The case involves a legal dispute between Dalian Professional Football Club (the Club) and Henrique Manuel Da Silva Calisto (the Coach), with FIFA as a secondary respondent, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from the Club's termination of the Coach's employment contract without just cause, leading to arbitration proceedings. The CAS panel, composed of Mr. Alain Zahlan de Cayetti, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, and Mr. José Juan Pintó, addressed several key legal issues in their award dated 17 September 2021. The central issues included the submission of new evidence after written submissions had closed, the validity of the termination, and the enforceability of contractual penalty clauses.
The panel emphasized strict procedural timelines under Article R56 of the CAS Code, which permits additional evidence only under exceptional circumstances or with party agreement. The Club's late submission of a legal opinion was denied due to the absence of exceptional circumstances. The panel also examined whether the Club had just cause to terminate the contract under Swiss law, which requires a material breach of the contract's core terms. The Club's termination was deemed unjustified, as no such breach was established.
The employment contract, signed in 2018, included an automatic extension clause based on the team's performance in the Chinese Super League (CSL). The team's 11th-place finish triggered a two-season extension until December 31, 2020. However, the Club terminated the contract in December 2018, claiming unmet conditions and alleged breaches by the Coach, including unauthorized leave and failure to submit reports. The Coach disputed these claims, arguing the termination was motivated by the Club's desire to hire a new coaching team.
The Coach filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC), seeking compensation for wrongful termination, unpaid bonuses, and tax compliance. The Club challenged FIFA's jurisdiction, arguing disputes should be resolved by the Chinese Football Association Arbitration Committee (CFAAC). The PSC ruled in favor of the Coach, ordering compensation and proof of tax payments. The Club appealed to CAS, disputing the PSC's jurisdiction and the compensation amount.
The CAS panel confirmed FIFA's jurisdiction under Article 22c of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), noting the dispute's international dimension and the lack of an independent national arbitration tribunal. The panel upheld the PSC's decision, finding the termination unjustified and the contractual penalty clause valid under Swiss law. The Club was ordered to pay the Coach's outstanding net fixed cash remuneration for the 2019 season, plus 5% annual interest, and to provide a tax certificate confirming payment of applicable taxes. The panel rejected the Club's request for cost reimbursement from FIFA, citing established CAS jurisprudence.
The case highlights the complexities of employment disputes in professional football, emphasizing the importance of clear contractual terms, procedural adherence, and the role of FIFA and CAS in resolving such matters. The panel's decision underscores the principles of contractual freedom, good faith, and party autonomy in employment agreements, while reinforcing the binding nature of contractual obligations under Swiss law and FIFA regulations. The Club's appeal was partially upheld, with the final award adjusting the compensation amount but dismissing all other claims.