The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Al-Ittihad FC, a Saudi Arabian football club, and João Fernando Nelo, a Brazilian professional football player, concerning unpaid salaries and the termination of an employment contract. The contract, signed on 15 August 2013, was set to expire on 30 June 2014, with a total remuneration of USD 800,000. It included clauses allowing the club to terminate the agreement by 31 December 2013 without compensation and specified payment schedules. The player was to receive USD 100,000 upon signing, USD 300,000 in four monthly installments of USD 75,000, and an additional USD 400,000 if the club extended the contract until June 2014.
The player alleged that the club failed to pay the USD 300,000 due for September to December 2013. On 9 January 2014, the player’s counsel notified the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) of the unpaid salaries, followed by a formal notice to the club demanding payment within 48 hours and invoking Clause 18 of the contract, which permitted termination by 31 December 2013. The player also requested his release to join another club. On 7 February 2014, the player filed a claim with FIFA, seeking payment of the unpaid salaries plus interest. FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) partially accepted the claim on 2 July 2015, ordering the club to pay the outstanding USD 300,000 plus 5% annual interest from the respective due dates of each installment. The DRC warned that non-compliance would result in the matter being referred to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee.
The club appealed the DRC’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the ruling. The CAS emphasized that the contract had a fixed end date, so no termination notice was required, and the club was obligated to pay the undisputed salaries accrued before the contract’s expiration. The club argued that the player had unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause and claimed partial payments had been made, but the CAS found no evidence supporting these claims. The player countered that the club’s non-payment constituted a material breach, justifying termination. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction over the dispute, applying FIFA regulations supplemented by Swiss law, and dismissed the club’s appeal, upholding the DRC’s decision.
The CAS ruling reinforced the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and highlighted the importance of honoring contractual obligations, particularly timely salary payments in professional football. The decision underscored the consequences of failing to meet financial obligations and affirmed the player’s right to terminate the contract due to the club’s admitted non-payment. The case serves as a reminder of the binding nature of employment contracts in sports and the legal recourse available to players in disputes over unpaid wages. The CAS ultimately ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay the outstanding USD 300,000 plus interest and dismissing all other claims.