The case involves a dispute between SASP Le Sporting Club de Bastia (the Club) and professional footballer Christian Koffi N’Dri Romaric (the Player) regarding the validity of a contract extension. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the Club appealed a decision by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of the Player. The central issue was whether a document titled "Proposition de prolongation" (Proposal of Renewal), signed by both parties on 26 August 2014, constituted a binding employment contract under French labor law. The Player and the Club had initially signed an employment contract on 31 July 2013 for the 2013/2014 season, with provisions for renewal if the Club remained in Ligue 1. An addendum outlined financial terms for the 2014/2015 season, and the Proposal extended the contract for the 2015/2016 season, with an optional additional season if certain performance conditions were met. The Club publicly announced the renewal on its website and social media.
At the end of the 2014/2015 season, the Club informed the Player it would not honor the extension. The Player’s legal counsel argued the Proposal was a binding contract, while the Club disputed this, leading to proceedings before FIFA’s DRC. The DRC ruled in favor of the Player, ordering the Club to pay €360,000 in outstanding remuneration plus interest and €872,853.60 as compensation for breach of contract. The Club appealed to CAS, arguing the Proposal lacked essential elements of a valid employment contract under French law, such as the Player’s position, start date, working hours, and salary adjustments in case of relegation. The Club also claimed financial difficulties and alleged misconduct by the Player as grounds for termination, though these arguments were dismissed by the DRC.
The CAS panel examined whether the Proposal contained the essential elements of a valid employment contract, including agreement on work performance for remuneration, names and signatures of the parties, the club’s stamp, a reference to the underlying employment contract, and specific terms for the extended period. The panel concluded the Proposal met these requirements, making it a binding contract. It emphasized that while details like working hours or exact job specifics were not essential, the core elements of employment, salary, and subordination were present. The panel also noted the Club’s public acknowledgment of the renewal, further supporting the Proposal’s validity. The CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, recognizing the Proposal as a valid and enforceable employment contract. The ruling clarified that contractual extensions containing essential terms are binding, even if further formalities are absent, provided the fundamental elements of an employment relationship are agreed upon.
The CAS rejected the Club’s appeal, affirming the DRC’s compensation calculation and dismissing the Club’s arguments about relegation and financial hardship as invalid grounds for termination. The decision underscores the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and reinforces the binding nature of employment contracts in professional football, even in cases of relegation or financial hardship. The case highlights the importance of clear contractual documentation in professional sports and the enforceability of agreements under labor law, as well as the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes. The Panel’s decision ultimately upheld the Player’s claim, ensuring the Club complied with the terms of the breached contract.