The case involves a dispute between Brescia Calcio S.p.A. (Brescia) and West Ham United FC (West Ham) concerning a breach of a transfer agreement for a football player. The agreement, signed on 20 August 2010, required Brescia to pay West Ham €2.2 million in three instalments. While the first instalment was paid on time, Brescia failed to pay the second instalment due on 30 June 2011, citing financial difficulties following its relegation from Serie A to Serie B. West Ham responded by publicly disclosing the non-payment on its website and requesting the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) to suspend the player’s registration. Brescia claimed this disclosure breached the confidentiality clause in the transfer agreement and caused reputational damage, while also proposing to postpone the payment until September 2011 with interest.
West Ham initiated legal proceedings in the English High Court on 14 July 2011 for non-payment but later withdrew the case after recognizing that FIFA had jurisdiction over the dispute, as stipulated in the FIFA Statutes. Brescia argued that West Ham’s actions, including the court proceedings, caused unnecessary costs and damages. The case was subsequently brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel ruled that Brescia failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the damages claimed due to West Ham’s public statement. However, it held that West Ham should compensate Brescia for the unnecessary costs incurred from the parallel court proceedings, as the case should have been filed directly with FIFA. The panel also noted that a proforma invoice could serve as evidence for estimating damages related to the discontinuation of proceedings.
The dispute also involved jurisdictional conflicts and procedural challenges. Brescia appealed a FIFA Players' Status Committee (PSC) decision ordering it to pay €1.7 million to West Ham. The CAS hearing was initially postponed due to Brescia’s involvement in co-ownership resolution procedures for the player. A dispute arose over West Ham’s legal representation, with Brescia questioning potential conflicts of interest involving one of the arbitrators. The hearing was eventually held in Lausanne, Switzerland, with further procedural clarifications.
The CAS panel partially upheld Brescia’s claims, ordering West Ham to cover the costs of the unnecessary court proceedings but dismissing Brescia’s request for compensation related to the alleged reputational damage caused by the public statement. The panel rejected Brescia’s claim regarding breach of confidentiality due to lack of proof but upheld its claim for reimbursement of legal costs related to the withdrawn English court proceedings. The decision reinforced the principle that disputes falling under FIFA’s jurisdiction should be resolved through FIFA’s procedures rather than national courts. The final ruling ordered Brescia to pay West Ham €1.7 million plus 5% annual interest, while West Ham was directed to compensate Brescia for the legal costs incurred due to the withdrawn English court proceedings. All other claims were dismissed. The case highlights the complexities of football transfer disputes, contractual obligations, and the role of arbitration in resolving such conflicts.