CAS 2005/A/876 Adrian Mutu v/Chelsea Football Club
- Football
- Employment contract between a player and a club
- Admitted use of cocaine
- Unilateral breach of contract without just cause
There is no basis in the wording of the FIFA Regulations for a distinction between a player unlawfully walking out under a contract and another player who breaches his contract through other serious misconduct, like the player’s taking cocaine or committing a serious on or off the pitch offence which goes to the roots of his contract with his employer. The Player’s admitted use of cocaine constitutes the “unilateral breach without just cause” provided by the FIFA Regulations and triggers the consequences deriving thereof, no matter whether this breach causes the Club to give notice of termination or whether the Club continues to hold on to and insist upon performance of the contract despite the Player’s breach.
On 4 November 2004 the Disciplinary Commission of the Football Association (FA) decided to impose a fine and a period of ineligibility on the Romanian football player Adrian Mutu after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.
The Athlete had admitted the violation and consequently the Football Associaton Premier League Appeals Committee (FAPLAC) deemed that the Chelsea Football Club was entitled to terminate the Player Contract. The Club also seeked compensation and for the imposition of further sport sanctions.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FAPLAC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Player acknowledged that his use of Cocaine was gross misconduct under his contract with the Club and amounted to a unilateral breach without just cause or sporting just cause for purposes of the FIFA Regulations.
The Club contends that any breach of contract which is serious enough to destabilize the contractual relationship can give rise to a claim for compensation under the Regulations.
The only issue for this Panel to decide is whether in the Player Contract the words “unilateral breach without just cause or sporting just cause” in Article 21 of the FIFA Regulations cover
- only cases in which a player “terminates” or “renounces” his contract, e.g. by walking out, as the Player contends, or
- also apply to other serious misconduct by the player as is argued by the Club.
Following assessment the Panel dismissed the Athlete's reasoning regarding the Breach and the distinction between different types of Breach.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2005:
1.) The appeal filed by M. against the decision issued by the Football Association Premier League is dismissed.
2.) (...).
