The case CAS 2013/A/3411 involved a contractual dispute between Al Gharafa S.C. and footballer Mark Bresciano as appellants, and Al Nasr S.C. and FIFA as respondents. The dispute arose from Bresciano's unilateral termination of his employment contract with Al Nasr during the protected period, a timeframe under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) designed to ensure contractual stability. The contract, signed in 2011, stipulated terms including salary, benefits, and termination conditions. Article 8.1 of the contract stated that if Bresciano terminated the contract unilaterally, he would owe Al Nasr all amounts paid under the contract, with potential additional damages if actual losses exceeded those amounts. Bresciano terminated the contract in 2012, leading Al Nasr to file a claim with FIFA, seeking compensation and sporting sanctions.
FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that Bresciano breached the contract without just cause, ordering him and Al Gharafa to pay €1,375,000 in compensation plus interest. Additionally, Bresciano received a four-month playing ban, and Al Gharafa was banned from registering new players for two transfer periods. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that Article 8.1 functioned as a "buy-out clause" allowing Bresciano to terminate the contract lawfully. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejected this argument, finding that Article 8.1 did not grant termination rights but merely outlined consequences for breach. The CAS Panel upheld the DRC's decision, emphasizing that the termination occurred during the protected period and was unjustified.
The Panel also examined whether Article 8.1 constituted a valid "liquidated damages" clause under Swiss law, concluding it did, as it specified a measurable penalty for breach. However, the Panel criticized the DRC's compensation calculation for lacking detailed reasoning but ultimately upheld the amount, considering factors like the player's remuneration and the club's investment. The Panel confirmed Al Gharafa's joint liability for compensation, as FIFA regulations hold new clubs accountable regardless of inducement. Sporting sanctions were also upheld to maintain contractual stability.
The case highlights the complexities of football contracts, the interplay between contractual autonomy and FIFA regulations, and the legal nuances of termination clauses and compensation in sports disputes. The CAS ruling reinforced the importance of contractual fidelity, particularly during protected periods, and the consequences of breaches, including financial penalties and sporting sanctions. The decision underscores the balance between legal principles and the unique demands of sports governance, as reflected in FIFA's RSTP and CAS jurisprudence. The appeal was dismissed, and the DRC's decision was confirmed in its entirety, closing the case with no further recourse.