The case involves a dispute between Portuguese football player Renato Moreira Nunes de Queirós and Azerbaijani club Khazar Lankaran F.C. over unpaid salaries under two employment contracts. The player claimed that both an Azeri contract, dated August 4, 2008, with a monthly salary of 4,000 manats, and an English contract, also dated August 4, 2008, outlining a total remuneration of $240,000, were valid. The English contract included a $50,000 advance, $100,000 in monthly salaries over ten months, and a $50,000 payment due in April 2009. The club disputed the English contract's validity, asserting it was fabricated to assist the player in securing a bank loan and maintained that only the Azeri contract was binding.
The player filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking $80,000 in unpaid wages, plus interest and costs. The FIFA DRC rejected his claim due to insufficient evidence, as the player provided only a copy of the English contract without original documents or corroborating financial records. Dissatisfied, the player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel, applying Swiss law and FIFA procedural rules, emphasized the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It examined the parties' intentions under Article 18(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which prioritizes true common intention over contractual wording. The panel also considered the principle of interpreting unclear declarations against the drafting party, in this case, the club.
Despite the player's arguments, the club presented evidence, including a handwritten note from the player stating he had no other contract, to counter his claims. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, concluding the player failed to substantiate the English contract's validity as a binding agreement. However, in a subsequent phase, the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Efraim Barak, revisited the case. The club later acknowledged the English contract's existence but argued it was solely for banking purposes. The arbitrator rejected this, finding no evidence to support the club's claim and noting the player's denial. Testimony from the player's bank confirmed the contract was used to verify foreign currency deposits but not for a loan application.
The arbitrator dismissed the club's additional objections, such as the contract's lack of an official stamp or registration with the Azerbaijan Football Federation, ruling these did not invalidate it. The arbitrator also rejected the club's argument that the contract's one-season term was illogical, as no mandatory requirement existed for longer agreements. Ultimately, the arbitrator upheld the English contract's validity and ordered the club to pay the player $80,000 in unpaid remuneration, plus 5% interest from the due dates. The decision highlighted the importance of contractual clarity and the consequences of failing to raise timely objections. The case underscores the challenges of proving verbal or supplementary agreements in football employment disputes and reinforces the need for clear evidence in contractual interpretations.