The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between Club Hajer FC Al-Hasa and professional footballer Arsid Kruja regarding the termination of an employment contract and unpaid salaries. The case centered on the validity of the contract, just cause for termination, and the club's obligations concerning visas and work permits. The sole arbitrator, Ivaylo Dermendjiev, upheld the validity of the employment contract, noting that the club's subsequent actions—such as entering into loan agreements and registering the contract in FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS)—confirmed its authenticity, even if the club's legal representative did not originally sign it. The arbitrator dismissed the club's argument that the player's failure to enter Saudi Arabia invalidated the contract, as the player was loaned to other clubs during the dispute.
The arbitrator found that the player had just cause to terminate the contract due to the club's material breaches, including non-payment of salaries for several months and failure to secure a visa and work permit. These failures prevented the player from working and competing, violating his fundamental rights under the contract. The arbitrator emphasized that employers are generally responsible for arranging work permits, and a club's failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract. The player's delay in terminating the contract was deemed reasonable, as he had attempted to resolve the issue with the club and relevant football authorities before taking action.
The ruling also addressed the player's personality rights, noting that preventing him from competing harmed his professional development and market value. Under Swiss law, such violations of personality rights are presumed illegal unless justified. The arbitrator applied FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) to determine compensation, concluding that the player was entitled to the full income he would have earned under the contract, minus any earnings from subsequent employment. The case involved a three-year contract with a structured payment plan, including annual lump sums and monthly salaries. The club's failure to fulfill these financial obligations, along with its administrative lapses, justified the player's termination.
The arbitrator reinforced key principles in employment law, particularly in sports, emphasizing the employer's responsibilities and the player's right to fair treatment and professional opportunities. The award underscored the importance of contractual adherence and the protection of athletes' rights in international football disputes. The club was ordered to pay the player USD 190,684 in compensation, adjusted from the initial FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) award of USD 193,000, plus 5% annual interest from the date of termination. The decision highlighted the player's duty to mitigate damages by seeking new employment, which he fulfilled by signing with another club, Vllaznia. The arbitrator rejected the club's arguments regarding the player's alleged negligence and lack of genuine interest in fulfilling the contract, concluding that the club's breaches were severe enough to warrant termination.
The case exemplifies the legal complexities in international football contracts, particularly concerning visa obligations and salary disputes. The arbitrator's decision reinforced the principle of contractual stability in football, ensuring that clubs fulfill their administrative and financial obligations to players. The ruling also clarified the calculation of compensation for breach of contract, considering factors such as the remaining contract duration, the player's remuneration, and any income earned from subsequent employment. The club's appeal was partially upheld, but the core findings of the DRC were affirmed, with minor adjustments to the compensation amount. The decision serves as a reminder of the legal and financial consequences of breaching employment contracts in professional sports.