The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute between Eintracht Braunschweig, a German football club, and Olympiacos FC, a Greek football club, concerning the transfer of a player. The conflict arose from a transfer agreement signed in January 2007, which stipulated that Eintracht would transfer the player to Olympiacos for €500,000, provided Olympiacos approved the transfer by February 28, 2007. However, Olympiacos withdrew from the agreement on February 7, 2007, citing a lack of approval. Eintracht and the player’s agent contested this withdrawal, arguing that Olympiacos had already approved the transfer by signing a separate employment contract with the player. Despite the dispute, Olympiacos and the player eventually signed an employment contract in August 2007, and the player was loaned to another club. Eintracht later invoiced Olympiacos for the transfer fee, but Olympiacos refused payment, leading Eintracht to file a petition with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber in 2009.
FIFA’s Single Judge rejected Eintracht’s claim in 2011, ruling that Olympiacos had validly withdrawn from the transfer agreement and that the conditions for payment were not met. The judge also dismissed Eintracht’s argument that Olympiacos’s subsequent employment contract with the player contradicted its withdrawal from the transfer agreement. Eintracht appealed to CAS, challenging both the procedural fairness of FIFA’s decision and the substantive merits of the case. Eintracht argued that FIFA had violated its right to be heard by accepting late submissions from Olympiacos and failing to provide access to confidential documents. The CAS Panel, however, emphasized its authority to conduct a de novo review, meaning it could independently reassess all facts and legal issues without being bound by FIFA’s decision.
On the substantive issue, the Panel found that Olympiacos had no obligation to pay the transfer fee because the player had become a free agent due to Eintracht’s relegation, which terminated his employment contract. The Panel rejected Eintracht’s claim that Olympiacos’s actions were contradictory, noting that the subsequent employment contract was unrelated to the initial transfer agreement. The Panel also upheld FIFA’s procedural handling of the case, concluding that any irregularities did not irreparably harm Eintracht’s rights, as the CAS review provided a full opportunity to present its case. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Eintracht’s appeal, affirming FIFA’s decision and ruling that Olympiacos was not liable for the claimed payment. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms in player transfers and the CAS’s role in ensuring fair resolution of international sports disputes through independent review.