The case involves a dispute between S.C. FC Brasov S.A., a Romanian football club, and Renato Ferreira Da Silva Alberto, a Brazilian football player, regarding the termination of an employment contract and associated financial claims. The player signed a contract with the club on July 1, 2011, which included a monthly salary, a signing bonus, and other benefits such as housing and flight tickets. An addendum extended the contract duration to 24 months and outlined additional financial obligations. The player left for Brazil on December 17, 2011, for the winter break and did not return, leading to a dispute over unpaid salaries and benefits. The player filed a complaint with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on July 24, 2012, claiming the club breached the contract and sought payment of €163,837 for unpaid salaries, signing fees, rent allowances, and damages. The club argued that the player abandoned his contract without just cause. The FIFA DRC ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay the claimed amounts. The club appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS addressed several legal and procedural issues in its ruling. It confirmed that counterclaims are inadmissible in CAS appeal proceedings, meaning any party dissatisfied with a FIFA decision must file a separate appeal. The applicable law for the dispute was governed by Article 66(2) of the FIFA Statutes, which refers to the procedural rules of the CAS Code and substantive Swiss law, excluding the application of Article R58 of the CAS Code. The CAS emphasized the right to be heard under Swiss law, stating that while parties have the right to submit evidence, arbitral panels are not obligated to admit every request if they can form a decision without it. The CAS also ruled that a party’s default in FIFA proceedings should not be interpreted as acceptance of the opposing party’s claims unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The case involved conflicting claims about unpaid salaries, signing-on fees, and other contractual obligations. The player argued that the club failed to fulfill financial commitments, including unpaid salaries, a portion of the signing-on fee, and flight tickets, leading to his justified absence during the winter break. The club countered that all payments were made as evidenced by payment slips and accused the player of unilaterally terminating the contract without cause. To resolve the dispute, a handwriting expert was appointed to verify the authenticity of the player’s signatures on key documents. The expert concluded that the signatures were likely genuine, leading the arbitrator to accept the payment slips as valid evidence. The arbitrator determined that the club had fulfilled its payment obligations for salaries and the signing-on fee but had failed to meet housing and flight ticket obligations, ordering the club to pay €1,500 for unpaid rent and €2,500 for unreimbursed flight tickets.
The arbitrator also examined whether the player had just cause to terminate the contract. The player claimed the club’s breaches justified his termination, but the arbitrator found insufficient evidence to support this. The player had not formally reminded the club to fulfill its obligations or attempted to return to Romania independently. The arbitrator ruled that the breaches did not constitute just cause for termination under Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The player’s request for sporting sanctions against the club was dismissed due to jurisdictional limitations, as such sanctions could only be imposed if FIFA were directly involved as a respondent.
The final ruling partially upheld the club’s appeal, modifying the FIFA DRC’s decision to require the club to pay the player €4,000 for unmet obligations, while dismissing all other claims and counterclaims. The decision underscores the procedural and jurisdictional boundaries within which CAS operates, particularly in cases involving FIFA regulations and contractual disputes. It highlights the importance of contractual adherence in football employment disputes and the role of expert testimony and legal standards in resolving such conflicts. The case reinforces the principles of fairness and procedural adherence in international football disputes.