The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Alain Geiger, a Swiss football coach, and the Egyptian Football Association (EFA) along with Al Masry Club, an Egyptian football club. The conflict stemmed from an employment contract signed in December 2010, which stipulated Geiger would coach the club until June 2011 for a salary of USD 150,000, paid in installments. The Egyptian Revolution in January 2011 led to the suspension of sporting activities, prompting Geiger to return to Switzerland. Although he briefly returned to Egypt in February and March 2011, the club failed to pay his salaries for April and May. Geiger filed a claim with FIFA, which was rejected on the grounds that he had not sufficiently demonstrated efforts to return and fulfill his contractual obligations.
Geiger appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the club breached the contract by withholding his salary. The CAS proceedings involved procedural disputes, including the language of the proceedings and the number of arbitrators. A sole arbitrator, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, was appointed and ruled that FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) did not apply to coaches, as they explicitly concern players. Under Swiss law, the burden of proof rested on Geiger to justify his absence and claim to unpaid salary. The arbitrator found that while the club failed to prove Geiger left voluntarily, Geiger did not sufficiently justify his prolonged absence or show proactive efforts to resume his duties. Consequently, the arbitrator upheld FIFA's decision, dismissing Geiger’s claim and requiring him to bear the costs.
The case highlights the distinction between contractual disputes involving coaches versus players under FIFA regulations and underscores the importance of contractual compliance and burden of proof in employment disputes. Geiger argued that his contract was temporarily suspended due to the revolution and that the club insisted he leave Egypt temporarily but never reinstated him or paid his outstanding salaries. He sought reimbursement of USD 40,000 for April and May 2011, along with interest and legal costs. The club, however, contended it had fulfilled all obligations until April 2011, including paying his salary and providing a flight ticket, and accused Geiger of breaching his contract by not returning after the league resumed.
The arbitrator determined that Swiss law governed the dispute, as FIFA's statutes are based in Switzerland. Geiger provided evidence, including documents and witness testimony, proving his presence in Egypt during February and March 2011. The club's evidence, including limited testimony and a bank transfer record, was deemed insufficient. The arbitrator found Geiger's evidence credible and ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay the USD 40,000 owed, plus 5% interest from June 2011. However, Geiger was held partially responsible for procedural costs due to delayed document submission. The FIFA Single Judge's decision was set aside, and the club was ordered to pay the awarded amount. The appeal against the EFA was dismissed, as it had no legal standing in the case. The final ruling partially upheld Geiger's appeal, emphasizing the importance of contractual adherence and evidence in resolving international sports disputes.