The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between Al Shabab Football Club and player Makhete Diop concerning the unilateral reduction of the player's salary during the COVID-19 pandemic. The club had imposed a 50% salary cut in April 2020, citing financial hardships caused by the pandemic, including lost sponsorships, ticket sales, and government support. The club claimed the player verbally agreed to the reduction during a video conference and did not object, but the player denied any agreement and stated financial matters should be discussed with his agent. The club referenced a letter dated 17 April 2020 as evidence of the player's consent, but the panel found no proof the player received or acknowledged it. Witness testimonies from the club were inconsistent and lacked corroboration, as key individuals like the club president were not called to testify. The panel concluded the club failed to meet its burden of proof to establish the player's agreement to the salary reduction.
The club argued the reduction was justified under FIFA's COVID-19 Guidelines, which allowed for unilateral contract variations if compliant with national law or collective agreements. However, the panel found the club did not adhere to these conditions. It failed to demonstrate the reduction was legally permissible under Saudi labor law, which permits reductions up to 40% only under justified circumstances. The club also did not provide sufficient evidence of financial impossibility, such as detailed financial statements or multi-year budget comparisons, to invoke force majeure. The panel emphasized that financial difficulties alone do not justify unilateral changes without proper justification and proportionality. The club's actions lacked transparency and fairness, as it did not attempt to negotiate collectively or individually with the player before imposing the reduction.
The CAS upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, ruling the club's unilateral salary reduction was invalid. The player was entitled to his full contractual salaries for March to July 2020, totaling EUR 521,125, plus compensation for breach of contract. The panel dismissed the club's appeal, affirming the importance of mutual agreement and proper procedures in contractual modifications, even during exceptional circumstances like the pandemic. The club was ordered to bear procedural costs and contribute to the player's legal expenses. The case underscores the legal and contractual obligations clubs must adhere to when altering employment terms, ensuring players' rights are protected. The ruling reinforces the necessity of clear communication, mutual consent, and equitable treatment in resolving disputes, particularly in crises.