The case involves a legal dispute between Sport Lisboa e Benfica (Benfica), a Portuguese football club, and Bilal Ould-Chikh, a professional football player, along with FC Utrecht and FIFA. The dispute centered on Benfica's termination of the player's contract in February 2017, which the player contested as unjustified. Benfica cited disciplinary breaches, including unprofessional behavior, indifference during training, involvement in a nightclub brawl, and other misconduct, as grounds for termination. The player challenged the termination through legal channels, including an unsuccessful injunction request in a Portuguese Labour Court, and later filed a complaint with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC ruled in the player's favor in September 2018, ordering Benfica to pay €3.1 million in compensation, adjusted for the player's subsequent earnings with FC Utrecht, plus interest.
Benfica appealed the DRC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the termination was justified and that the DRC lacked jurisdiction. The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Petros Mavroidis, Mr. Rui Botica Santos, and Prof. Massimo Coccia, reviewed the case de novo, examining the legality of the termination and the applicable laws. The panel emphasized that FIFA statutes take precedence, with Swiss law filling gaps where FIFA regulations are incomplete. The concept of "just cause" for contract termination, as defined in FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), was found to align with the Swiss Code of Obligations' notion of "good cause." The panel concluded that only fundamental contractual breaches, not auxiliary ones, could justify termination.
The panel evaluated the player's alleged misconduct, including his behavior toward club officials, the nightclub incident, and disciplinary issues with the Dutch U-19 national team. While acknowledging the player's unprofessional conduct, the panel found that Benfica's termination was disproportionate and did not constitute "just cause." However, the player's behavior was considered a mitigating factor, leading the panel to reduce the compensation owed to him by 50%, setting it at €1,552,500. The panel also dismissed Benfica's claims against FC Utrecht, as the player was not found to have terminated the contract without just cause, and rejected FIFA's argument that it lacked standing in the dispute.
The panel underscored the importance of procedural fairness, noting that parties must be given adequate notice to rectify breaches before termination, unless compliance is clearly not intended. The decision reinforced the hierarchical application of FIFA regulations, Swiss law, and party agreements in resolving football-related disputes, ensuring contractual stability and harmonization in player transfers. The panel partially upheld Benfica's appeal, adjusting the financial obligations but dismissing all other requests for relief, including cost-sharing with FIFA. The case highlights the complexities of employment disputes in professional football and the role of sports arbitration in balancing contractual obligations with disciplinary measures.