The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on April 27, 2015, in a dispute involving Club Deportivo La Equidad Seguros S.A. (La Equidad), Santiago Arias Naranjo (the Player), Sporting Clube de Portugal (Sporting), and FIFA. The case centered on the Player's early termination of his employment contract with La Equidad in May 2011, which he claimed was justified due to the club's failure to meet its obligations, including unpaid social insurance contributions. Shortly after terminating his contract, the Player signed with Sporting. La Equidad contested the termination, arguing it was unjustified and sought significant financial compensation (EUR 3,802,821.50) and sporting sanctions. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled that Sporting and the Player should jointly pay La Equidad EUR 150,000 in compensation, a decision La Equidad appealed to CAS.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Stuart McInnes, Efraim Barak, and José María Alonso Puig, examined key legal principles under Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The panel outlined that compensation for unjustified contract termination should consider factors such as the player's remuneration under the terminated contract, the loss of the player's services, replacement costs, and the "specificity of sport" doctrine, which acknowledges the unique nature of sports disputes. The panel emphasized that clubs cannot profit by valuing a player's services higher than what they were willing to pay. Additionally, the loss of a potential transfer fee must be proven with clear evidence linking the termination to the lost opportunity.
La Equidad argued for higher compensation, citing the Player's market value and the timing of his departure during a protected period. However, the panel found that La Equidad failed to provide evidence of concrete transfer offers or efforts to replace the Player. The panel also noted the club's poor treatment of the Player, including inadequate living conditions and delayed legal action, which justified reducing the compensation. The "specificity of sport" doctrine was applied to adjust the compensation downward, reflecting the club's misconduct and the Player's low salary at La Equidad.
Regarding sporting sanctions, the panel upheld FIFA DRC's practice of not automatically imposing sanctions under Article 17(3) RSTP, even for breaches during the protected period. The panel agreed that sanctions should be evaluated case-by-case and found no grounds to impose them here.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed La Equidad's appeal, confirming the FIFA DRC's award of EUR 150,000 in compensation, with Sporting jointly liable. The panel found the amount fair given the circumstances, including the Player's mistreatment and La Equidad's lack of evidence for additional damages. The ruling reinforced the importance of contractual stability in football while highlighting the need for equitable compensation calculations and contextual evaluation of sporting sanctions. The case underscores the role of CAS in resolving complex sports disputes by balancing legal principles with the unique dynamics of the football industry.