The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between Puskás Futball Club Kft and professional football player Golgol Tedros Mebrahtu regarding the termination of the player's employment contract. The case originated when the club terminated the contract in August 2020, citing the player's unjustified absence from training and rehabilitation. The player contested this, arguing his absence was due to a recurring injury and the club's failure to provide transportation and adequate medical support. The dispute escalated when the player sought independent medical opinions, including surgery in Australia, after the club's physician recommended conservative treatment. The club denied obligations under a side agreement (the "Contract Explanation") that promised additional benefits like a car and flight tickets, claiming it was non-binding.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay outstanding wages, compensation for breach of contract, and medical expenses. The club appealed to CAS, arguing it had just cause for termination and disputing the validity of the Contract Explanation. The CAS panel, composed of Fabio Iudica, Attila Berzeviczi, and Gareth Farrelly, reviewed the case and upheld the DRC's decision. The panel found the club's termination unjustified, as the player's injury-related absence did not constitute a breach of contract. It also determined the Contract Explanation was binding, as the club had partially fulfilled its terms and the signatory had apparent authority. The panel emphasized the club's failure to cooperate with the player's medical needs and its unreasonable demands for his return to training despite his injury.
The CAS dismissed the club's appeal, affirming the DRC's financial awards and highlighting the principle of ne ultra petita, which limits judicial bodies to addressing only the relief explicitly requested by the parties. The ruling reinforced the precedence of FIFA regulations in employment disputes and underscored clubs' obligations to support players' health and contractual rights. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear contractual terms, good faith in employment relationships, and the legal boundaries of contract termination in professional sports. The club was ordered to cover all legal costs, and the player's claims for compensation and reimbursements were upheld in full.