The case CAS 2015/A/3896 Elias Mendes Trindade v. Club Atlético de Madrid, decided on 10 December 2015, involved a contractual dispute between Brazilian football player Elias Mendes Trindade and Club Atlético de Madrid over unpaid salaries. The player claimed EUR 469,297.76 for unpaid wages from the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 seasons. The dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, specifically whether FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) or Spanish labor courts had the authority to adjudicate the matter. The case also addressed the applicability of Spanish law, the competence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to review FIFA’s decision, and the arbitrability of the dispute under Swiss law.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Italy, Portugal, and Spain, ruled that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the CAS Code subjected them to its conflict-of-law rules, overriding the employment contract’s direct choice of Spanish law. Article R58 of the CAS Code mandated that FIFA’s regulations apply, as FIFA issued the appealed decision. The panel affirmed CAS’s authority to conduct a de novo review of FIFA’s decision, examining both procedural and substantive aspects. It clarified that FIFA, as the adjudicating body in "horizontal disputes" between players and clubs, was not a necessary party in CAS proceedings unless it had a direct interest in the dispute. The panel also determined that financial disputes are generally arbitrable under Swiss law unless public policy exceptions apply, rejecting the club’s argument that Spanish labor courts had exclusive jurisdiction.
The factual background revealed that the player and club had signed an employment contract in 2010, which was terminated amicably in 2011. The player later claimed unpaid salaries, but FIFA’s DRC dismissed the case, citing Spanish labor law’s exclusive jurisdiction clause. The player appealed to CAS, arguing FIFA’s competence under its regulations. The CAS panel examined whether the dispute was arbitrable and which law governed the proceedings. The panel emphasized the primacy of CAS procedural rules over conflicting national laws in arbitration agreements and underscored CAS’s broad review powers. It concluded that the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction because the employment contract’s reference to Spanish law and Royal Decree 1006/1985 granted exclusive jurisdiction to Spanish labor courts. The panel dismissed the player’s appeal, upholding the FIFA DRC’s decision and affirming the enforceability of contractual forum selection clauses.
The ruling highlighted the tension between FIFA’s regulatory authority and national legal frameworks, particularly in employment disputes involving professional athletes. It reinforced the principle that financial disputes in sports are generally arbitrable unless contravening fundamental public policy. The case underscored the importance of contractual terms in determining jurisdictional competence and the interplay between international sports governance and domestic labor laws. The final decision, rendered on December 10, 2015, dismissed all other claims and upheld the original FIFA ruling, confirming the exclusive jurisdiction of Spanish labor courts as agreed upon in the employment contract.