The case involves a dispute between Club Africain, a Tunisian football club, and Seidu Salifu, a Ghanaian professional football player, over the termination of their employment contract. The player terminated the contract on February 16, 2016, citing the club's failure to pay outstanding salaries and bonuses despite multiple warnings and a final deadline set on February 15, 2016. The player filed a claim with FIFA, seeking unpaid remuneration, compensation for breach of contract, and other damages. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in the player's favor, ordering the club to pay USD 178,000 in outstanding remuneration plus interest and USD 316,000 as compensation for breach of contract. The club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, consisting of a sole arbitrator, upheld the DRC's decision. The arbitrator found that the club had breached its payment obligations, which justified the player's termination of the contract under Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The arbitrator clarified that the 10-day deadline in Article 12bis of the RSTP, which applies to seeking sanctions for unpaid debts, does not affect the determination of just cause for termination. The club failed to prove it had paid the player, and the player's repeated warnings were deemed sufficient to justify termination. The arbitrator also noted that the player had made reasonable efforts to notify the club of his intent to terminate the contract if payments were not made.
The club argued that administrative disruptions, including the resignation of key office holders, constituted force majeure, excusing their inability to pay. However, the arbitrator rejected this claim, stating that the club failed to provide sufficient evidence linking these disruptions to its inability to fulfill financial obligations. The club also contended that the player did not follow proper termination procedures, but the arbitrator found that the player's actions were justified given the substantial unpaid wages and prior warnings.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and the parties' agreement to arbitration. The appeal was deemed admissible as it was filed within the required 21-day period. The applicable law included FIFA regulations and, subsidiarily, Swiss law. The key issues were whether the club breached its payment obligations, whether the breach justified termination, and whether the player followed proper procedures. The arbitrator concluded that the club's failure to pay constituted a material breach, entitling the player to terminate the contract.
The CAS dismissed the club's appeal, upholding the DRC's decision and ordering the club to pay the outstanding amounts plus interest. The ruling emphasized the importance of clubs fulfilling financial obligations to players and the legal consequences of failing to do so. The case highlights the procedural rigor of arbitration at CAS and the complexities of contractual disputes in football. The decision reaffirms players' rights to terminate contracts when clubs fail to meet their financial commitments without valid justification.