The case involves a dispute between S.C.S. Fotbal Club CFR 1907 Cluj S.A. and Ferdinando Sforzini, along with FIFA, concerning unpaid salaries and jurisdictional matters related to an employment contract. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on March 31, 2015, addressing key legal issues. The dispute arose when the Romanian football club failed to pay the Italian player's salaries from October 2010 onward, following a one-year employment contract for the 2010/2011 season with a monthly salary of €25,000. The club imposed a fine on the player for his absence from a Champions League match, later ratified by the Romanian Disciplinary Committee. The player filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking unpaid salaries, while the club contested FIFA's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute should be resolved by Romanian authorities and citing a termination agreement purportedly releasing both parties from financial obligations.
The CAS panel, composed of Marco Balmelli, Vit Horacek, and Manfred Nan, examined several issues. First, it ruled on FIFA DRC's jurisdiction, stating that FIFA DRC may lack jurisdiction if parties explicitly choose a national forum, provided it is an independent arbitration tribunal ensuring fair proceedings and equal representation for players and clubs. The burden of proof for contesting FIFA DRC's competence lies with the challenging party. The panel affirmed FIFA DRC's jurisdiction, as the club failed to prove the existence of an independent national tribunal guaranteeing procedural fairness.
Second, the panel distinguished between disciplinary matters, involving broader sporting regulations, and employment-related disputes concerning contractual obligations. It noted that if a club follows proper procedures, respects the player's right to be heard, and notifies the player of sanctions, the decision may attain res judicata status, preventing further review by FIFA DRC. However, in this case, the panel found the ratification of the fine by the Romanian Disciplinary Committee lacked res judicata effect due to insufficient evidence of proper notification or a fair hearing for the player.
Third, the panel addressed the termination of a loan agreement and its impact on the employment contract. It emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda, stating that premature termination of a loan agreement does not automatically release the club from its obligations under the employment contract unless explicitly agreed. The player remained entitled to outstanding salaries for services rendered. The panel rejected the club's argument that a termination agreement released it from financial obligations, as the agreement only terminated the loan arrangement and did not explicitly absolve the club of its contractual duties.
The panel upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, ordering the club to pay €68,750 in unpaid salaries plus 5% interest, rejecting the club's claim to offset the fine against the salaries due to procedural flaws in imposing the fine. The panel dismissed the club's appeal, reinforcing the importance of contractual obligations and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. The ruling underscores the binding nature of contractual terms, the necessity of clear jurisdictional agreements, and the protection of players' rights in international football disputes. The CAS panel's decision ensures that contractual and disciplinary processes maintain integrity while safeguarding players' financial entitlements.