him to reside in Cameroon and dedicate all his time to these tasks. The Ministry was responsible for his salary, while FECAFOOT was to provide necessary support. The contract allowed either party to terminate it with a 30-day notice.
The dispute centered on whether FECAFOOT was the actual counterparty to the agreement, despite the Ministry being a signatory. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel ruled that FECAFOOT acted as the counterparty in practice, bringing the dispute under FIFA's jurisdiction. The panel also clarified procedural requirements for claims, noting that FIFA's inactivity does not render a claim time-barred if filed within the two-year limit stipulated in FIFA regulations.
The conflict escalated when FECAFOOT accused Haan of not residing in Cameroon, failing to submit an annual plan, and traveling without authorization. Haan, in turn, claimed FECAFOOT failed to honor the agreement, leading him to terminate the contract on 31 January 2007. FECAFOOT sought damages from FIFA, initially claiming €160,000 and later escalating to €800,000, citing breach of contract and reputational harm. FIFA's Single Judge partially accepted the claim, ordering Haan to pay €500,000. Haan appealed to CAS, which reviewed the case and addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and jurisdictional matters.
The CAS panel concluded that FIFA had jurisdiction, as disputes involving coaches and national associations fall under FIFA's competence. It also found that FECAFOOT's claim was filed within the required time frame, rejecting Haan's argument that it was time-barred. Regarding the termination, the panel ruled that Haan breached the contract by failing to provide the required 30-day notice but found no proven damages from this breach. The panel adjusted the compensation, ordering Haan to repay only the €40,000 advance salary for February 2007, as he did not render services that month, and dismissed the additional €460,000 claim for lack of evidence.
The case highlights the complexities of contractual relationships in football coaching, the importance of clear contractual terms, and the procedural challenges in resolving international sports disputes. The CAS panel's decision underscores the need for adherence to contractual obligations and the principle that damages must be substantiated with evidence. The ruling ultimately upheld the validity of the claim but limited the compensation to the actual financial impact of the breach.