Abstract
The arbitral award issued by the CAS on 10 October 2006 in the case Panathinaikos FC versus Sotirios Kyrgiakos (hereinafter: the “award”) was noteworthy because it accepted the validity of a unilateral option enabling a club to renew a footballer’s contract.
Jean-Samuel Leuba––Attorney-at-Law.
Robert Fox––Attorney-at-Law.
Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez––Attorney-at-law, Ruiz Huerta & Crespo Sports Lawyers.
Gerardo Luis Acosta Perez––Attorney-at-law, P&A Grupo Consultor.
Frans M. de Weger––Legal Counsel, Dutch Federation for Professional Football Clubs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This solution also seems to have been chosen by the CAS on other occasions, cf. Haas 2008, p. 222, where he cites CAS 2004/A/678 Apollon Kalamaris FC v Oliveira Morais, award of 20 May 2005, para 5.3 et seq.
- 2.
Translator’s own translation; not the official CAS wording.
- 3.
Cf. Haas 2008, pp. 225–226 and the awards quoted, particularly CAS 2005/A/983 & 984 Penarol v Bueno, Rodriguez & PSG, rec. 119; 2006/A/1157 C.A. Boca Juniors v Genoa, rec. 8.1.
- 4.
Now modified thanks to the Bueno-Rodriguez case.
- 5.
Decision of 24 October 2005.
- 6.
Point 68 of the award.
- 7.
Point 101 of the award.
- 8.
Point 102 of the award.
- 9.
Loi fédérale Suisse sur le droit international privé, dated 18 December 1987.
- 10.
Point 94 of the award.
- 11.
Article 25.2 m and 26 of FIFA Statutes.
- 12.
Article 27.4 of the FIFA Statutes.
- 13.
Point 109, 110 and 111 of the award.
- 14.
CAS 2005/A/973 Panathinaikos FC v Sotirios Kyrgiakos.
- 15.
Dated 10 February 2006.
- 16.
Dr. Wolfgang Portmann is a professor of private and employment law at Zurich University.
- 17.
The provisional registration can be seen as a first step in a case where there is an issue between clubs or associations as to whether an ITC should be issued. See Annex 3 Article 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2009.
- 18.
CAS refers to CAS 2006/A/1100 Tareq Eltaib v Club Gaziantespor.
- 19.
Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal Club liègois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman. SA d’Economic Mixte Sportive de l’Union Sportive du Littoral de Dunkerque, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL, Union des Associations Européennes de Football Union des Association Européennes de Football v. Jean-Marc Bosman, judgement of 15 December 1995, [1991] ECR I-4837.
- 20.
All published decisions of the DRC can be found on the FIFA web site: www.fifa.com. All published decisions of the CAS can be found on the CAS web site: www.tas-cas.org. Contrary to the dispute resolution committee DRC it must be noted that CAS is officially a court of arbitration. Without wishing to put too much emphasis on the possible differences it is important to remain aware that DRC decisions can only be enforced through regulatory measures. This means that only FIFA members, amongst other clubs and players, can be sanctioned. If a club or player fails to comply with a DRC decision, a disciplinary sanction can be imposed. CAS arbitration awards on the other hand can be much more difficult to enforce. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 applicable to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a state other than the state where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought only applies to the Parties to this Convention. This means that non-Party countries lack the legal means to enforce arbitral awards. FIFA however is competent to respond directly to a party that infringes the rules by forcing the national association to impose a sanction. Parties therefore prefer the DRC as a sports deciding body given the possibilities that FIFA has to enforce decisions through its own FIFA channels. See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Art. 22, p. 65.
- 21.
DRC 22 July 2004, no. 74508, DRC 13 May 2005, no. 55161, DRC 24 October 2005, no. 105874, DRC 21 February 2006, no. 261245, DRC 23 March 2006, no. 36858, DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117707, DRC 7 May 2008, no. 58860, DRC 9 January 2009, no. 19174 and DRC 15 May 2009, no. 59081.
- 22.
It must also be noted that under CAS rules the parties have a formal say in the composition of the CAS committee.
- 23.
DRC 21 February 2006, no. 261245 and CAS 2005/A/973 Pananthinaikos Football Club v Sotirios Kyrgiakos, 10 October 2006.
- 24.
An earlier decision that in a way covered the unilateral extension option is TAS 2003/O/530 A.J. Auxerre Football c Valencia CF, SAD & M. Mohamed Lamine Sissoko, 27 August 2004. In this case the club tried to convert a ‘trainee’ contract into a professional contract using an extension.
- 25.
