The case involves a dispute between Neftci Professional Football Klub (the Club) and Emile Lokonda Mpenza (the Player) concerning the termination of the Player's employment contract. The Club and the Player signed a three-year contract in August 2010, valid until June 2013, with a total compensation of $1.6 million USD. The contract included clauses allowing termination under specific conditions, such as the Player's failure to meet performance expectations or breaches of conduct. During the 2011/2012 season, the Player left a training camp in Turkey in January 2012 to negotiate a potential transfer and did not return. The Club claimed the Player abandoned his contractual obligations and terminated the contract, arguing his absence constituted a breach. The Player countered that his absence was authorized and that the Club failed to communicate concerns promptly.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that the Club had no just cause to terminate the contract unilaterally, as the Player’s brief absence did not justify termination. The DRC found the Club liable for early termination and ordered it to pay the Player outstanding salaries totaling $80,000, covering unpaid amounts from the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 seasons, as well as compensation for breach of contract amounting to $687,500, representing the remuneration the Player would have earned from February 2012 until June 2013. The Club appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the FIFA DRC’s ruling.
The CAS Panel examined whether the Player’s absence constituted a breach and whether the Club had just cause to terminate the contract. Evidence showed the Club authorized the Player’s initial absence and communicated with him during this period without instructing him to return or indicating his absence was unauthorized. The Panel found the Player reasonably believed his absence was permitted, especially since the Club issued authorizations to agents negotiating his transfer. The Club only explicitly informed the Player his absence was unauthorized in February 2012 and gave him just one day to return, which the Panel deemed unreasonable. The Panel concluded the Player’s failure to return did not justify termination and rejected the Club’s argument that Azerbaijani labor law permitted termination for a single day's absence, ruling that FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) took precedence.
The Panel upheld the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and ruled the Club’s termination was unjustified, entitling the Player to compensation. The Club was ordered to pay the Player $767,500, including unpaid salaries and compensation for the remaining contract duration, plus 5% annual interest from March 2012 until payment. The Panel dismissed the Club’s appeal and confirmed the FIFA DRC’s Decision. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in professional football, emphasizing the importance of clear communication, reciprocal contractual terms, and adherence to FIFA regulations in employment agreements. The ruling reinforces the enforceability of fair compensation for unilateral contract terminations.