The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rendered a final award on July 1, 2013, in the dispute between AEK Larnaca (the Club) and Jean Francisco Rodrigues (the Player), upholding the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and dismissing the Club’s appeal. The case stemmed from the early termination of an employment contract between the Club and the Player, signed on May 19, 2010, and valid until May 31, 2012. The Player terminated the contract on March 1, 2011, citing just cause due to unpaid salaries for December 2010 through February 2011, amounting to €24,000. He also claimed the existence of a supplementary agreement entitling him to a higher salary, which the Club denied.
The FIFA DRC ruled in favor of the Player on March 1, 2012, ordering the Club to pay €88,000, comprising €24,000 for unpaid salaries and €64,000 as compensation for breach of contract. The DRC rejected the Club’s counterclaim for €22,000, which it argued was an overpayment. The Club appealed to CAS, contesting the DRC’s findings and seeking to overturn the decision. The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, reviewed the case de novo, examining witness statements, contractual terms, and financial evidence.
The panel confirmed the existence of a supplementary agreement, entitling the Player to an annual salary of €80,000, based on bank statements and a check proving monthly payments of €8,000. It found the Club’s explanations for these payments inconsistent and unconvincing. The panel also upheld the Player’s termination of the contract with just cause, noting that repeated non-payment of salaries, coupled with the Player’s issuance of default notices, met the legal criteria for termination under FIFA regulations.
Regarding compensation, the panel applied the principle of "positive interest," ensuring damages reflected the Player’s actual losses. While the Player argued he was entitled to €104,000, the panel noted the FIFA DRC had exercised leniency in awarding €64,000. Due to the legal principle of reformatio in peius, which prevents a worse outcome for a non-appealing party, the panel could not increase the compensation. It also rejected the Club’s argument that the Player had mitigated damages by securing new employment, as the new contract’s terms did not offset the original claim.
The panel dismissed the Club’s challenge to a contractual clause allowing termination if the Player participated in less than 60% of games, finding it irrelevant since the Club never invoked it. The CAS ultimately upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision in full, confirming the €88,000 award and dismissing all other claims. The ruling reinforced key principles in football employment disputes, emphasizing the importance of timely salary payments, the validity of supplementary agreements, and the enforceability of contractual obligations. The case underscores the role of CAS in resolving sports-related disputes and the adherence to legal and procedural fairness in such proceedings.