The case between UMM Salal Sport Club and Mario Melchiot, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), centered on the termination of the player's employment contract due to a pre-existing heart condition. The CAS panel, composed of Ian Forrester QC, Bernard Hanotiau, and Michael Geistlinger, ruled on the validity of the contract and the club's grounds for termination. The club argued that Melchiot's medical condition, which rendered him unfit to play, justified termination, either automatically on May 1, 2011, or with just cause on July 6, 2011, due to his delayed return from vacation. The CAS rejected these arguments, emphasizing that under Article 18(4) of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), a contract's validity cannot depend on continuous medical examinations, and clubs cannot unilaterally terminate contracts due to a player's medical condition.
The panel found that the club had conducted thorough medical examinations before signing Melchiot and was aware of his heart condition, negating claims of concealment. It also ruled that the player's five-day absence did not constitute a severe breach warranting termination without warning. The CAS upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, which awarded Melchiot compensation for unjust termination, including unpaid salaries and damages. The panel clarified that clubs must bear the risk of unforeseen medical issues, often mitigated by insurance, and cannot terminate contracts prematurely. The compensation was calculated based on the remaining contract value, though procedural limitations prevented the panel from awarding the full amount sought by the player.
The case highlighted the importance of due diligence by clubs in assessing players' health before signing contracts and reinforced the protections afforded to players under FIFA regulations. The CAS dismissed the club's appeal, confirming the FIFA DRC's ruling and closing the matter. The decision underscored the binding nature of employment contracts in football and the obligations of clubs to honor them, even in cases of player incapacity. The ruling also addressed procedural challenges, including delays and representation issues, before reaching its final conclusion. The CAS affirmed that clubs must adhere to contractual stability and cannot evade financial responsibilities through unilateral termination based on medical grounds.
Ultimately, the case set a precedent for how similar disputes should be handled, emphasizing the need for clubs to conduct comprehensive medical assessments before signing players and the limitations on terminating contracts due to health issues. The decision reinforced the principle that employment contracts in professional football are binding and must be respected, with termination permitted only under strictly defined circumstances. The CAS's ruling provided clarity on the obligations of both clubs and players, ensuring fairness and stability in contractual relationships within the sport. The case concluded with the club being ordered to pay the awarded compensation, with interest for late payment, and all other requests for relief being dismissed.