The case CAS 2012/A/2818 involved a dispute between professional football player Rudolf Urban and Hungarian club FC Györi ETO kft, centered on the termination of Urban's employment contract and related agreements. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed key legal principles, including the binding nature of signed contracts, burden of proof under Swiss law, contractual interpretation, compensation for breach, and sporting sanctions under FIFA regulations. The panel, led by Prof. Petros Mavroidis, emphasized that a signed contract is binding even if a party does not understand the language, unless fraud, duress, or illegality is proven. The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim, requiring objective demonstration of rights. Contract interpretation must focus on the parties' true intentions, assessed in good faith.
Urban signed two contracts in 2007: an employment contract and an image rights agreement, both in Hungarian, with translations provided orally. He later claimed he was unaware he was contracting with two entities. The employment contract included salary terms, termination clauses, and arbitration provisions, while the image rights agreement granted the club control over Urban’s image for a fixed fee. In 2008, Urban terminated his contract, alleging breaches by the club, including unpaid wages. The club filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled Urban breached the contract without just cause and ordered him to pay EUR 16,666 in compensation for unamortized agent fees. Urban appealed to CAS, arguing the contracts were not properly explained and that unpaid wages justified his termination.
The CAS examined whether the termination was justified and if compensation or sanctions were warranted. The arbitrator upheld the validity of the contracts, dismissing Urban’s claims of deception or misunderstanding, noting he signed without consulting his agent. The arbitrator also found that the mutual termination of the first contract rendered Urban’s wage claims moot. Regarding the second contract, the arbitrator ruled Urban was bound by its terms and had breached it by refusing to return to the club. However, the arbitrator offset the club’s claimed damages (EUR 16,666) against savings from unpaid wages (EUR 16,800), resulting in no compensation awarded. The CAS also declined to impose sporting sanctions, as the DRC had not addressed this in its initial ruling.
The case underscores the importance of understanding contractual obligations and the legal consequences of signing agreements, even with language barriers. It reinforces that parties are bound by their signatures unless exceptional circumstances like fraud or coercion are proven. The ruling highlights the role of FIFA regulations and Swiss law in resolving international sports disputes, balancing contractual adherence with equitable remedies. Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Urban’s appeal, absolving him of financial liability to the club but affirming the binding nature of the contracts he signed.