The case involves a legal dispute between Fudbalski klub Partizan, a Serbian football club, and Sao Caetano Futebol LTDA, a Brazilian football club, over the transfer of player Eduardo Ferreira Abdo Pacheco. The dispute arose from a 2011 transfer agreement requiring Partizan to pay Sao Caetano EUR 1,100,000 in two instalments. While the first payment of EUR 500,000 was made, Partizan failed to pay the second instalment of EUR 600,000 despite extensions. Sao Caetano filed a claim with FIFA, leading to a decision by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee on 21 January 2013, ordering Partizan to pay the outstanding amount plus interest. Prior to this decision, the parties had signed a settlement agreement on 14 January 2013, where Partizan agreed to retransfer the player to Sao Caetano and pay EUR 300,000, with an additional EUR 20,000 for the player’s remuneration. Partizan paid the EUR 300,000 and signed the retransfer agreement, but the FIFA decision was issued without considering the settlement.
Partizan appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the settlement superseded the original agreement. Sao Caetano contested CAS jurisdiction, claiming Partizan had not exhausted FIFA’s disciplinary procedures. The CAS Panel rejected this, clarifying the dispute was contractual, not disciplinary, and thus within its jurisdiction. The Panel examined whether the settlement agreement was binding and found its core terms—payment of EUR 300,000 and player retransfer—had been fulfilled. It ruled the EUR 20,000 payment was not a fundamental condition, as Sao Caetano had not enforced it or sought to nullify the agreement. The Panel concluded the settlement definitively resolved the dispute, rendering the FIFA decision moot.
CAS ruled in favor of Partizan, setting aside the FIFA decision and declaring Partizan not liable for further compensation. The case underscores the binding nature of settlement agreements and the distinction between contractual and disciplinary proceedings in sports law. It also highlights CAS’s role in resolving such disputes when contractual clarity is contested. The decision reaffirmed the importance of parties adhering to agreed terms and the procedural steps required before escalating disputes to arbitration. Ultimately, the ruling emphasized that settlements, when properly executed, can override prior agreements and resolve conflicts definitively.