The case involves a contractual dispute between Al-Hilal Sports Club, a Sudanese football club, and Diego Garzitto, a French football coach, which was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute centered on the termination of Garzitto's employment contract and the financial obligations arising from it. The CAS issued its final award on March 31, 2015, addressing several key legal and factual issues. The first contract between the parties was signed in December 2011 for one year and included terms on salary, bonuses, renewal options, and termination conditions. After a successful season, the Club paid Garzitto his dues under this contract. A second contract, allegedly signed in December 2012, outlined higher remuneration but was disputed by the Club, which claimed it was unsigned and lacked formalities. The Club terminated Garzitto's contract in April 2013, citing poor team performance and fan hostility, and argued that only the first contract was valid. Garzitto, however, contended that the second contract was authentic and enforceable, and filed a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee, seeking compensation for breach of contract.
FIFA's Single Judge partially accepted Garzitto's claim in April 2014, ordering the Club to pay outstanding salaries, flight reimbursement, and compensation for breach of contract. The Club appealed this decision to the CAS, challenging the validity of the second contract and the calculation of compensation. The CAS examined the authenticity of the second contract, noting that the Club failed to provide sufficient evidence to disprove its validity, especially since Garzitto had presented supporting evidence, including references to the contract in the Club's correspondence. The CAS also found that the Club's termination lacked just cause, as the reasons provided did not meet the required legal standards. Regarding financial consequences, the CAS upheld the liquidated damages clause in the second contract, which stipulated six months' salary and flight costs as compensation for breach. The CAS modified FIFA's decision, reducing the compensation to align with this clause, and ordered the Club to pay Garzitto USD 30,000 in outstanding salaries, USD 60,000 as compensation, and USD 3,400 for flight costs, with 5% annual interest if unpaid within 30 days.
The CAS rejected Garzitto's counterclaims as inadmissible under its procedural rules and confirmed its jurisdiction under FIFA and CAS regulations. The decision emphasized the importance of contractual validity, the necessity of just cause for termination, and the enforceability of agreed-upon compensation clauses. The ruling highlighted the procedural rigor of CAS arbitration and the application of FIFA regulations and Swiss law in resolving international sports disputes. The case underscores the financial and legal consequences of unilateral contract termination in sports employment and the role of governing bodies in enforcing contractual obligations. The CAS's final award provided a resolution to the dispute, balancing the parties' arguments and the evidence presented.