The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between AS Roma and FIFA concerning the alleged inducement of Philippe Mexès to breach his contract with AJ Auxerre. The case centered on whether AS Roma had encouraged Mexès to terminate his contract during the protected period as defined by FIFA regulations. Under Article 23 of FIFA's 2001 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, a legal presumption exists that a club acquiring a player who unilaterally terminates his contract during the protected period has incited the breach. Swiss law partially reverses the burden of proof in such cases, requiring the acquiring club to demonstrate it did not induce the termination. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber had already ruled that Mexès terminated his contract without just cause, placing the burden on AS Roma to prove it had not encouraged the breach.
The dispute arose from Mexès' contractual history with AJ Auxerre. He signed a professional contract in 2000, later extended to June 2006, which included improved salary terms and a transfer fee clause. In 2004, AS Roma expressed interest in Mexès, leading to negotiations with Auxerre. When these failed, Mexès terminated his contract on June 11, 2004, claiming Auxerre had provoked the breach by refusing to disclose the transfer fee. The next day, he signed with AS Roma. Auxerre contested the termination, arguing it violated FIFA regulations, and filed a complaint with FIFA. The Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that Mexès had unjustifiably terminated his contract during the protected period and imposed sanctions, including a transfer ban on AS Roma for two consecutive registration periods.
The CAS examined whether AS Roma had incited the breach. It noted that while FIFA regulations impose fixed sanctions for such violations, exceptional circumstances could mitigate the penalty. However, such leniency should remain rare. The tribunal focused solely on AS Roma's potential liability, as separate CAS rulings had already addressed Mexès' unilateral termination and compensation. The decision underscores the strict enforcement of contractual stability in football, emphasizing that clubs must avoid actions that could lead players to breach agreements during protected periods.
The CAS upheld FIFA's finding that AS Roma was responsible for Mexès' contract termination. Evidence showed that Mexès terminated his contract with AJ Auxerre only after securing an agreement with AS Roma, suggesting the breach was orchestrated by the club. The CAS dismissed AS Roma's arguments, including claims of good faith and procedural errors, concluding that the club had actively facilitated the breach. The decision reinforced the principle that clubs face sanctions for inducing contract breaches, ensuring contractual stability in football.
Despite the strict application of the sanction, the CAS recognized exceptional circumstances specific to AS Roma. The club received the FIFA decision on June 30, 2005, just before the summer transfer window opened, and the ban took immediate effect. Although AS Roma secured a provisional suspension of the sanction on August 8, 2005, it had already been unable to register players for five weeks. The CAS deemed it unfair to disregard this partial ban, as the club faced disadvantages equivalent to a sanction, particularly since key transfer targets are typically pursued early in the window. To avoid exceeding the maximum two-period sanction, the CAS reduced the ban to one full transfer period, ensuring the penalty remained within legal limits while still achieving its deterrent purpose.
The final decision upheld the ban but limited it to the next full transfer window, ensuring the penalty remained within legal limits while maintaining its intended deterrent effect. The CAS rejected all other aspects of the appeal. The ruling underscores the importance of applying sanctions fairly, considering the unique circumstances of each case, and reinforces the regulatory framework governing player transfers to maintain stability in football.