The case involves a dispute between professional football player Saba Dia and Guangzhou R&F Football Club, centered on the termination of their employment contract and subsequent Settlement Agreement. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) issued a decision on 21 August 2021, ordering the Player to pay the Club CNY 7,054,791.80 plus 5% annual interest starting from 9 December 2020, and the Club to pay the Player EUR 234,566 plus 5% annual interest starting from 5 October 2020. The Player appealed the decision, contesting the amount he was ordered to pay, while the Club did not challenge the ruling.
The employment relationship began on 26 January 2019, with a contract valid until 31 December 2021. The contract stipulated that the Club would handle the Player’s income tax obligations in China, with the Player required to reimburse the Club for any tax refunds received. In September 2020, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract after the Player received an offer from Al-Nasr SC in the UAE. They signed a Settlement Agreement on 27 September 2020, outlining financial arrangements, including the Club’s obligation to pay the Player EUR 483,334 net within a week. The Agreement also required the Player to transfer tax subsidies received from Chinese authorities for 2019 and 2020 to the Club within five working days of receipt, with a penalty of EUR 330,000 for non-compliance.
A dispute arose when the Club paid only EUR 248,767 by 30 October 2020, prompting the Player to accuse the Club of breach and demand the remaining EUR 234,335. On 3 December 2020, the Player received CNY 7,054,791.80 as a 2019 tax subsidy but did not transfer it to the Club. The Club proposed a set-off of the outstanding amounts, but the Player declared the Settlement Agreement null and void due to the Club’s alleged breach. The Club then demanded payment of CNY 5,851,814.34, giving the Player a 10-day deadline.
The FIFA DRC ruled that the Settlement Agreement remained valid despite the Club’s partial non-payment, finding the Club was the first to breach the agreement. It ordered the Club to pay the Player EUR 234,566 with 5% annual interest and partially accepted the Club’s counterclaim, requiring the Player to repay CNY 7,054,791.80 with 5% interest. The Player appealed to CAS, which upheld the FIFA decision, emphasizing that the burden of proving damages lies with the injured party under Article 42 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. The Player failed to substantiate his claims, and the Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, confirming the FIFA ruling.
The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in sports, particularly involving cross-border financial obligations. The decision underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the necessity for parties to fulfill their obligations or face legal consequences. The CAS ultimately ruled that the appeal was dismissed, the FIFA decision was upheld, and all other requests for relief were denied.