The case involves a legal dispute between Maritimo de Madeira – Futebol SAD, a Portuguese football club, and Desportivo Brasil Participacoes LTDA, a Brazilian football club, concerning contractual obligations related to the transfer of a Brazilian player, R. The dispute originated from agreements signed in 2010, where Maritimo acquired the player’s federative rights but failed to complete the agreed payments. Desportivo Brasil filed a claim with FIFA’s Player Status Committee (FIFA PSC), seeking the remaining EUR 190,035 plus interest and legal costs. Maritimo contested FIFA’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute was a commercial matter outside FIFA’s Transfer Regulations and that the second agreement’s choice-of-forum clause designated Portuguese courts as the proper venue. The FIFA PSC ruled in favor of Desportivo Brasil, asserting jurisdiction under Article 22 of the FIFA Transfer Regulations and dismissing the choice-of-forum clause based on Article 68 of the FIFA Statutes, which restricts recourse to ordinary courts.
Maritimo appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging FIFA’s jurisdiction and the validity of the choice-of-forum clause. The CAS panel, applying Swiss law, examined the standing of the parties and the validity of the clause. It concluded that Maritimo had standing to sue without requiring FIFA as a co-respondent, as the dispute involved only contractual rights between the two clubs. The panel also found the choice-of-forum clause valid under Swiss law, which permits such clauses in international contracts, and ruled that it excluded FIFA’s internal bodies from jurisdiction. The CAS panel upheld the appeal, declaring the FIFA PSC incompetent to decide the dispute and setting aside its decision. It dismissed Maritimo’s request for a declaratory judgment on Portuguese court jurisdiction, leaving that issue for future determination if the dispute were brought before those courts.
The case highlights the tension between contractual autonomy and the regulatory authority of sports governing bodies like FIFA. It underscores the principle that while parties may agree on dispute resolution forums, such agreements cannot override the mandatory jurisdiction of sports federations when disputes involve matters governed by their regulations. The CAS ruling reaffirmed the validity of contractual choice-of-forum clauses in international sports law while clarifying the limits of FIFA’s jurisdictional authority. The final decision nullified the FIFA PSC’s earlier ruling and emphasized the importance of contractual agreements in determining dispute resolution forums, provided they do not conflict with mandatory sports regulations. The outcome underscores the complexities of resolving disputes at the intersection of sports governance, contractual law, and national legal principles.