The case involves a dispute between FK Teplice, a Czech football club, and Eintracht Frankfurt, a German football club, over the interpretation of a contractual clause in a transfer agreement for a player. The agreement, drafted in German by Eintracht Frankfurt, stipulated that FK Teplice would receive an additional €100,000 per calendar year if the player participated in 20 Bundesliga championship matches "from the beginning" during each calendar year. FK Teplice claimed the player met this condition in 2009 by starting in 20 matches, while Eintracht Frankfurt argued the clause required the player to be in the starting lineup from the first minute in each of those matches, which he had only done 15 times.
The FIFA Players’ Status Committee initially ruled in favor of Eintracht Frankfurt, interpreting the clause to mean the player had to be part of the starting lineup from the first minute in at least 20 matches. Since the player only started 15 matches, the claim was rejected, and FK Teplice was ordered to pay procedural costs. FK Teplice appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging this decision and seeking a reversal.
The CAS panel upheld the FIFA decision, emphasizing that the wording of the clause was clear and unambiguous. It ruled that "from the beginning" referred to the player starting the match from the first minute, not merely participating in matches within the calendar year. The panel also noted that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim, and FK Teplice failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its interpretation. The panel rejected FK Teplice's argument that "from the beginning" referred to the calendar year, finding such an interpretation redundant. Additionally, the panel dismissed the relevance of a Czech translation of the contract arranged by FK Teplice, which inaccurately suggested "from the beginning" referred to the calendar year, as only the original German version was binding.
FK Teplice attempted to argue that the parties' original common intention was to base the bonus on the number of appearances, not necessarily starting lineup inclusions. However, the panel found the testimonies provided by FK Teplice's witnesses insufficient and contradictory to those of Eintracht Frankfurt's representative. The panel concluded that the clause was intended to incentivize the player's consistent inclusion in the starting lineup, not just appearances.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed FK Teplice's appeal, maintaining the original decision and requiring them to bear the procedural costs. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that contractual interpretation should favor clarity over ambiguity, especially when the wording is precise. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual language and the necessity for parties to substantiate their claims with convincing evidence in arbitration proceedings. The decision closed the case, with all other requests for relief dismissed.