The case involves a legal dispute between Dominique Cuperly, a former assistant coach, and Club Al Jazira, a football club based in Abu Dhabi, stemming from the termination of Cuperly's employment contract and a subsequent settlement agreement. Cuperly was employed under a contract signed in May 2014, which included a monthly salary, bonuses, and other benefits. His contract was terminated in June 2015 following the head coach's dismissal. In November 2015, the parties signed a settlement agreement where the club agreed to pay Cuperly EUR 109,926.83 by January 2016. However, the club failed to make the payment, leading Cuperly to declare the settlement void and demand EUR 417,300, representing unpaid salaries and entitlements under the original contract.
Cuperly filed a claim with FIFA's Players’ Status Committee (PSC), which ruled his claim inadmissible, citing the settlement agreement's clause granting jurisdiction to Abu Dhabi courts under UAE law. Cuperly appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FIFA and CAS had jurisdiction despite the settlement agreement's jurisdictional clause. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Bernhard Welten, examined the case under Article R58 of the CAS Code, which prioritizes FIFA's rules over the parties' choice of law unless FIFA's regulations are silent. The panel noted that while parties can opt out of FIFA jurisdiction under Article 22 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), the settlement agreement did not explicitly exclude FIFA's jurisdiction. However, the panel concluded that the jurisdictional clause in the settlement agreement was valid and binding, meaning neither FIFA nor CAS had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Consequently, the CAS upheld the PSC's decision, ruling that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of Abu Dhabi courts as agreed by the parties.
Cuperly argued that the settlement agreement was void due to the club's non-payment and sought compensation based on the original employment contract. He also challenged the arbitration clauses, asserting that FIFA and CAS had jurisdiction under FIFA statutes. Club Al Jazira maintained that the settlement agreement replaced the employment contract and that FIFA and CAS lacked jurisdiction, as the agreements stipulated disputes should be resolved in Abu Dhabi courts. The club defended the EUR 50,000 compensation limit in the employment contract as proportionate under Swiss law. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and the parties' agreement in the Order of Procedure, deeming the appeal admissible as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by FIFA.
The central issue was whether the settlement agreement nullified the employment contract and whether the compensation clauses were valid. The Sole Arbitrator analyzed conflicting provisions in the agreements, which favored UAE law, versus FIFA regulations and Swiss law under the CAS Code. The arbitrator concluded that FIFA rules took precedence over the parties' choice of UAE law, as Article R58 of the CAS Code mandates the application of FIFA's regulations in appeal arbitration procedures. Swiss law would apply subsidiarily for interpreting FIFA rules, while UAE law would only apply to matters not covered by FIFA regulations. The arbitrator emphasized the parties' freedom to choose their forum and the binding nature of their agreement, ultimately dismissing the appeal and confirming that neither FIFA nor CAS had jurisdiction. The case highlights the tension between contractual autonomy and the regulatory authority of sports governing bodies like FIFA and CAS, underscoring the importance of clear jurisdictional clauses in settlement agreements.