The case revolves around a dispute between Apollon Kalamarias F.C. and professional football player Davidson Oliveira Morais regarding the validity of a unilateral renewal clause in the player's contract. The original contract, signed in July 2003, was for one year but included a clause allowing the club to unilaterally renew it for up to four additional years under the same financial terms, provided the club notified the player by a specified deadline. In May 2004, the club exercised this option, but the player refused to sign the renewal and challenged its validity with FIFA. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled the unilateral option invalid, citing its disproportionate favoritism toward the club and lack of reciprocity, and terminated the contract as of June 2004.
The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Greek Sports Law (Article 90 of Law 2725/1999) permitted such unilateral renewals if the total contract duration did not exceed five years and financial terms were agreed upon at signing. The club also claimed the player was aware of the clause when signing. The player countered that he was not fluent in Greek and unaware of the unilateral option, supporting FIFA's decision based on principles of fairness in international football contracts. The CAS Panel, composed of members from the UK, Greece, and Brazil, considered the broader context of global sports law, emphasizing the need for general legal principles to override specific national laws in international disputes.
The CAS upheld FIFA's decision, ruling that unilateral options disproportionately favor clubs and violate general labor law principles of fairness and reciprocity. It rejected the club's reliance on Greek law, noting such clauses conflict with evolving international sports jurisprudence (lex sportiva), which prioritizes equitable terms in employment contracts. The Panel also dismissed the club's request for a stay of execution, affirming that forced employment is impermissible under Swiss, Greek, and common law, and that damages are the appropriate remedy for breaches. By the time of the hearing, the player had joined another club, making enforcement of the renewal impractical.
The CAS ultimately ruled the unilateral option invalid, aligning with FIFA's decision and reinforcing the principle that employment contracts in global sports must balance both parties' interests. The case highlights the tension between national laws and international sports jurisprudence, with CAS favoring fairness over rigid contractual clauses. The decision underscores the importance of reciprocity and equitable terms in player contracts within international sports governance. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the DRC's ruling and closing the matter. The ruling reflects the CAS's commitment to aligning domestic sports regulations with overarching principles of justice and labor rights in the global sports community.