The case involves a dispute between Hendrik Willem ten Cate, a professional football coach, and Al Jazira Football Sports Company, a football club based in Abu Dhabi, concerning unpaid salaries and bonuses. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which issued an award on 22 January 2020. The central issues revolved around the burden of proof, the shifting of this burden in cases of evidentiary hardship, and the scope of an appeal to the CAS. The coach claimed unpaid amounts, including his June 2018 salary, the annual signing fee for 2017, a Club World Cup bonus, and match bonuses for victories. The club acknowledged the outstanding salary and signing fee but contested the match bonuses, citing a discretionary payment policy. The coach sought a declaration of breach by the club and payment of the claimed amounts, along with legal costs.
The CAS panel emphasized its authority to reassess both facts and law but noted it could not exceed the scope of the original dispute. The panel highlighted the complexities of employment disputes in football, particularly concerning contractual obligations and evidentiary challenges. The coach filed a request with the FIFA Players’ Status Committee (PSC), seeking payment of the amounts, legal costs, and additional fees. The FIFA PSC’s Single Judge ruled partially in favor of the coach, ordering the club to pay the undisputed EUR 373,000 (salary and signing fee) but rejecting the bonus claims due to insufficient proof. The coach appealed to CAS, seeking to overturn the rejection of the bonus claims and requesting additional interest on the awarded amount. The CAS proceedings included a hearing where both parties presented their arguments, examined witnesses, and confirmed no objections to the panel’s composition.
The panel noted that while the contract included provisions for match victory bonuses, the coach failed to prove such bonuses were ever paid to players during the 2017/2018 season, a necessary condition for his entitlement. Regarding the Club World Cup bonus, the panel found no conclusive evidence that an agreement was reached, and the terms were deemed unclear. However, the panel later concluded that the coach successfully proved the agreement through detailed witness testimony and correspondence, awarding him EUR 120,000. For match bonuses, the panel upheld the coach's claim based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, emphasizing the club's failure to clarify the matter. The panel ruled that interest at 5% per annum would apply from 30 days after the notification of the initial FIFA decision but dismissed the coach's request for interest dating back to earlier periods.
The final ruling partially upheld the coach's appeal, confirming the FIFA decision with amendments. The club was ordered to pay the coach EUR 373,000 (with interest from 30 days after the FIFA decision), EUR 120,000 as a Club World Cup Bonus (with interest from the notification of the CAS decision), and AED 255,000 as Match Bonus (with interest from the notification of the CAS decision). All other claims were dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of contractual obligations and the consequences of a party's failure to cooperate in resolving disputes. The case highlights the challenges of proving contractual entitlements to discretionary bonuses and the legal processes involved in resolving disputes between coaches and clubs in professional football.