Protection of a footballer in an international sports dispute

The case in brief

• Area: sports law
• Practice: international sports disputes, FIFA, CAS, athletes’ employment disputes
• Attorney: Dmytro Shkrebets
• Bodies: FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
• Club: Hapoel Haifa (Israel)
• Outcome: FIFA and CAS found the unilateral termination of the contract unlawful. The footballer was awarded compensation and outstanding amounts of more than NIS 324,000 (about EUR 81,000)

The substance of the international sports dispute

Dmytro Shkrebets represented a professional footballer in an international sports dispute against the Israeli football club Hapoel Haifa over the unlawful unilateral termination of an employment contract. The case was heard by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber in proceedings No. FPSD-8456 and later became the subject of an appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne (Switzerland) in case CAS 2023/A/9707.

The club justified the early termination by alleging that the footballer had concealed information about his health, and argued that FIFA had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The case was complicated by questions of the athlete’s international status, the specifics of applying FIFA football regulations, and the need to analyse international sports practice on employment relations between professional clubs and footballers.

Risks for the footballer

When the dispute arose, the footballer faced significant sporting and financial risks.

Among them:

• loss of the right to wages and contractual payments
• the risk of losing a professional contract without compensation
• reduced opportunities to continue a career
• loss of sporting reputation
• the risk of the dispute being found not to fall within FIFA’s jurisdiction
• the potential need to pursue the dispute in another jurisdiction.

For a professional athlete, disputes of this kind are critical, because they directly affect a career, financial stability, and the possibility of further employment in the football industry.

The football club’s position

In the proceedings, the club tried to show that FIFA had no competence to hear the dispute.

In particular, the respondent relied on:

• the footballer’s dual citizenship
• an arbitration clause in the contract
• the alleged absence of an international character to the dispute
• the lawfulness of terminating the contract on medical grounds.

The club also claimed that the footballer had not fully disclosed information about his health, which allegedly gave it the right to end the employment relationship early.

The defence strategy

The key task of the defence was to confirm the international character of the dispute and FIFA’s jurisdiction.

During the case, a comprehensive analysis was carried out of:

• the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
• FIFA DRC practice
• CAS decisions in similar disputes
• the contractual documents
• medical documents and opinions
• correspondence between the parties.

Particular attention was given to determining the footballer’s sporting nationality, his registration in the football system, and the application of international sports-law rules.

FIFA jurisdiction and the international character of the dispute

One of the key issues was whether FIFA had the power to hear the dispute. The defence successfully showed that the dispute was international in character and fell within FIFA’s jurisdiction under the applicable regulations of the international football federation. FIFA agreed with the footballer’s arguments and rejected the club’s objection to the body’s competence to hear the case. That decision was fundamental to the further protection of the athlete’s rights.

Unlawfulness of the unilateral termination

In the course of the proceedings it was established that the club had known about the footballer’s state of health long before the contract was terminated. Moreover, after receiving the relevant medical opinions, the club continued the employment relationship with the athlete, which showed that there were no grounds for immediate termination. The defence proved that the club had no lawful basis to terminate the contract unilaterally without paying compensation. As a result, the FIFA DRC found the termination of the employment contract unlawful.

The FIFA DRC decision

Following its review, FIFA:

• confirmed its own jurisdiction
• found the termination of the contract to be without justification
• awarded the footballer compensation
• ordered payment of the amounts outstanding under the contract
• applied sporting sanctions to the club in the event of non-compliance with the decision.

The total amount awarded exceeded NIS 324,000, which at the time of the decision was approximately EUR 81,000.

The CAS proceedings

Disagreeing with the FIFA decision, the club applied to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In the appeal, the respondent again challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction and the findings on the unlawful termination of the contract. After a full review of the case file, CAS rejected the main arguments of the appeal.

The arbitral tribunal confirmed the correctness of FIFA’s key findings on:

• the international character of the dispute
• FIFA’s jurisdiction
• the unlawfulness of the early termination of the contract.

In substance, the FIFA decision remained in force, and the changes concerned only certain technical aspects of the compensation calculation.

Practical significance of the case

This case is illustrative for international sports law and the protection of professional footballers in disputes with football clubs. It shows the importance of correctly determining jurisdiction, analysing contractual terms, and using FIFA and CAS practice when protecting athletes’ rights. The decision also confirms that a football club cannot terminate a contractual relationship without justification by relying on medical grounds if it in fact continued the relationship after receiving the relevant information.

What this means for professional athletes

For footballers and sports agents, this case confirms that unlawful termination of a contract can be successfully challenged at the international level. A proper legal strategy makes it possible to protect an athlete’s rights before FIFA and CAS, obtain compensation, restore fairness, and limit the consequences of a club’s unlawful actions.