The case involves a dispute between FC Istra 1961, a Croatian football club, and Traore Kalilou Mohamed, a professional football player, along with Odense Boldklub, a Danish football club. The conflict arose from an employment contract signed between FC Istra and the player on 26 August 2008, valid from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. The contract included a clause stating that if no offer of at least EUR 500,000 was made for the player by the end of the season, the contract would automatically renew for one additional season, with the player entitled to a sign-on bonus of EUR 15,000 and a monthly salary of EUR 4,000. At the end of the initial term, the contract was either automatically extended or the parties agreed to extend it for another season.
On 25 May 2010, FC Istra received an offer of EUR 600,000 from Russian club FC Khimki for the player, valid until 25 July 2010. However, on 15 June 2010, the club suspended the player for failing to report for training without justification. On 29 June 2010, the player signed a new three-year contract with Odense Boldklub, effective from 1 July 2010. FC Istra subsequently filed a claim with FIFA, alleging that Odense induced the player to breach his contract and sought damages totaling EUR 1,006,000, including compensation for the lost transfer to FC Khimki, unpaid salaries, and lost sponsorship revenue. They also requested a two-transfer-window ban on Odense for registering new players.
FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected FC Istra’s claim on 17 August 2012. Dissatisfied with this decision, FC Istra appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 2 December 2012, reiterating their claims for damages and sanctions. The CAS proceedings involved written submissions from both parties, with FC Istra challenging the FIFA DRC’s decision and requesting either its annulment or a new ruling in their favor. The Respondents (the player and Odense) jointly opposed the appeal, filing their response after an initial delay due to a fax transmission error.
The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the contract renewal clause. FC Istra argued that the player’s move to Odense constituted a breach, while the Respondents maintained that the contract had not been automatically renewed and that the player was free to sign with another club. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the UK, Switzerland, and Denmark, examined the case based on the contractual terms and Swiss law principles, particularly Article 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which emphasizes the clarity of contract wording. The panel concluded that the phrase "the present Contract shall be automatically renewable for one single and other season" clearly indicated only one possible extension, and there was no ambiguity requiring further interpretation.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, rejecting FC Istra’s claims for damages and sanctions against the player and Odense. The ruling reinforced the principle that contractual terms must be interpreted based on their plain meaning unless ambiguity exists, and it dismissed the club’s arguments regarding inducement of breach and financial losses. The case highlights the importance of precise contract drafting in football employment agreements and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes. The decision was final and binding, with all additional motions or prayers for relief dismissed.