The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rendered a decision on December 17, 2021, in the dispute between Maghreb Association Sportive de Fès (the Club) and Karime Benjamin Makongo (the Player). The case centered on the Player's unilateral termination of his employment contract with the Club, which he claimed was justified due to unpaid salaries and bonuses. The CAS panel, composed of a sole arbitrator, examined the contractual terms, the concept of "just cause" for termination, and the applicability of FIFA regulations versus national law. The arbitrator emphasized that FIFA regulations take precedence, with national law playing a subsidiary role only where relevant. The dispute arose from a contract signed on January 14, 2019, valid until June 30, 2023, which included monthly salaries, signing bonuses, and performance-based annual bonuses. The Player alleged unpaid salaries and bonuses, leading to his termination of the contract for just cause, while the Club contested these claims, arguing the Player had breached his obligations by missing training sessions.
The CAS found that the Club had delayed salary payments and failed to prove it had communicated the training start date to the Player or taken reasonable steps to ensure his return from official leave. The Club's actions, including providing a return flight ticket shortly after the Player's arrival and canceling his accommodation, suggested it did not intend to continue the employment relationship. The Player's termination was deemed justified under Article 14 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which allows termination without consequences if there is just cause, such as unpaid salaries. The arbitrator noted that non-payment of wages, especially if repeated, generally constitutes just cause for termination, as the employer's primary obligation is to remunerate the employee. The Club's failure to pay at least two months' wages and its lack of response to the Player's formal notice further supported the Player's decision.
Regarding compensation, the contract included a clause (Article 7) that deviated from FIFA's standard calculation methods under Article 17 of the RSTP, stipulating that the at-fault party must pay damages equivalent to the remaining salary due until the contract's original end date. CAS jurisprudence has consistently upheld that such pre-agreed terms take precedence over FIFA's default calculations, meaning the full agreed amount is payable without reduction, even if the Player secures new employment. The Club argued for a reduction in compensation based on the Player's potential earnings elsewhere, but the CAS rejected this, affirming the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's calculation.
The CAS dismissed the Club's appeal, confirmed the FIFA decision dated January 14, 2021, and rejected all further claims from both parties. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the principle that clubs cannot unilaterally impose punitive measures without proper justification. The decision also highlighted the uniform application of football regulations internationally, ensuring consistency and fairness in resolving disputes. The case serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to players in cases of contractual breaches by clubs and the enforceability of pre-agreed termination clauses. The arbitrator's comprehensive analysis of the facts and applicable law reinforced the Player's position, concluding that the Club's conduct justified the termination and that the compensation awarded was appropriate under the contractual terms.