The case involves a dispute between Club Real Betis Balompié S.A.D. (Betis) and Brazilian football player William Lanes de Lima, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the termination of the player's employment contract with Betis, which he claimed was breached due to unpaid salaries for August, September, and October 2009. The player filed a claim with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, ordering Betis to pay outstanding remuneration of EUR 6,900 plus interest and compensation for breach of contract amounting to EUR 622,800. Betis appealed this decision to CAS, arguing that the player had no just cause to terminate the contract and that the compensation was excessive.
The employment contract, signed in May 2008, was valid until June 2012 and included performance-based renewal clauses. The player suffered an injury during the 2008-2009 season, which later recurred, affecting his participation. Betis attempted to loan the player to Flamengo, but the transfer fell through after a medical examination revealed a chronic ankle injury. Betis contended that the loan agreement was binding regardless of the medical outcome, while the player argued that his contract with Betis remained valid and demanded unpaid salaries and medical expense reimbursement. When Betis failed to respond, the player terminated the contract and filed a claim with FIFA.
The CAS panel examined whether the player had just cause to terminate the contract under FIFA regulations, particularly Article 18.4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which prohibits making contract validity dependent on medical examinations. The panel ruled that this provision applies only to contracts between players and clubs, not inter-club loan agreements. Since the player did not pass the medical, the transfer to Flamengo did not proceed, and Betis remained obligated to pay his salaries. The panel found that Betis' persistent non-payment of salaries for over three months constituted a material breach, justifying the player's termination under Swiss labor law and FIFA regulations.
Regarding compensation, the panel upheld the FIFA DRC's award of EUR 622,800, calculated based on the player's remaining salary and benefits under the original contract, minus earnings from a new contract with Atlético Mineiro. The panel rejected Betis' argument that Spanish labor law should cap compensation, emphasizing that FIFA RSTP principles govern such disputes. The panel also dismissed Betis' claim for EUR 30,000,000 in liquidated damages, as the player had not appealed the FIFA DRC decision. Additionally, Betis was ordered to pay the player EUR 6,900 in unpaid salaries plus interest.
The CAS panel confirmed the FIFA DRC's decision, ruling that the player had just cause to terminate the contract due to Betis' breach and that the compensation was fair and proportionate. The case underscores the importance of contractual obligations in football and the applicability of FIFA regulations in resolving disputes. The panel also clarified that Flamengo and the player's agent could not be held liable, as they were not formal parties to the proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that clubs must fulfill financial obligations to players, and persistent non-payment warrants contract termination.