The case involves a contractual dispute between Alex Pallarés Piquer, a Spanish football coach, and FC Rubin Kazan, a Russian football club, which escalated into a legal battle over jurisdiction and the interpretation of their employment contract. The dispute began when Rubin Kazan terminated Pallarés' contract in January 2014, citing his lack of a valid UEFA license, a claim Pallarés contested by asserting he held a valid license from the Spanish Football Federation. Pallarés filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) in February 2014, seeking compensation for breach of contract. In January 2016, the FIFA PSC declared his claim inadmissible, leading Pallarés to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in October 2016.
The CAS panel addressed two primary legal issues. First, it clarified that in appeals against decisions by an association like FIFA, the association itself is the proper respondent, not the co-member (Rubin Kazan). This distinction is critical in "vertical" disputes, where the association's regulatory or disciplinary powers are involved, as opposed to "horizontal" disputes between members. The panel noted that Pallarés' appeal sought to challenge FIFA’s jurisdictional decision, making FIFA the necessary respondent. Second, the panel differentiated between horizontal and vertical disputes, emphasizing that Pallarés' case was primarily horizontal (contractual) but included a vertical element due to FIFA’s jurisdictional ruling.
The dispute also centered on the interpretation of Article 9.2 of Pallarés' contract, which outlined dispute resolution procedures. Pallarés argued the clause allowed disputes to be submitted to FIFA, citing historical contractual intent and Swiss legal principles favoring the validity of arbitration clauses. He contended that the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the Russian Football Union (RFU) lacked independence and impartiality, failing to meet FIFA’s standards for dispute resolution bodies. Rubin Kazan, however, maintained that the NDRC was the designated forum under the contract and complied with FIFA regulations. The club argued that Pallarés, having signed multiple contracts with similar clauses, could not later contest their validity.
The CAS panel ultimately ruled that Pallarés' appeal was a vertical dispute challenging FIFA’s decision, requiring FIFA as the respondent. Since FIFA was not summoned, the panel dismissed the appeal, upholding FIFA’s original decision. The case highlights the complexities of jurisdictional disputes in sports law, the importance of procedural correctness, and the distinction between vertical and horizontal disputes. It also underscores the challenges in interpreting arbitration clauses and the role of independent dispute resolution bodies in football. The panel’s decision reinforced the procedural framework for such disputes, ensuring clarity in future cases involving FIFA and its members.