The case involves a legal dispute between Aris Limassol FC, a professional football club in Cyprus, and Carl Lombé, a professional football player, concerning the termination of Lombé's employment contract and related financial claims. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on several key issues, including the applicable law for contract termination, the validity of relegation clauses, and the evidence of mutual termination. The CAS panel determined that the reference to "applicable regulations" in Article R58 of the CAS Code implied an indirect choice of law, but the club failed to demonstrate the player's commitment to specific federation regulations, rendering those rules inapplicable for termination. The panel also distinguished between valid and invalid relegation clauses, finding the clause in Lombé's contract invalid because it granted the club unilateral termination rights without protecting the player's interests. Additionally, the panel ruled that testimony from a witness closely associated with the club was insufficient to establish mutual termination.
The dispute arose after Aris Limassol FC was relegated at the end of the 2011-2012 season, leading to disagreements over the contract's termination. Lombé sought unpaid wages and compensation, which the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber partially granted. The CAS upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of valid evidence for mutual termination and the invalidity of the unilateral relegation clause. The panel concluded that the club was liable for outstanding payments and compensation for breach of contract. The case highlights the importance of balanced contractual terms and robust evidence in employment disputes within professional sports.
Aris Limassol FC appealed the FIFA DRC's decision to the CAS, seeking declaratory judgments that the termination was automatic under Cyprus Football Association regulations and that a settlement agreement barred further claims. Lombé countered by requesting the appeal be deemed admissible but unfounded, upholding the DRC’s decision and seeking additional compensation. The CAS proceedings involved written submissions and a hearing, with both parties presenting their arguments. The Appellant claimed the contracts were terminated automatically or lawfully under contractual clauses, while the Respondent denied signing any debt certificate or authorizing a settlement agreement. The Respondent also contested the relevance of certain CFA regulations and argued the termination clause was invalid under FIFA regulations and Swiss law.
The Sole Arbitrator identified key issues, including whether the contracts were automatically terminated under CFA regulations, whether the Appellant legally terminated them under the contract’s terms, and whether a mutual termination agreement existed. The analysis revealed contradictions in the CFA Transfer Regulations and the contract, leaving the applicability of automatic termination unresolved. The Sole Arbitrator found that the CFA Transfer Regulations did not automatically apply to the contract because there was no evidence the Respondent had committed to abide by them. The contract itself did not reference these regulations, and no other documents demonstrated such a commitment. The Appellant also argued that foreign players could not play in the second division, but the Sole Arbitrator noted that the Respondent had previously played in the second division, undermining this claim.
The Appellant alternatively relied on a clause granting the club unilateral termination rights, but the Sole Arbitrator questioned its validity as a unilateral termination clause. The case underscores the complexities of contractual and regulatory interpretations in sports disputes. The text also examines other disputed termination methods, including an alleged mutual termination agreement and a "Certificate of Debts," which the arbitrator found insufficient to absolve the club of its obligations. The club argued that a settlement agreement signed by Lombé's agent waived his claims, but Lombé denied authorizing this agreement. The arbitrator deemed the evidence insufficient to prove proper authorization.
Ultimately, the arbitrator concluded that the club could not rely on the relegation clause to terminate the contract unilaterally, nor could it prove the validity of the mutual termination agreement or the settlement waiver. The case reinforces legal protections for players against one-sided contractual clauses and emphasizes the need for clear, mutual agreements in termination cases. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, confirming the awarded amounts and rejecting all other claims. The outcome underscores the importance of clear authorization and the burden of proof in contractual disputes.