The dispute between Hyderabad Football Club (the Club) and professional football player Nestor Jesus Gordillo Benitez (the Player) centered on the termination of the Player's employment contract during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Club terminated the contract on 20 May 2020, citing force majeure due to the pandemic, which it claimed made fulfilling the contract financially impossible. The Player contested this termination, leading to arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The employment contract, signed on 20 August 2019, was valid until 30 April 2021 and included a force majeure clause defining events like epidemics as beyond reasonable control. The Club proposed paying the Player 30% of the amount due for April and May 2020, citing financial difficulties, but the Player rejected this, demanding full payment of unpaid salaries from February to May 2020. The Club then issued a termination notice, offering partial payment for February and March 2020 and a lump sum for the 2020-21 season, while terminating the contract retroactively from 23 March 2020.
FIFA's stance on COVID-19 as force majeure was referenced, stating it does not automatically qualify and must be assessed case by case under relevant national law. Indian contract law requires agreements to be made with free consent, lawful consideration, and lawful object. The CAS panel evaluated whether the pandemic constituted force majeure under the contract and whether the Club's actions complied with contractual and legal requirements. The award, issued on 21 September 2022, determined the termination was unjustified, as the Club failed to prove financial hardship or explore alternative measures. The Club's claim that the Player tacitly accepted revised terms was dismissed, as silence does not constitute acceptance under Swiss or Indian law. The CAS upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, awarding the Player compensation of USD 115,100, later adjusted to USD 91,544 after accounting for the Player's new contract with a Polish club. The Club was also required to provide a tax certificate and pay 5% annual interest from the claim date.
The case highlights the complexities of contract termination during global crises and the importance of clear contractual terms and legal compliance. The CAS ruling clarified that COVID-19 does not universally justify force majeure claims and emphasized the need for mutual agreement and evidence of financial distress. The Club's failure to adhere to contractual obligations resulted in legal consequences, reinforcing the principle that termination should be a last resort. The decision underscores the role of arbitration in resolving sports disputes and the need for precise, enforceable contractual terms to avoid conflicts. The outcome serves as a precedent for similar cases, balancing the interests of clubs and players during unforeseen circumstances.