Jubilo Co. LTD v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Jubilo Co. LTD (Japan; operator of Jubilo Iwata) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/9219

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals arbitration (expedited) under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; hearing in Lausanne

Treaty

None. The case was decided under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (Article 17(4)), with Swiss law applying subsidiarily

Tribunal

Patrick Stewart (President), Marco Balmelli, Daniel Cravo Souza

Sector

Professional football; player employment contracts

Outcome

Appeal dismissed. The FIFA DRC decision of 4 August 2022, including the ban on Jubilo registering new players for two registration periods, was confirmed (operative part 22 December 2022; award with reasons 14 June 2023).

Amount

Before the FIFA DRC, Ratchaburi claimed USD 220,200 plus further sums. The DRC awarded USD 55,050 plus 5% interest p.a., payable by the Player, with Jubilo jointly and severally liable. This part was not appealed. The CAS appeal concerned only the sporting sanction.

The dispute

On 14 November 2020, the Colombian player Fabian Andres Gonzales Lasso signed an employment contract with the Thai club Ratchaburi Mitrphol FC for 1 January to 31 December 2021. On 28–29 December 2020, while in COVID-19 quarantine in Thailand, he signed a pre-contract with Jubilo Iwata for 1 February 2021 to 1 January 2022, at a total salary of USD 450,000. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) found that the Player had terminated the Ratchaburi contract without just cause and ordered compensation, with Jubilo jointly and severally liable. Under Article 17(4) of the FIFA RSTP it banned Jubilo from registering new players for two registration periods. Jubilo appealed only that sanction. It argued that the first contract was never valid (it was signed only to obtain a visa), that its automatic termination clause was an unmet condition precedent, that Jubilo did not know of the contract, and that there was no causal link between its offer and the breach. FIFA argued that the Panel could not review the horizontal dispute between the Player and Ratchaburi, and that Jubilo had not rebutted the presumption of inducement.

Key holdings

1. The Panel did not decide FIFA's preliminary objection that its review was limited to the sanction. It took the inducement issue first, agreed with the FIFA DRC on that issue, and so found the preliminary objection moot. ¶ 73
2. The Panel applied the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof. The first contract was valid and binding. Jubilo did not show mistake, misrepresentation, fraud or another defect under articles 23 et seq. of the Swiss Code of Obligations, and there was no documentary evidence for the 'visa only' account. ¶¶ 81, 85–88
3. The automatic termination clause (Clause 2.4) was not a condition precedent. It would end the contract automatically on the events it names. The contract therefore came into force when it was signed on 14 November 2020. ¶ 91
4. A player terminates a contract without just cause when he signs an overlapping contract with a new club. The Player therefore terminated the Ratchaburi contract without just cause on 29 December 2020, when Jubilo countersigned the pre-contract. ¶¶ 93–94
5. Jubilo did not rebut the presumption of inducement. Once it knew the Player was in quarantine in Thailand to join a club, it was on notice. Yet it relied entirely on a personal declaration drafted and obtained through its own agent, and on online research and TMS checks, and it never contacted Ratchaburi. The Panel agreed with FIFA that this amounted to 'wilful ignorance'. It added that due diligence must always be assessed case by case. ¶¶ 96–100
6. Jubilo did not show the absence of a causal link. Its agent had contacted the Player's intermediary on 19 December 2020, and the intermediary seemed to have spoken with the Player that same day. This was before the Player's alleged break with Ratchaburi on 22 December 2020. ¶ 102
7. The appeal was dismissed and the DRC decision of 4 August 2022 was confirmed. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are redacted in the published text. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 14 November 2020The Player and Ratchaburi signed the first employment contract.
2. 28–29 December 2020The Player and Jubilo signed the pre-contract.
3. 13 April 2022Ratchaburi filed a claim with the FIFA DRC.
4. 4 August 2022FIFA DRC decision: compensation of USD 55,050, with Jubilo jointly and severally liable, and a two-period registration ban on Jubilo. The grounds were notified on 29 September 2022.
5. 19 October 2022Jubilo filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS, limited to the sporting sanction, and asked for an expedited procedure.
6. 11 November 2022The Panel was constituted.
7. 20 December 2022Hybrid hearing at the CAS Court Office in Lausanne.
8. 22 December 2022Operative part of the award: appeal dismissed.
9. 14 June 2023Award with reasons issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Patrick Stewart President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Marco Balmelli Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Daniel Cravo Souza Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Cavaliero & Associates SA · Ikuto Sogo Legal Office

For the respondent

FIFA Litigation Department

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Jubilo Iwata
• Ratchaburi
• inducement to breach
• Article 17(4) FIFA RSTP
• registration ban
• sporting sanctions
• termination without just cause
• protected period
• due diligence
• wilful ignorance
• pre-contract
• condition precedent
• automatic termination clause
• comfortable satisfaction
• pacta sunt servanda
• horizontal and vertical dispute
• FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
• football

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.