The case involves a legal dispute between Hapoel Haifa FC and Ali Khatib (the Appellants) and Football Club Jabal Al Mukabber (the Respondent) regarding the termination of a football player's employment contract without just cause. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of the Respondent, ordering the Appellants to pay compensation. The central issues revolved around the authenticity of a disputed contract, the calculation of damages, and the application of sports-specific legal principles.
The Respondent claimed that the Player had signed a long-term contract on December 31, 2011, which was breached when he joined Hapoel Haifa FC in January 2012. The Appellants contested the validity of the agreement, alleging the Player’s signature was forged. To resolve this, the CAS appointed an independent handwriting expert, Dr. Audrey Giles, whose analysis was inconclusive due to insufficient comparison material. However, the Sole Arbitrator found the Player’s testimony unreliable, as he provided inconsistent statements and failed to substantiate his forgery claims. The arbitrator concluded that the contract was valid, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence supporting forgery and noting the Player’s prior relationship with the club.
On the issue of compensation, the arbitrator applied Article 17.1 of the FIFA Regulations, which outlines criteria for calculating damages in cases of unjust contract termination. The arbitrator rejected the FIFA DRC’s method of averaging the Player’s earnings under the old and new contracts, instead adopting the "positive interest" principle to determine the financial loss suffered by the Respondent. The compensation was calculated as the difference between the Player’s remuneration under the disputed contract (NIS 416,000) and his earnings with Hapoel (NIS 792,896), resulting in NIS 376,896. However, the arbitrator upheld the FIFA DRC’s final compensation amount of NIS 450,000, considering aggravating factors such as the breach occurring during the contract’s protected period and mitigating factors like the Respondent’s failure to secure an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) before hiring the Player.
The arbitrator also addressed procedural matters, ruling that counterclaims for higher compensation in CAS appeal proceedings are inadmissible under Article R55 of the CAS Code, which aims to ensure fairness by preventing reformatio in pejus (worsening the appellant’s position). The joint liability of Hapoel and the Player for the compensation was affirmed under FIFA regulations.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal, upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, and rejected all additional claims. The ruling reinforced the importance of contractual stability in football, the need for credible evidence in disputes, and the application of legal principles tailored to the specifics of sports governance. The case highlights the complexities of football employment disputes, balancing contractual obligations with procedural fairness and evidentiary standards.