The case involves a dispute between professional football player Carmelo Enrique Valencia Chaverra and Ulsan Hyundai Football Club regarding the termination of their employment contract, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issue was whether the player had "just cause" to terminate the contract under Swiss law and FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), primarily due to the club's alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment for his knee injury. The player claimed the club neglected his medical needs, forcing him to seek surgery independently, while the club argued his termination was unjustified and sought compensation for breach of contract.
The dispute originated from a contract signed in January 2010, obligating the club to cover medical expenses for injuries sustained during club activities. In late 2010, the player suffered a knee injury, initially diagnosed as minor by the club's doctor, who recommended conservative treatment. However, persistent pain led the player to seek a second opinion in Colombia, where an MRI revealed a significant osteochondral lesion requiring surgery. The club dismissed these findings, fined the player for missing pre-season training, and withheld his January 2011 salary. Consequently, the player terminated the contract in February 2011, citing the club's breach of medical obligations.
FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of the club, ordering the player to pay USD 400,000 in compensation, with his new club, Atlético Newell’s Old Boys, jointly liable. The player appealed to CAS, arguing the termination was justified due to the club's medical negligence. The CAS panel examined whether the club's actions constituted a material breach, considering Swiss law principles that allow termination for valid reasons if continuing the employment relationship becomes untenable in good faith.
The panel found that while the club's initial conservative treatment was reasonable, its failure to reassess the injury adequately by January 2011 and its punitive response to the player's absence contributed to an untenable situation. The player's genuine belief that his career was at risk justified his termination under Article 337b of the Swiss Code of Obligations. Financially, the panel ruled the player was entitled to his unpaid January 2011 salary (USD 17,000) but dismissed other compensation claims, as the termination was not solely the club's fault. The club's request to hold Newell liable was also rejected.
The decision underscores the importance of proper medical care in employment contracts and the balance between contractual adherence and player welfare. It highlights that while clubs have discretion in medical treatment, persistent neglect of a player's health concerns can justify termination. The case also clarifies that financial consequences of termination depend on the specific circumstances, with neither party awarded significant damages in this instance. The ruling emphasizes fairness, recognizing the contributions of both parties to the dispute and the unique pressures in professional sports.