The case involves a dispute between Al-Jazira Football Sports Company (the Club) and professional footballer Ricardo de Oliveira (the Player) over unpaid amounts under a settlement agreement. The parties initially had an employment contract in 2012, which was replaced by a settlement agreement in January 2014. This agreement required the Club to pay the Player €2,560,000 in two installments: €2,000,000 by 30 January 2014 and €560,000 by 30 December 2014. The Club failed to make these payments, leading the Player to file a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The FIFA DRC ruled in favor of the Player, ordering the Club to pay the full amount plus 5% annual interest from the respective due dates. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the Player had not provided a specific bank account for payment, which they claimed justified their non-payment. The CAS rejected this argument, stating that Swiss law, which governed the contract, required the place of performance to be determined by the parties' intent, and the absence of a specified bank account did not absolve the Club of its obligations. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, emphasizing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and the Club's lack of valid reasons for non-payment.
The proceedings before the CAS also involved procedural disagreements, including the composition of the arbitration panel. The Club initially requested a sole arbitrator, while the Player sought a three-member panel. The CAS President ultimately decided on a three-member panel, contingent on the Player paying his share of the advance costs. However, the Player later refused to pay, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator, Professor Petros C. Mavroidis. The Club argued that the FIFA DRC had overlooked key aspects of the Settlement Agreement, particularly the requirement for payments to be made to a Brazilian bank account, and that the Player’s failure to provide the correct details prevented the Club from fulfilling its obligations. The Club also contended that the Player’s later request for payment to a UAE account violated legal principles such as pacta sunt servanda and venire contra factum proprium (no one may contradict their own prior actions). The Player countered that the Club’s appeal was dilatory and lacked merit, asserting that the Club had never paid the agreed amounts despite multiple notifications and that the original agreement did not specify a Brazilian bank account.
The Sole Arbitrator reviewed all submissions and evidence, deciding to render an award without a hearing, as the written submissions were deemed sufficient. The Arbitrator ruled that the Club had failed to comply with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement without providing legitimate reasons. The key issue was determining when interest on the overdue payments should start accruing. The Arbitrator referenced Article 102 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which states that default occurs either upon a formal reminder or automatically after an agreed deadline. Since the Settlement Agreement specified payment deadlines, interest would accrue from the due dates, not from a formal reminder. The Club’s claim that interest should start from 25 August 2014 for the first installment, as it only received the Player’s bank account details then, was rejected. The Arbitrator noted the Club was aware of the 30 January 2014 deadline and took no action to comply. Similarly, the second installment’s due date was 30 December 2014, and the Club had the bank details by 25 August 2014.
The final award, issued on 24 May 2016, confirmed the Club's liability for the unpaid amounts and interest, reinforcing the enforceability of contractual obligations in sports-related disputes. The CAS dismissed the Club’s appeal against the FIFA DRC’s decision, ordering the Club to pay Oliveira €2,560,000, with 5% annual interest on €2,000,000 starting from 31 January 2014 and on €560,000 from 31 December 2014 until full payment. The decision underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and adherence to legal principles in resolving sports-related disputes, upholding the Club’s obligation to fulfill the Settlement Agreement terms.