The case involves a dispute between Cruzeiro Esporte Clube, a Brazilian football club, and Club de Fútbol Tigres de la UANL, a Mexican football club, over the interpretation of a transfer agreement for a player. The conflict arose from discrepancies in the interest rate clause between the English and Portuguese versions of the contract. The English version specified a 4% monthly interest rate for late payments, while the Portuguese version stated a 4% annual rate. The English version was designated as binding. When Cruzeiro failed to pay the fourth installment on time, Tigres filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC), demanding payment with 5% monthly interest. The PSC ruled in favor of Tigres, ordering Cruzeiro to pay the outstanding amount with 5% annual interest, citing the binding nature of the English version and the principle of good faith. Cruzeiro appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the Portuguese version reflected the true intent of the parties and that the interest rate should be 4% annually.
The CAS, applying Swiss law, acknowledged the ambiguity in the contract but upheld the binding status of the English version. However, invoking the principle of "in dubio contra stipulatorem" (ambiguity interpreted against the drafter), the arbitrator ruled that the interest rate should be 4% annually, favoring Tigres as the non-drafting party. The CAS upheld the PSC’s decision on the principal amount but adjusted the interest rate to 4% annually, aligning with the Portuguese version. The ruling emphasized the importance of contractual clarity and equitable interpretation.
In subsequent proceedings, the Sole Arbitrator further examined the parties' submissions and reaffirmed the binding nature of the English version, supported by Cruzeiro’s initial offer letter proposing a 4% monthly rate. However, the arbitrator noted that the FIFA PSC had already deemed the 4% monthly rate excessive, setting it at 5% annually instead. The final decision rejected Cruzeiro’s appeal, upheld the FIFA ruling, and ordered Cruzeiro to pay the outstanding amount with 5% annual interest from the due date, along with arbitration costs and a contribution to Tigres’ legal fees. All other unspecified requests were dismissed, bringing finality to the case.
The dispute highlights the complexities of international football transfers and the challenges of interpreting bilingual contracts. It underscores the role of legal principles like good faith and equitable interpretation in resolving contractual ambiguities. The case also demonstrates the importance of clear and consistent contract drafting to avoid such disputes. The final ruling balanced contractual terms with fairness, ensuring a just outcome for both parties while reinforcing the enforceability of designated binding versions in international agreements. The dismissal of all other motions marked the conclusion of the legal proceedings.