The case involves a dispute between Qingdao Jonoon Football Club (the Club) and professional football player Gustavo Franchin Schiavolin (the Player) regarding the termination of an employment contract. The Club and the Player entered into a contract from March 2013 to November 2014, which included terms on salary payments and termination conditions. The Club paid the Player a signing fee and salaries until September 2013 but failed to pay an additional $50,000 due by June 2013 and subsequent monthly salaries. The Player sent default letters in July 2013, which the Club ignored. In December 2013, the Player filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking unpaid remuneration and compensation for breach of contract. The Club defended its actions by citing contractual clauses allowing salary deductions and termination due to the Player’s alleged underperformance. The FIFA DRC partially accepted the Player’s claim in March 2014, ordering the Club to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation, totaling $110,000 plus interest and $283,595 for breach of contract. The DRC deemed certain contractual clauses unilateral and excessively favoring the Club, rendering them unenforceable.
The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural deficiencies in the notification of the FIFA DRC’s decision. Article 19 of FIFA’s rules requires decisions to be sent directly to parties, with notification deemed complete upon receipt. Although FIFA initially sent the decision to the Chinese Football Association (CFA) due to lacking the Club’s fax number, the Club acknowledged receipt and filed its appeal without contesting the notification issue. The CAS ruled that this acknowledgment cured any procedural deficiency, preventing the Club from later challenging the notification’s validity under the legal principle of venire contra factum proprium, which bars a party from contradicting its prior conduct to another’s detriment. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, emphasizing the enforceability of contractual obligations and rejecting the Club’s reliance on one-sided clauses.
The Club’s appeal to CAS also faced procedural challenges regarding the timeliness of filing the Appeal Brief. The Club filed its Statement of Appeal on 30 October 2014, within the 21-day deadline, but failed to submit an Appeal Brief or notify CAS to treat the Statement of Appeal as the brief by the 10 November 2014 deadline. The Club later requested an extension, which CAS provisionally granted but voided due to the missed deadline. The Club argued unfamiliarity with CAS procedures, but the Sole Arbitrator dismissed this, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines and the Club’s responsibility to understand the process. The appeal was deemed withdrawn, and CAS ruled it could not be entertained.
The case underscores the importance of proper notification procedures in arbitration, the inadmissibility of contractual terms that excessively disadvantage one party, and the necessity of strict compliance with procedural deadlines. The Club was ultimately held liable for unpaid salaries and compensation, with interest, as determined by the FIFA DRC. The decision highlights the role of CAS in adjudicating sports disputes and ensuring procedural fairness, while reinforcing the principle that parties must adhere to legal requirements and deadlines. The outcome serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to meet procedural obligations in legal proceedings.