The dispute between Al Ittihad Football Club and professional football player Marco Antonio de Mattos Filho centered on the termination of their employment contract due to unpaid salaries. The player terminated the contract, claiming just cause under FIFA regulations, citing the club's failure to meet payment obligations. The case was initially reviewed by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation. The club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the termination was unjust and that the player had agreed to delayed payments through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) due to the club's financial constraints, including frozen bank accounts.
The CAS panel examined whether the club's delayed payments constituted a severe enough breach to justify termination under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence. The panel emphasized that while non-payment or late payment of substantial remuneration can justify termination, the employee must first issue a warning, allowing the employer a reasonable opportunity to rectify the breach. In this case, the player had sent multiple notices, including a final 24-hour ultimatum, which the panel deemed insufficient for the significant sums involved. The club maintained that the MOU modified payment terms and that the player's abrupt termination violated their agreement. The panel acknowledged the club's breach of payment obligations but found the player's termination notice lacked adequate time for remediation.
The CAS partially upheld the club's appeal, setting aside the DRC's decision and issuing a new ruling. The club was ordered to pay the player overdue remuneration in three installments, totaling EUR 1,177,603.46, with 5% annual interest from respective due dates. However, the panel declined to award additional compensation for breach of contract, noting fault on both sides—the club for non-payment and the player for insufficient notice. The panel also dismissed the player's counterclaims for sporting sanctions, as they were deemed inadmissible under procedural rules.
The case underscores the balance between protecting employees from unpaid wages and ensuring employers have a fair chance to address breaches before contracts are terminated. It clarifies the legal standards for just cause termination in football employment contracts, particularly regarding payment delays and the necessity of proper warnings. The ruling highlights the importance of clear communication, reasonable deadlines, and adherence to contractual obligations in resolving such disputes. The CAS's decision ultimately reinforced the principle that while financial breaches can justify termination, due process must be followed to allow for remediation.