The case TAS 2014/A/3505 involves a contractual dispute between Al Khor SC, a Qatari football club, and a Brazilian football player, C., regarding the unilateral termination of the player's employment contract. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the matter on December 3, 2014, with Olivier Carrard serving as the sole arbitrator. The dispute centered on the principles of contractual stability and just cause for termination under FIFA regulations, as well as the applicable law for resolving the conflict. The legal framework was established under Article 187 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (LDIP), which allows arbitrators to apply non-state legal systems, such as FIFA regulations, to ensure uniformity in international sports disputes. The parties had agreed to FIFA regulations and CAS arbitration, making these the primary legal sources, with Swiss law serving as a supplementary reference.
The contract, signed on August 1, 2010, stipulated a three-year term with a salary of $450,000 per season, along with additional benefits such as housing and medical care. The player suffered an injury, leading the club to terminate the contract unilaterally on May 31, 2011, citing Article 10 of the contract, which allowed early termination with two months' salary compensation. The player contested this termination, arguing it violated FIFA's principle of contractual stability, which permits unilateral termination only with just cause. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of the player on October 31, 2013, ordering the club to pay $700,000 in compensation, plus 5% annual interest if unpaid within 30 days. The DRC rejected the club's reliance on Article 10, deeming it an unfair, one-sided clause that granted the club arbitrary termination power.
The club appealed to CAS, arguing the termination was justified under Article 7 of the contract, which allowed termination if the player was incapacitated for over six months. The club emphasized contractual freedom (pacta sunt servanda) and the player's voluntary acceptance of the terms. The player countered that Article 10 was abusive and violated FIFA's principle of equality, as the contract was non-negotiable and prepared unilaterally by the club. The player also disputed the duration of his incapacity, claiming it lasted only four months, and resumed playing shortly after treatment.
CAS examined the validity of Article 10, finding it created an imbalance by granting the club unilateral termination rights without just cause, contrary to Swiss law and FIFA principles. The clause was declared invalid. The arbitrator also rejected the club's claim of just cause due to the player's injury, noting injuries are inherent risks in professional sports and do not constitute breaches of contract. Compensation was calculated under FIFA Article 17 and Swiss law, entitling the player to full remuneration minus earnings from other clubs during the remaining contract period. The club's counterclaim for damages was dismissed as inadmissible.
Ultimately, CAS upheld the DRC's decision, rejecting the club's appeal and affirming the $700,000 compensation award. The ruling reinforced the importance of contractual stability and fairness in sports contracts, ensuring players are protected from arbitrary termination. The case underscores the application of FIFA regulations as the primary legal framework in international sports disputes, with supplementary reference to Swiss law where necessary. The decision highlights the balance between contractual autonomy and the protection of players' rights in professional football.