The case involves a dispute between Talaea El Gaish Club, an Egyptian football club, and Dodzi Dogbé, a professional football player, over the unilateral termination of the player's contract by the club in 2011. The club claimed the termination was justified due to the player's unauthorized absences from training and matches, while the player argued it was without just cause and sought compensation. The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay $407,000 in compensation. The club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The central issue revolved around the validity of a clause in the contract (Article 10) that allowed the club to terminate the agreement unilaterally without compensation. The FIFA DRC deemed this clause invalid under FIFA regulations, as it was unilateral and disproportionately favored the club. The DRC found the club failed to prove the player's absences were unauthorized, concluding the termination lacked just cause. The compensation was calculated based on the player's remaining salary, adjusted for his subsequent earnings with another club.
During the CAS proceedings, the club argued the termination was justified under Egyptian Football Association regulations and cited the player's 183 days of absences. The player countered that many absences were authorized or due to injury, and the real reason for termination was financial strain following the 2011 Egyptian revolution. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, emphasizing the club's failure to provide sufficient evidence of misconduct. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the contract's validity but ruled the termination unjustified, as the club continued to field the player after the alleged breaches.
The Arbitrator referenced FIFA regulations to determine compensation, awarding the player $407,000 after deducting his earnings from a subsequent contract. The CAS dismissed the club's appeal, reinforcing the principle that unilateral termination clauses favoring one party are unenforceable. The case highlights the importance of just cause, proper evidence, and balanced contractual terms in sports employment disputes. The decision underscores the need for clubs to adhere to fair practices and contractual obligations when terminating player agreements.