The case revolves around Jurgen Borg, a semi-professional football player from Malta, and his dispute with the Malta Football Association (MFA) regarding the termination of his employment contract with Hibernians FC and his subsequent registration with another club. Borg signed a five-year contract with Hibernians FC in 2014 but sought to terminate it unilaterally in August 2017, alleging the club pressured him into signing a two-year extension under threat of exclusion. He requested the MFA to cancel his registration with Hibernians FC, allowing him to join a new club before the transfer window closed, with compensation paid to Hibernians as per regulations. The MFA's Complaints Board initially declined jurisdiction, referring the matter to another internal entity, and the Executive Committee later rejected Borg's request, citing no "good and just cause" for provisional registration. Hibernians FC suspended Borg for missing training sessions, despite his claim that his contract had been terminated. Borg then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking provisional measures to register with a new club and challenging the MFA's decision.
The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, addressed key legal issues, ruling that the forum non conveniens doctrine does not apply under Swiss Private International Law governing arbitration. The panel clarified that a decision must affect the legal situation of the parties, regardless of its form, and emphasized that CAS review is limited to the parties' requests and the appealed decision. The MFA argued that Borg failed to exhaust internal remedies, such as requesting a revision from the MFA Council under Article 49(xiii) of its statutes, but the Sole Arbitrator determined this provision did not constitute a formal legal remedy under CAS rules. The panel also found that the MFA's rejection letter qualified as an appealable decision under Article R47 of the CAS Code, as it contained a binding ruling affecting Borg's legal situation.
Borg contended that the MFA's system for resolving employment disputes was illegitimate, lacking equal representation for players and clubs in decision-making bodies, and infringing on his fundamental rights, including the right to work and freely choose employment. He argued that maintaining his registration after contract termination was illogical and unlawful, while the MFA maintained that registration and contractual disputes were separate matters. The Sole Arbitrator ruled that "good and just cause" for registration cancellation should consider both player and club interests, with the threshold not set too high to prevent players from being unfairly hindered. The panel found the threshold was met in Borg's case, as the employment relationship had irreparably broken down, justifying the cancellation of his registration without prejudging the underlying contractual dispute.
The CAS ultimately ruled it had jurisdiction, partially upheld Borg's appeal, and set aside the MFA's decision, finding "good and just cause" to cancel his registration with Hibernians FC. The MFA was ordered to facilitate Borg's registration with another Maltese club, in accordance with applicable regulations. The case highlights the complexities of player registrations, contractual disputes, and the jurisdictional boundaries of sports arbitration bodies, reinforcing the distinction between administrative registration matters and contractual disputes. The decision underscores the importance of fair and independent arbitration in sports governance while balancing player rights and contractual obligations.