The case involves a dispute between Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianamimanana (the Player), Kaizer Chiefs FC, Fosa Juniors FC, and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issue revolves around the termination of the Player's employment contract with Fosa Juniors and his subsequent signing with Kaizer Chiefs. Fosa Juniors claimed the Player was under a professional contract until 2020, while Kaizer Chiefs argued the Player had represented himself as an amateur free to sign with any club. The dispute escalated when Kaizer Chiefs offered $25,000 in compensation, which Fosa Juniors rejected. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that the Player had breached his contract with Fosa Juniors, ordering him to pay compensation of MGA 157,572,000 plus interest, with Kaizer Chiefs jointly liable. The Player also faced a four-month playing ban, and Kaizer Chiefs was barred from registering new players for two registration periods. Both parties appealed the decision to CAS, requesting provisional measures to suspend the FIFA DRC's rulings pending the outcome of the arbitration.
The CAS panel addressed several legal considerations. It clarified that financial decisions by private Swiss associations like FIFA are not enforceable during an appeal. It also ruled that suspending a player does not inherently prevent them from training or maintaining skills, and the inability to participate in a few matches does not constitute irreparable harm. Contractual interests of the player were deemed insufficient to override this principle. Financial damages were deemed reparable through compensation, thus not qualifying as irreparable harm. The appellants argued that the Player's inability to play would diminish his market value and career prospects, while Kaizer Chiefs faced risks of relegation due to being unable to strengthen their squad. However, the Panel found these claims unsubstantiated and speculative.
FIFA countered that the appellants failed to meet the necessary conditions for provisional measures, emphasizing that any financial harm could be quantified and compensated later. It stressed the importance of contractual stability in football, arguing that granting the stay would harm FIFA’s regulatory authority and the broader football community. The CAS Panel concluded that the appellants did not demonstrate irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on appeal, or a balance of interests in their favor. Since the requirement of irreparable harm was not met, the Panel dismissed the request for provisional measures without examining the other criteria. The CAS ultimately ruled to dismiss the request, upholding the importance of contractual integrity in professional football and deferring the determination of costs for a later stage in the arbitration process. The case highlights the complexities of player contracts, transfer regulations, and the enforcement of sporting sanctions under FIFA rules.