Olympique de Marseille (OM), Watford FC, Pape Alassane Gueye v. Olympique de Marseille (OM), Watford FC, Pape Alassane Gueye, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Olympique de Marseille (OM), Watford Association Football Club Limited and Pape Alassane Gueye; FIFA as respondent in the OM and Gueye appeals

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8600, CAS 2022/A/8604 & CAS 2022/A/8633 (consolidated)

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the CAS Code; seat Lausanne; FIFA RSTP (October 2020 edition), with Swiss law applying subsidiarily

Instrument

Watford Contract of 15 January 2020 (Clauses 8, 9, 17 and 18); FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

Panel

Lars Hilliger (President), Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall KC, Luigi Fumagalli

Sector

Professional football; player employment contract

Outcome

FIFA DRC decision of 25 November 2021 confirmed: the player terminated without just cause, owes compensation with OM jointly and severally liable, and his four-month playing restriction stands. OM's two-window registration ban is set aside. Award of 21 July 2023.

Amount

Watford's main claim: EUR 15,301,111 plus GBP 44,696.14 plus EUR 1,150,000, with 5% interest. Awarded (as confirmed from the DRC): GBP 2,307,875 plus 5% interest p.a. from 7 January 2021.

The dispute

On 15 January 2020 Pape Alassane Gueye, then under contract with Le Havre until 30 June 2020, signed a five-year contract with Watford running from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2025. Clause 9 of that contract set Watford's anticipated loss at GBP 5,000,000 if he failed to register. After reading a French translation, the player sent a termination letter on 18 May 2020 and signed a pre-contract with Angers the same day. That pre-contract was later annulled, and on 30 June 2020 he signed with Olympique de Marseille. The FIFA DRC found that he had terminated without just cause. It awarded Watford GBP 2,307,875, made OM jointly and severally liable, suspended the player for four months and banned OM from registering players for two registration periods. All three parties appealed. The player and OM argued that the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction because Clause 18 referred disputes to the FA or Premier League bodies. They also argued that the contract was invalid for misrepresentation, an undisclosed conflict of interest of the agent and a 2019 "Alleged Contract", and that the protected period had not begun. Watford sought far higher compensation under Clause 9.

Key holdings

1. The FIFA DRC had jurisdiction under Article 22(b) RSTP. To exclude FIFA's default jurisdiction, an arbitration clause must be clear, specific and exclusive. Clause 18's reference to "the competent body of The FA or the PL (as applicable)" did not meet that test, because it was unclear when each body would apply. ¶¶ 157–183
2. The Watford Contract was a valid and binding employment contract containing all essentialia negotii. The existence of the 2019 Alleged Contract was not proven, and fraud or manipulation was not proven. A party who signs a document in a language he does not understand bears the consequences. A breach of Article 18 RSTP or of the conflict-of-interest rule in Article 8 FIFA RWI leads at most to sanctions; it does not make the contract invalid. ¶¶ 186–224
3. The player terminated without just cause on 18 May 2020. He appeared simply to prefer staying in France and to be looking for better terms. ¶¶ 225–234
4. The Watford Costs were rejected: the scouting costs were unproven, and the intermediary fees were not due because the player was never registered. Watford's claims based on market value, valuation reports and replacement costs were rejected. The Panel held by majority that Swiss law governs whether the GBP 5,000,000 in Clause 9 is excessive. It found the amount excessive under Article 163(3) of the Swiss Code of Obligations and reduced it to GBP 2,307,875, the same figure that results from Article 17(1) RSTP. OM is jointly and severally liable under Article 17(2) RSTP. ¶¶ 243–292
5. The protected period starts when the contract is executed, even before the contractual period begins. The termination therefore fell within it, and the player's four-month restriction, the minimum sanction, was confirmed. ¶¶ 296–312
6. OM rebutted the presumption that it induced the breach. The Angers pre-contract signed on 18 May 2020 made inducement by OM implausible. Forensic bailiff reports and witness evidence showed that OM's first contact was on 17 June 2020, and the press reports were unreliable. The transfer ban was set aside. ¶¶ 313–326

Procedural history

1. 15 January 2020The player signs the Watford Contract and the Tripartite Contract at the Signing Meeting in Le Havre.
2. 18 May 2020Termination Letter sent to Watford; the player signs a pre-contract with Angers.
3. 30 June 2020The player signs with Olympique de Marseille for 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2024.
4. 7 January 2021Watford files its claim with FIFA.
5. 25 November 2021FIFA DRC decision: GBP 2,307,875 compensation, four-month restriction on the player, two-period registration ban on OM.
6. 17 January 2022Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division stays the player's suspension.
7. 22 March 2022Panel constituted; the three appeals had been consolidated on 11 February 2022.
8. 30 May 2022The Panel stays OM's transfer ban.
9. 8–9 March 2023Hearing at CAS in Lausanne.
10. 21 July 2023Award: OM's appeal partly upheld; the player's and Watford's appeals dismissed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Lars Hilliger President, CAS Panel
• Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel
• Luigi Fumagalli Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel

For the claimant

Alfredo Garzón · Jean Marguerat · Ignacio Triguero · Patricia Galán

For other participants

FIFA · Juan de Dios Crespo · Alfonso León · Gytis Rackaukas · Michael Oppliger · Fabrice Robert-Tissot · Patrick Pithon · Su Min

Experts

Thomas Probst (claimant) · Raffaele Poli (claimant) · Salvador Carmona (claimant) · John Mehrzad (other) · Sylvain Marchand (other) · Arnaud Roll (other)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Pape Gueye
• Watford
• Olympique de Marseille
• FIFA RSTP Article 17
• termination without just cause
• Article 22(b) RSTP
• national dispute resolution chamber
• Premier League Board
• liquidated damages
• penalty clause reduction
• Article 163 Swiss Code of Obligations
• joint and several liability
• inducement presumption
• protected period
• sporting sanctions
• transfer ban
• dual representation
• FIFA RWI

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