CAS 2020 A 6899
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jul 2021
Why it matters
This case is significant for its detailed analysis of the burden of proof in establishing the existence of an employment contract in football, particularly where signatures are disputed. The Panel emphasized that a club claiming a contract must provide convincing evidence, including witness testimony from those directly involved. The decision underscores the importance of a clear paper trail and direct communication with the player, setting a precedent for similar disputes involving alleged forged signatures.
Summary
The case involves a dispute over whether Senegalese footballer Mamadou Mbaye had a valid employment contract with English club Watford FC. Watford claimed that Mbaye signed a contract on 13 July 2018, but Mbaye denied signing it, alleging forgery. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) found that a contract existed and ordered Mbaye and Cadiz FC (his later club) to pay compensation and imposed a four-month ban on Mbaye and a two-window transfer ban on Cadiz. On appeal, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reversed the decision. The CAS Panel found that Watford failed to meet its burden of proof: it provided scant evidence of a paper trail, did not call key witnesses (such as the person who signed the loan agreements on its behalf), and relied on an email to an unverified address. In contrast, Cadiz and Mbaye called relevant witnesses who testified that Mbaye was considered a free agent. The Panel concluded that the Watford Contract was not proven to be valid, making Mbaye a free agent when he signed with Cadiz. Consequently, the FIFA DRC decision was set aside, and Watford's appeal was dismissed. The case highlights the evidentiary standards required to establish a contract in football transfer disputes.
The detail
Parties: & 6930 Cadiz FC & Mamadou Mbaye v. FIFA & Watford FC
Case number: CAS 2020 A 6899
Outcome: The appeals by Cadiz FC and Mamadou Mbaye are upheld, the appeal by Watford FC is dismissed, and the FIFA DRC decision is set aside. Watford FC is ordered to pay CHF 4,000 each to Cadiz FC and Mbaye, and FIFA is ordered to pay CHF 1,000 each to Cadiz FC and Mbaye as contribution to legal fees.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss law
Issues in play: The dispute centered on whether the player had a valid employment contract with Watford FC, with the burden of proof on Watford to establish the contract's existence. The Panel applied principles of contract formation and burden of proof under Swiss law and FIFA regulations.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.