The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between footballer Damián Alejandro Manso and Al Ittihad Club, addressing the termination of Manso's employment contract without just cause. The case originated when Al Ittihad withdrew its contract offer after discovering Manso was simultaneously negotiating with another Saudi club, Al-Ahli. The Club argued this violated Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) regulations and principles of good faith, justifying termination. However, the CAS panel, referencing FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Swiss law, found that parallel negotiations are common in employment markets and do not inherently breach contractual obligations. The panel emphasized Article 17 RSTP's role in upholding contractual stability by deterring unjustified terminations through financial compensation, aiming to place the aggrieved party in the position they would have been in had the contract been fulfilled.
The dispute began in December 2008 when Al Ittihad offered Manso a contract, which he accepted, including salary, benefits, and a transfer fee percentage. The Club later withdrew the offer, citing SAFF's "Charter of Honour sports" as prohibiting parallel negotiations. The SAFF subsequently banned Manso’s registration. Manso filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, finding the initial agreement binding and the termination unjustified. The DRC awarded partial compensation, considering Manso’s subsequent contract with another club.
The CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, clarifying that administrative formalities (like visa issuance) do not invalidate a contract if essential terms are agreed upon. It rejected the Club’s argument that parallel negotiations constituted just cause for termination, noting such practices are typical in employment markets. The ruling underscored that contractual breaches under FIFA regulations warrant compensation calculated per Article 17 RSTP, factoring in the "specificity of sport" and the injured party’s financial loss.
Manso appealed the DRC’s decision to CAS, arguing the $150,000 compensation was insufficient, claiming $800,000 based on the total value of his breached contract minus earnings from another club. Al Ittihad countered that the agreement was not legally binding due to unfulfilled conditions, including approval from Manso’s former club and payment of agent commissions. The CAS panel, after reviewing written submissions and witness statements, upheld the DRC’s decision in part but adjusted the compensation to $350,000, considering the contract’s short duration and Manso’s lack of actual performance for the Club. The panel also ruled that interest should accrue from March 4, 2010, at 5% under Swiss law.
The case reaffirmed key principles in sports contract law, particularly the enforceability of employment agreements and the calculation of damages for breach. It highlighted the importance of contractual stability in football and the limited grounds for unilateral termination, emphasizing fairness and adherence to applicable regulations. The CAS’s decision underscored that parties must act in good faith to avoid unilateral breaches and that compensation should reflect the injured party’s actual financial loss. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar disputes, reinforcing the balance between legal correctness and the unique context of international football.