CAS 2020 A 7495
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 27 Oct 2023
Why it matters
This CAS award is a landmark decision clarifying the interpretation of force majeure in football contracts during global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. It reinforces the stringent 'just cause' standard under FIFA RSTP and Swiss law for contract termination, emphasizing the club's duty to mitigate damages and the narrow interpretation of force majeure. Crucially, it reaffirms the primacy of FIFA and CAS jurisdiction in international football disputes, setting a precedent that national arbitration clauses must meet FIFA's minimum procedural standards to displace international bodies.
Summary
Chennai City FC (the Club) prematurely terminated the employment contracts of three Spanish football players (Sandro Rodríguez Felipe, Adolfo Miranda Araujo, and Roberto Eslava Suárez) on 29 March 2020, citing a force majeure event due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related government restrictions in India. The Club invoked Clause 17 of the Employment Contracts, which defined force majeure to include epidemics and governmental restrictions. The players challenged this termination before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which found that the Club had terminated the contracts without just cause and ordered compensation. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction, as their contracts stipulated Indian law and dispute resolution by the All India Football Federation Player Status Committee (AIFF PSC) or an arbitration tribunal under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Club also maintained that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a valid force majeure event, justifying the termination. The CAS Panel first addressed jurisdiction, applying Article R58 of the CAS Code, which prioritizes FIFA Regulations and subsidiarily Swiss law in appeal arbitration. It found that the Indian national arbitration bodies (AIFF PSC and the tribunal under Indian Act) did not meet the minimum procedural standards set forth by FIFA Circular No 1010, particularly regarding parity and independence. Therefore, the FIFA DRC had lawfully exercised jurisdiction. On the merits, the Panel applied FIFA RSTP (Articles 13, 14, 17) and Swiss law (Article 337 SCO) to assess 'just cause.' It noted that the Club had outstanding salary payments to the players from December 2019 to March 2020, predating the pandemic's full impact. The Panel emphasized that force majeure is to be interpreted narrowly and requires the party invoking it to take reasonable precautions and mitigate damages. The Club failed to provide evidence of such mitigation efforts or that the pandemic made performance impossible. The FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and FAQs did not declare the pandemic a universal force majeure event for contract termination but required case-by-case assessment. Consequently, the CAS Panel concluded that Chennai City FC terminated the contracts without just cause. It upheld the principle of contractual stability and ordered the Club to pay compensation to the players: USD 97,500 to Sandro Rodríguez Felipe, USD 72,705.92 to Adolfo Miranda Araujo (after deducting earnings from a new club), and USD 84,957.40 to Roberto Eslava Suárez (after deducting earnings from new clubs), all with 5% interest p.a. from 23 May 2020. The Club was also ordered to pay CHF 3,000 to each player for legal fees.
The detail
Parties: & 7496 & 7497 Chennai City FC v. FIFA et al.
Case number: CAS 2020 A 7495
Outcome: The appeals filed by Chennai City FC were partially upheld. The CAS amended the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decisions, ordering Chennai City FC to pay Sandro Rodriguez Felipe USD 97,500, Adolfo Miranda Araujo USD 72,705.92, and Roberto Eslava Suarez USD 84,957.40, all with 5% interest p.a. for breach of contract, plus CHF 3,000 each for legal fees.
Quantum: USD 255,163.32 plus 5% interest p.a. and CHF 9,000 in legal fees.
Applicable law: Employment Contracts (Clause 17 on Force Majeure, Clause 19 on Applicable Laws and Dispute Resolution), FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP, Articles 13, 14, 17, 22, 24bis), FIFA Procedural Rules, FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and FAQs, Swiss law (Article 8 SCC, Article 337 SCO), FIFA Circular No 1010.
Issues in play: The primary legal collision involved the contractual force majeure clause (Clause 17) invoked by the club due to COVID-19, versus the FIFA Regulations (RSTP) and Swiss law on 'just cause' termination, which require a high bar and mitigation efforts. A key jurisdictional conflict arose from the club's reliance on Indian law and national arbitration bodies (AIFF PSC, Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996) versus FIFA's and CAS's competence in international football disputes, with CAS ultimately affirming FIFA's jurisdiction due to the national bodies not meeting FIFA's minimum procedural standards (FIFA Circular No 1010).
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.