The case involves a contractual dispute between Liaoning Football Club (Liaoning FC) and professional footballer Wisdom Fofo Agbo, with the Chinese Football Association (CFA) also named as a respondent. The dispute stemmed from an employment contract signed on 25 February 2015, valid until 31 December 2015, which stipulated Agbo’s salary, including a $50,000 signing fee, and outlined his obligations, such as participating in matches and training sessions. Agbo attended only one training session before requesting leave to care for his wife following a car accident. His leave was extended, and he never returned to the club. On 14 January 2016, Agbo signed a termination letter, relinquishing all financial claims under the contract, including salary and signing fees. Despite this, he later filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on 30 June 2015, seeking unpaid salaries and the signing fee. Liaoning FC failed to respond to FIFA’s communications, leading the DRC to close the investigation phase without their input and rule in Agbo’s favor, ordering the club to pay $115,400.
The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reviewed the case de novo, meaning it examined the facts and legal arguments anew. The CAS panel determined that FIFA’s rules and regulations, supplemented by Swiss law, governed the dispute, as the contract referenced FIFA’s dispute resolution system and no other national law was specified. The panel also ruled that the CFA, which was not a party to the FIFA proceedings, could not be compelled to participate in the CAS appeal without its consent.
Regarding the signing fee, the panel held that it was a contractual obligation unrelated to performance and became due upon the contract’s signing, irrespective of its duration. The panel emphasized that procedural defects in the FIFA DRC’s decision could be remedied through the de novo hearing at CAS, provided there was no abuse or bad faith. The panel also addressed the admissibility of evidence, ruling that the Termination Letter signed by Agbo was admissible in the CAS proceedings, as there was no evidence of bad faith by the club.
The central issue was whether Agbo had voluntarily waived his claims by signing the Termination Letter or if he was coerced. Agbo argued he signed under duress to obtain a release letter, while the club denied refusing to issue the release and maintained that such waivers are standard practice. The panel found the Termination Letter’s wording clear and unambiguous, indicating Agbo’s waiver of all claims. It concluded that Agbo failed to provide sufficient evidence of coercion and noted he had alternative options, such as provisional registration with a new club or raising his concerns in ongoing FIFA proceedings. Citing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), the panel upheld the club’s appeal, set aside the FIFA DRC’s decision, and ruled that no compensation was owed to Agbo. The case highlights the complexities of international sports arbitration, the importance of clear contractual terms, and the interplay between procedural fairness and applicable law.