The case involves a dispute between Football Club Buriram United and professional footballer Modibo Maiga over the termination of his employment contract. The club terminated Maiga's contract on April 2, 2019, invoking Clause 6 of the agreement, which stipulated a one-time payment of $60,000 as compensation for termination without just cause. Maiga contested this, arguing the clause was invalid and demanded the remaining value of his contract, amounting to $205,025 plus interest. The dispute escalated to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled partially in Maiga's favor, ordering the club to pay $271,816. The club appealed this decision, leading to a CAS hearing.
The central issue was the validity of Clause 6, which limited compensation to two months' salary. The CAS Sole Arbitrator examined the clause under Swiss law, which governs FIFA regulations. Article 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO) mandates that an employee dismissed without good cause is entitled to damages equivalent to their earnings for the remaining contract period. The arbitrator found Clause 6 violated this mandatory provision, rendering it void. The decision emphasized that parties cannot waive claims arising from mandatory employment protections, as per Article 362 of the SCO. The club's argument that the clause was negotiated in good faith was dismissed, as it disproportionately favored the club and contravened Swiss law.
The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's ruling, affirming that Maiga was entitled to compensation for the remaining contract period. The club was ordered to pay $271,816, covering the residual salary and benefits, minus payments already made. The arbitrator rejected the club's request to reduce the amount, noting the absence of valid criteria for such a reduction. The case underscores the primacy of mandatory employment protections over contractual terms that undermine them, reinforcing the principle of contractual stability under FIFA regulations. The final decision dismissed the club's appeal, ensuring Maiga received fair compensation for the unjust termination. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to both sports regulations and national employment laws in contractual disputes.