CAS 2005/A/973 Pananthinaikos Football Club v Sotirios Kyrgiakos, 10 October 2006.
- 26.
An earlier CAS-case that dealt with a unilateral extension option was TAS 2006/A/1082–1104 Real Valladolid CF SAD v Diego Barretto Cáceres & Club Cerre Porteno, 19 January 2007. In this case the unilateral extension option was considered invalid, because of its incompatibility with FIFA regulations. In this case, CAS referred to its decision in the aforementioned CAS-decision of 12 July 2006, 2005/A/983 & 984, Club Atlético Peñarol v Carlos Heber Bueno Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barrotti & Paris Saint-Germain. One last CAS-case that handled some sort of unilateral option clause was the CAS-decision of 2006/O/1055 Del Bosque, Grande, Miñano Espín & Jiménez v Besiktas, 9 February 2007. In this case, however, the unilateral option clause referred to the right to terminate the relevant employment contract.
- 27.
See also dr. mr. S.F.H. Jellinghaus’ annotation in ‘Jurisprudentie in Nederland’, Arbeidsrecht 194, May 2007, no. 5.
- 28.
TAS 2005/A/983&984 Club Atlético Peñarol v. Carlos Heber Bueno Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barrotti & Paris Saint-Germain.
- 29.
Prof. Wolfgang Portmann, ‘Unilateral option clauses in footballers’ contracts of employment: an assessment from the perspective of international sports arbitration’, 7 Sweet & Maxwell International Sports Law Review (2007) no. 1, p. 6–16.
- 30.
Unfortunately this decision is not published on the web site of FIFA.
- 31.
See for example, DRC 30 November 2007, no. 117707, DRC 7 May 2008, no. 58860, DRC 9 January 2009, no. 19174 and DRC 15 May 2009, no. 59081.
- 32.
CAS 2009/A/1856 Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü v Stephen Appiah, CAS 2009/A/1857 Stephen Appiah v Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü, 7 June 2010.
- 33.
TAS 2005/A/983&984 Club Atlético Peñarol v Carlos Heber Bueno Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barrotti & Paris Saint-Germain, 12 July 2006.
- 34.
See Article 18 para 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, edition 2009.
- 35.
CAS 2005/A/973 Pananthinaikos FC v Sotirius Kyrgiakos.
- 36.
In the report ‘Contractual Stability in Professional Football, Recommendations for clubs in a context of international mobility’, by Diego F.R. Compaire (Italy/Argentina), Gerardo Planás R.A. (Paraguay) and Stefan-Eric Wildemann (Germany), July 2009, reference is made to the case Club Atletico Lanus/Javier Alejandro Almiron & Polideportivo Ejido SAD (FIFA 07/00789). However, this case is also not published. As far as I know and based on the report the unilateral extension option in the latter case was not valid because the decisive argument was that the player was absolutely aware of the unilateral extension option. According to the DRC the player therefore explicitly accepted this clause.
- 37.
CAS-decision of 12 July 2006, 2005/A/983 & 984, Club Atlético Peñarol v Carlos Heber Bueno Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barrotti & Paris Saint-Germain.
- 38.
See DRC 22 July 2004, no. 74508.
- 39.
The unilateral extension option could also be laid down in a document apart from the employment contract in which the player explicitly agrees to this clause. See DRC 23 March 2006, no. 36858.
- 40.
DRC 21 February 2006, no. 261245 and CAS 2005/A/973 Pananthinaikos Football Club v Sotirios Kyrgiakos, 10 October 2006.
- 41.
DRC 9 January 2009, no. 19174 and CAS 2009/A/1856 Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü v Stephen Appiah, CAS 2009/A/1857 Stephen Appiah v Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü, 7 June 2010.
- 42.
The unilateral extension option provides for employment. If the possibility of unilateral extension did not exist, fewer players would be provided with contracts. .
- 43.
See the report ‘Contractual Stability in Professional Football, Recommendations for clubs in a context of international mobility’, by Diego F.R. Compaire (Italy/Argentina), Gerardo Planás R.A. (Paraguay) and Stefan-Eric Wildemann (Germany), July 2009.
Reference
Haas U (2008) Football disputes between players and clubs before the CAS, in sport governance, Football disputes, doping and CAS arbitration, 2nd CAS & SAV/FSA Conference, Lausanne 2008
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 © T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leuba, JS., Fox, R., de Dios Crespo Pérez, J., Perez, G.L.A., de Weger, F.M. (2011). Contractual Stability: Unilateral Options. In: Wild, A. (eds) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-808-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-808-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-807-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-808-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
