The case involves a legal dispute between Ascoli Calcio 1898 S.p.A., an Italian football club, and Papa Waigo N’diaye, a Senegalese football player, along with Al Wahda Sports and Cultural Club, a UAE-based club. The conflict arose from the termination of an employment contract between Ascoli and the player, which included a unilateral option clause allowing Ascoli to extend the contract. Ascoli claimed the player breached the contract by signing with Al Wahda, while the player argued the option clause was invalid and sought unpaid wages and bonuses. The case was initially heard by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which rejected Ascoli’s claim and partially accepted the player’s counterclaim, ordering Ascoli to pay the player €57,500 plus interest. Ascoli appealed the DRC’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS addressed several key legal issues. First, it confirmed that jurisdiction for CAS appeals depends on the parties' FIFA membership status at the time of the DRC’s decision, not during the CAS proceedings. Second, it examined the validity of unilateral option clauses in contracts, ruling that such clauses are not inherently invalid but must be assessed case by case, considering factors like the reasonableness of the contract duration and fairness of the terms. The CAS found Ascoli’s option clause valid, as it provided clear terms and remuneration. Third, the CAS clarified that liability under Article 17.2 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) is objective, meaning Al Wahda could be held jointly liable for the player’s breach simply by being his new club, regardless of intent. Fourth, the CAS noted that compensation calculations under Article 17 RSTP can include additional factors, such as potential transfer opportunities or the player’s market value. Finally, the CAS ruled that sporting sanctions, such as transfer bans, are within FIFA’s exclusive authority, and CAS cannot impose them unless FIFA is a respondent in the proceedings.
The factual background revealed that Ascoli had exercised its option to extend the player’s contract, but the player denied receiving notice and signed with Al Wahda. FIFA initially allowed the player’s provisional registration with Al Wahda after the Italian Football Federation failed to respond to inquiries. The DRC later rejected Ascoli’s claim, citing the player’s entitlement to unpaid wages and bonuses. Ascoli’s bankruptcy proceedings further complicated the case. In its appeal, Ascoli sought to overturn the DRC’s decision and hold Al Wahda liable, while Al Wahda argued it acted in good faith, believing the player was a free agent. The CAS ultimately upheld the DRC’s decision, emphasizing the validity of the option clause and the objective nature of liability under FIFA rules. It also dismissed Ascoli’s request for sporting sanctions, as FIFA was not a party to the appeal. The case highlights the complexities of contract disputes in football, particularly regarding unilateral options and joint liability for breaches.
The CAS panel concluded that the player’s termination of the contract was without just cause, as minor delays in salary payments did not justify termination. It determined fair compensation for the breach at €500,000, considering factors such as the player’s new contract, saved salary costs, and Ascoli’s valuation of the player. The player and Al Wahda were held jointly and severally liable for this amount, with an annual interest rate of 5% from the termination date until payment. The panel noted that sporting sanctions could not be imposed by CAS unless FIFA was a respondent, as such sanctions fall under FIFA’s exclusive jurisdiction. The final decision partially upheld Ascoli’s appeal, setting aside the DRC’s ruling and ordering the player and Al Wahda to pay the compensation. The case underscores the importance of contractual formalities and the balance between club rights and player protections in employment contracts.