The case revolves around a contractual dispute involving Lebanese football player Hamzeh Salameh, his former club SAFA Sporting Club (Safa), his new club Nafit Mesan FC, and FIFA. The conflict began when Salameh signed a five-year sports agreement with Safa in October 2013, which included provisions for medical insurance, a seasonal payment of $10,000, and a monthly salary of $1,000. However, in July 2014, Salameh signed a new contract with Nafit Mesan, offering a significantly higher salary of $125,000. Safa contested this move, claiming Salameh was still under contract, and the Lebanese Football Federation (FLFA) refused to issue an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player. Nafit Mesan sought FIFA's intervention for provisional registration, leading to a series of legal proceedings.
The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the case under Swiss law and FIFA regulations. The CAS panel determined that Salameh's contract with Safa was valid and binding, containing all essential elements of an employment agreement. The panel concluded that Salameh's unilateral termination to join Nafit Mesan was without just cause, as he failed to provide proper notice or demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Consequently, Nafit Mesan was held jointly liable for the compensation owed to Safa. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ordered compensation of $312,375, but the CAS panel adjusted this to $103,000, considering factors such as the player's market value, savings made by Safa, and the breach's timing. The panel also upheld sporting sanctions, including a four-month playing ban for Salameh and a two-registration-period ban for Nafit Mesan, as the breach occurred during a protected period under FIFA regulations.
The case highlights the importance of contractual stability in professional football and the role of governing bodies like FIFA and CAS in resolving disputes. It underscores the legal principles governing employment contracts in sports, including the necessity of clear terms, mutual obligations, and the consequences of unilateral breaches. The ruling reinforces the applicability of FIFA regulations and Swiss law in such disputes, emphasizing the need for clubs and players to adhere to contractual obligations. The decision also illustrates the procedural rigor of CAS proceedings, including evidence submission, witness testimonies, and hearings, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the case. Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld the appeal, adjusting the compensation amount while confirming the sporting sanctions, thereby balancing the interests of all parties involved.