The case revolves around Emmanuel Eboué, a professional football player, and his dispute with FIFA over disciplinary sanctions imposed for non-compliance with a financial decision related to his agent, Sébastien Boisseau. The conflict stemmed from a representation contract stipulating that Eboué would pay Boisseau a 10% commission on his gross salary from any playing contract. In 2011, Eboué transferred from Arsenal FC to Galatasaray without involving Boisseau, instead authorizing other agents to negotiate the transfer. Boisseau filed a claim with FIFA, arguing Eboué breached their agreement and sought payment of the commission, along with sporting sanctions. FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee ruled that Eboué owed Boisseau €940,000 and imposed a one-year ban from football-related activities until payment was made. Eboué contested FIFA’s jurisdiction, citing clauses in the agreement designating English law and courts for disputes, but FIFA proceeded, emphasizing its authority under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code to enforce financial obligations through disciplinary measures.
Eboué appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was excessive and violated his personality rights. He claimed he only learned of the underlying decision in May 2014 and that the dispute was purely contractual, not regulatory. FIFA countered that Eboué’s right to be heard was respected, as his legal representative had been properly notified, and defended the proportionality of the sanctions, highlighting the 120-day grace period and the conditional nature of the ban. The CAS panel upheld FIFA’s decision, noting the disciplinary measure was proportionate given Eboué’s breach and the need to enforce contractual obligations. The panel balanced Eboué’s rights against FIFA’s regulatory interests, concluding the one-year ban was not excessive and did not infringe his fundamental rights.
The case underscores FIFA’s authority to enforce financial obligations through disciplinary measures, even when disputes involve contractual interpretations. It also highlights the limited judicial review of such sanctions under Swiss law, emphasizing the importance of compliance with final and binding decisions in football governance. The ruling reinforces that disciplinary measures must respect personality rights but can legitimately restrict freedoms to uphold contractual and regulatory integrity in sports. The panel distinguished this case from the "Matuzalem" case, where an indefinite ban was imposed, noting Eboué’s ban was contingent on the agent’s request and could be avoided if he paid the disputed amount. Eboué confirmed he had the financial means to pay but chose not to, making the restriction a matter of personal choice rather than excessive infringement.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Eboué’s appeal, upholding FIFA’s decision and confirming the disciplinary measures were justified under FIFA’s regulatory framework. The case illustrates the enforcement mechanisms within FIFA’s disciplinary system and the balance between contractual disputes and regulatory compliance, underscoring the consequences of non-compliance for professional athletes. The decision reaffirms the principle that disciplinary measures must be proportionate and respect fundamental rights while maintaining the integrity of football governance.