The case centers on a dispute between Club Sportif Sfaxien (CSS), a Tunisian football club, and Portuguese football coach José Paulo Sousa da Silva, involving the termination of an employment contract and subsequent financial obligations. The parties initially signed a contract on 23 June 2017, set to expire at the end of the 2018/19 season. The contract included a clause stipulating a penalty of three months' salary if the club terminated the agreement unilaterally. On 17 November 2017, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract early, with CSS obligated to pay the coach €20,000 by 22 November 2017. The termination agreement further stated that failure to pay would entitle the coach to claim the full remaining salary under the original contract, along with additional compensation under FIFA regulations and Swiss law.
The coach alleged that CSS failed to meet the payment deadline and filed a claim with FIFA on 12 December 2017. CSS countered that it had attempted to pay but encountered issues with the provided SWIFT code, eventually transferring the funds on 12 March 2018. The coach disputed this, accusing the club of insufficient efforts to resolve the issue and alleging falsification of the payment slip. FIFA ruled in favor of the coach, ordering CSS to pay €9,000 in outstanding remuneration and €39,000 in compensation for breach of contract, plus interest. CSS appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the appeal faced procedural challenges.
The CAS addressed critical procedural issues, including the admissibility of the appeal. CSS had filed its statement of appeal via email but failed to submit a hard copy by courier as required by CAS rules. The CAS emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements, such as filing deadlines and submission methods, to ensure fairness and legal certainty. Due to CSS's non-compliance with Article R51(1) of the CAS Code, the appeal was deemed withdrawn. However, the club was given the option to treat its initial statement of appeal as its appeal brief.
The case highlights the importance of procedural compliance in international arbitration and the contractual obligations between football clubs and coaches. It underscores the consequences of early termination and the enforcement of financial penalties. The CAS reinforced that procedural rules are not mere formalities but essential safeguards for equal treatment and legal certainty. The final decision upheld the binding nature of termination agreements and the repercussions of non-compliance under FIFA regulations and Swiss law.
In a subsequent phase, the CAS examined the substantive claims, including the admissibility of the appeal brief. CSS argued it had submitted the brief by courier on 15 January 2019, supported by postal receipts. However, discrepancies in the documentation, such as missing tracking numbers and inconsistent postmarks, cast doubt on the timeliness of the submission. The coach contested the authenticity of these receipts, pointing to irregularities and lack of verifiable tracking data. The CAS found the evidence unreliable and ruled the appeal brief inadmissible, deeming the appeal withdrawn. The decision reaffirmed the necessity of strict procedural compliance, dismissing the appeal and rejecting all other motions.
The case illustrates the complexities of arbitration proceedings, emphasizing the critical role of procedural adherence and credible evidence. It also highlights the contractual and financial disputes common in football, where timely payments and clear communication are paramount. The CAS's ruling serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of failing to meet procedural and contractual obligations in international sports disputes.