The case involves a complex legal dispute between Club Atlético Banfield, player Juan Ramón Cazares Sevillano, Clube Atlético Mineiro, Independiente del Valle, and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute originated from a series of contractual agreements, including a labor agreement between the player and Independiente in 2013, followed by loan agreements between Independiente, the player, and Banfield for the 2013/2014 and subsequent seasons. A key element was a purchase option clause allowing Banfield to buy the player’s rights for $1.5 million, payable in installments, with a conditional employment contract binding the player to Banfield if the option was exercised. Banfield claimed it exercised the purchase option but later argued the loan agreement was automatically terminated due to Independiente’s alleged failures. The CAS panel ruled that under Swiss law, a contract is not automatically terminated if one party fails to perform; the other party may withhold performance but cannot unilaterally declare termination. The panel also clarified that Banfield lacked standing to request disciplinary sanctions directly through CAS, as such authority rests with FIFA or relevant football associations.
The dispute escalated when Banfield failed to pay a $50,000 loan fee by the due date, citing the player’s failure to provide necessary documents. Independiente terminated the loan agreement in October 2015, and the player subsequently signed with Mineiro in January 2016. Banfield sought $15 million in compensation for breach of contract and requested sporting sanctions, but FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected the claim in 2018. Banfield appealed to CAS, arguing the purchase option was valid and the player breached his contract. The player and other respondents countered that Banfield’s non-payment voided the agreement, and the player was not responsible for the breach. The CAS panel found Banfield’s explanation for non-payment unconvincing, noting the club was aware of transfer restrictions and could have used alternative payment methods. The panel also emphasized that the player was not formally notified of the purchase option exercise until after Independiente had terminated the loan agreement, placing him in an unclear position.
The panel concluded that the player could not be held liable for breaching the Banfield Employment Agreement, as the permanent transfer never materialized due to unresolved issues between the clubs. The panel dismissed Banfield’s request for disciplinary measures, stating such requests must be directed to FIFA, not CAS. The final decision upheld FIFA’s earlier ruling, absolving the player and Mineiro of responsibility and highlighting the player’s position as a victim of circumstances rather than a party at fault. The case underscores the complexities of football contracts, the importance of adhering to contractual and procedural rules, and the jurisdictional limits of CAS in disciplinary matters. It also reaffirms the principle that contractual obligations must be performed reciprocally, and unilateral termination is not permitted without legal basis. The outcome serves as a reminder of the need for clarity and timely communication in player transfer agreements to avoid disputes.