The case involves a dispute between SC East Bengal, a professional football club in India, and Spanish player Jaime Santos Colado, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the club's termination of the player's employment contract in April 2020, citing force majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The player contested this termination, leading to FIFA's involvement and subsequent CAS arbitration. The key issues addressed included FIFA's jurisdiction, the validity of the force majeure claim, and the continuity of the club's obligations despite changes in its management structure.
The CAS ruled that FIFA had prima facie jurisdiction under Article 22(b) of its Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), as the dispute involved an international employment contract. The club's failure to challenge FIFA's jurisdiction during initial proceedings solidified its authority. The tribunal emphasized that FIFA is not required to proactively assess alternative arbitration unless objections are raised. Regarding force majeure, the contract defined it as events beyond reasonable control, such as the pandemic. However, the club failed to demonstrate a direct link between the pandemic and its inability to fulfill contractual obligations, such as paying salaries or engaging the player in competitions. The tribunal found generic references to the pandemic insufficient and noted the club did not follow procedural steps for invoking force majeure.
The case also addressed the club's continuity as a sporting entity despite changes in legal management. The tribunal affirmed that a club's obligations transcend the legal entities operating it, ensuring stability in sporting institutions. The New Club Entity, formed after the dissolution of the joint venture between Quess Corp and East Bengal Club, was deemed the sporting successor and thus liable for the former entity's obligations. The player validly terminated the contract with just cause under Article 14bis of the RSTP due to unpaid salaries, issuing default notices with cure periods that the club failed to honor.
The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, ordering the New Club Entity to pay outstanding remuneration of $58,333 and additional compensation of $21,875 for breach of contract, both with 5% annual interest. The tribunal rejected the club's arguments against compensation, including claims that the player failed to mitigate losses or that the residual contract value was miscalculated. The ruling underscored the principle of sporting continuity and the protections afforded to players under FIFA regulations.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the club's appeal, affirming the FIFA DRC's decision in its entirety. The case highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations, the stringent requirements for force majeure claims, and the enduring responsibility of clubs under evolving management structures. The decision reinforces the stability and accountability of sporting institutions in international football disputes.