CAS 2023 A 9855
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 13 Jan 2025
Why it matters
This case illustrates the strict application of the two-year limitation period under FIFA RSTP for contractual disputes and the principle that an unsigned contract is not binding. It also highlights the principle of venire contra factum proprium (inconsistent behavior) under Swiss law, which prevents a party from relying on a document for one purpose while challenging its validity for another. The award confirms that CAS will not accept contradictory arguments.
Summary
The player, Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga, appealed a FIFA DRC decision rejecting his claim against Suphanburi FC for breach of contract. He alleged the club unilaterally reduced his salary during COVID-19 and forced him to sign a termination agreement. The player claimed there was a second employment agreement extending his contract to April 2021, but it was never signed by either party. The FIFA DRC found the claim time-barred for the first agreement and the second agreement invalid. On appeal, the CAS Sole Arbitrator upheld the FIFA decision. The tribunal found that any claim under the first agreement was time-barred because the two-year limitation period started from the date of the Final Agreement (31 December 2020) and the claim was filed on 29 December 2022, just within the period, but the player had already received his December 2020 salary. Regarding the second agreement, the tribunal held that an unsigned contract cannot be considered validly concluded. The player's contradictory arguments, relying on the Final Agreement for timeliness but challenging its validity, violated the principle of venire contra factum proprium. The appeal was dismissed, and the player was ordered to pay CHF 1,000 towards the club's legal costs.
The detail
Parties: Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga v. Suphanburi Football Club & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2023 A 9855
Outcome: The appeal is dismissed; the FIFA DRC decision is confirmed; the player must pay CHF 1,000 to the club as a contribution to legal fees.
Quantum: CHF 1,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss law, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The main legal issues were the validity of a second employment agreement (unsigned) and the timeliness of the claim under the two-year limitation period in FIFA RSTP. The player argued the claim was timely based on the date of the Final Agreement, but the tribunal found the claim time-barred for the first agreement and the second agreement invalid.
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.