The dispute between the Bahrain Football Association (BFA) and coach Adnan Hamad Majid centered on the termination of his employment contract and the subsequent compensation owed. The BFA terminated the contract on November 17, 2014, citing poor performance of the Bahraini national team, particularly during the Gulf Cup tournament. The coach contested the termination, arguing it was unjust and sought full compensation for the remaining contract period until July 31, 2016. The BFA, however, relied on an addendum to the contract (Article 15) which limited compensation to USD 233,334, comprising two months' salary and an advance payment, plus an additional amount for part of his November 2014 salary. The case was initially brought before FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee, which ruled partially in favor of the coach, awarding him USD 1,002,740 in compensation, plus 5% annual interest, rejecting other claims. The BFA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Switzerland, Greece, and the UK, examined the case under FIFA regulations and Swiss law, as the contract did not specify a governing law. The panel found that the BFA’s termination lacked just cause, as poor performance alone, without specific incidents undermining trust, did not justify immediate termination. The panel also determined that FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) did not apply to disputes involving coaches, making the addendum’s compensation clause unenforceable. Instead, Swiss law, specifically Article 337(c) of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), governed the compensation calculation. This provision entitles an employee to compensation equivalent to what they would have earned had the contract been fulfilled, minus any savings or earnings from alternative employment.
The panel noted that the addendum’s compensation figure was significantly lower than the USD 1,125,000 the coach would have earned under the full contract term, rendering the clause null and void as it contravened mandatory Swiss law protections for employees. However, the panel also considered the coach’s duty to mitigate damages by seeking alternative employment. While acknowledging the challenges coaches face in finding comparable positions, the panel found the coach failed to provide evidence of efforts to secure new employment, particularly for the 2015-2016 season. As a result, the panel reduced the compensation by 25% to USD 843,750, accounting for potential earnings he could have secured had he actively sought alternative employment. Interest was set at 5% per annum from June 22, 2015, the date the coach filed his claim with FIFA.
The CAS partially upheld the BFA’s appeal, amending the original FIFA decision to reflect the reduced compensation amount. The BFA was ordered to pay the coach USD 843,750 within 30 days of the award’s notification, along with the specified interest. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards in employment disputes and the limitations of contractual clauses that conflict with statutory employee protections. It also highlights the balance between an employee’s entitlement to compensation and their obligation to mitigate losses by seeking alternative employment. The case clarifies the legal framework for resolving disputes between football associations and coaches, ensuring fair treatment in cases of unjust termination.