We are genuinely pleased to announce our recent success in a challenging sports dispute that might hold a significant importance for overall jurisprudence. In this case, we represented a national team volleyball player against a club before the European Volleyball Confederation (CEV). The case revolved around the invalidity of the Player’s financial waiver within the mutual termination agreement and responsibility for the early termination of the contract. Below is the case summary:
In September 2021, the Player and the Club singed a contract. The contractual provisions on duration were inconsistent, as one of the provisions referred to a one-season term, while the other provision(s) regulated the Player’s salaries in 21/22 and 22/23 in an unconditional manner. In the CEV proceedings, the Club argued that the duration was one season, while the Player argued it was 2+1. CEV found our interpretation correct.
In November 2021, the Player sustained a heavy injury during a match. The expected recovery was from six to eight months and surgery was deemed necessary. For approximately 15 days following the injury, the Player experienced significant pain and was unable to walk. Towards the end of the month, the Player was preparing to return to his home country for other reasons. However, just 48 hours before his scheduled departure, and immediately after learning about the extended recovery period, the Club notified the Player of its intention to terminate the contract. The Club proposed compensation equivalent to the overdue payments owed to the Player, along with an additional 3% of his income in 21/22. The Player rejected the offer.Top of Form
On the following day, i.e. the day before the Player’s scheduled departure to his home country, the Club’s official reiterated via text messages that no compensation would be paid for the early termination. In the late-night hours of the same day, the Club’s official visited the Player brought the termination agreement to the Player’s apartment and cash amount previously offered. The Player signed the Termination Agreement (the “Agreement”), by means of which he acknowledged the payment and waived all financial claims towards the Club.
Upon returning to his home country, the Player opted for a highly dedicated training regimen for recovery. Remarkably, he was able to recover slightly faster than expected, without the need for surgery.
The Player enlisted the representation of our partner, Filip Blagojevic, to pursue legal action against the Club. The settlement discussions were fruitless and the Player filed a complaint (claim) to CEV, requesting the recovery training costs and compensation corresponding to the entire remaining value of the contract (given his unemployment at the time).
The Player substantiated his claim with a neurologist’s report, which confirmed his compromised state at the time of signing the Agreement. The report noted that the Player was unable to reason properly due to severe pains and anxiety for his family. The Player challenged the validity of his compensation waiver, while acknowledging that the contract was terminated due to the club’s fault, since the latter forced an unjust termination.
In support of his case, the Player cited precedents involving Messrs. Traore, Abogo, and Acheampong.
CEV ruled in favor of the Player, citing relevant conclusions from the Traore Award (CAS 7824). Additionally, the Club was ordered to reimburse the Player for his recovery expenses.
Essentially, CEV determined that the provisions of the Agreement do reveal an unbalanced arrangement. The Player, while severely injured and facing a significant loss of income for 6 to 8 months, waived his future remuneration for potentially 16 months, receiving minimal compensation in return. This imbalance underscored the unfair nature of the Agreement.
Below are some of the key conclusions of CEV (in citation):
– Article II (2) of the Contract wrongfully refers to 30 May 2022 as the expiration date as Article III sets out the Player’s salaries both for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 in an unconditional manner, while para. 1 of the same article states “Payment schedule for the seasons 202112022 and 2022/2023”. Therefore, the correct expiration date intended by the will of the Parties is the 30th May 2023;
– CEV understands that on almost the 25% of the season of 2021/22 the Player received 28% of his salaries for the season 2021-22 […] the Player was severely injured at the moment when the termination agreement was signed and it seemed like he would be unable to play until the end of the season 2021/2022. ln such situation, there was absolutely no reason on his side to terminate the Contract and render himself unemployed, receiving only 3% of his salaries for the season 2021-22 as compensation in return. This would mean that his entire family would be deprived of any income within the following 6-8 months […] ln fact, as admitted by the Club, the Player had refused the Club’s proposal one day before the Termination Agreement […] Obviously, the motives for his behaviour to finally accept the offer of the Club one day later cannot be explained otherwise but by the fact that he was absolutely not able for rational decision making, as established by Dr [name]; there are two reasons for the Player’s inability to reason properly: (i) severe pains caused by the injury; (ii) anxiety for his family.
– ln fact, the Player gained no benefit whatsoever from the foregoing agreement, as he was left unemployed, while being severely injured, receiving only 3% extra of his salaries for the season 2021-22 as compensation in return […] The Club wished to prematurely terminate his employment relationship with the Player solely on the grounds of his injury. ln these circumstances, given that the Employment Agreement did not expire until 30 May 2023, and that there were potentially 16 months of salaries still to be owed to the Player, the Club made no concession that would be approximately equal to the rights the Player waived;
– the provisions of the Termination Agreement do reveal an unbalanced agreement, under ex aequo et bono considerations, such an agreement is “not just and fair”. According to the above, the CEV finds that the Termination Agreement did violate general principles of justice and fairness. ln particular, it did violate the principle of “balances of duties and obligations”
