The Matuzalém Ruling, or: Why Webster is not the New Bosman

By: Daryl | May 20th, 2009

Good day for Shakhtar Donetsk. Not only did the team win the UEFA Cup, but the club also found out they were at least €12 million richer thanks to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Here’s the backstory: In July 2007, Brazilian midfielder Matuzalém left Shakhtar to join Real Zaragoza despite having two years to run on his five year contract. Matuzalém and Zaragoza believed FIFA Article 17 (aka: the Webster rule) allowed the player to break his contract and pay just €2.36m in compensation (presumably his remaining salary) while Shakhtar saw it as more like €25m (Matuzalém’s minimum fee release clause).

Quite a difference there. FIFA set the compensation at €6.8m (random) and so Shakhtar appealed to CAS. And today CAS made its decision and awarded Shakhtar €11,858,934.

Matuzalém has since joined Lazio, but that’s by the by. This ruling is important because it seems some clubs (like Zaragoza) were hoping that the Webster ruling meant that any player three (or two) years into their contract could be bought for a fee equal to their remaining salary. But turns out it doesn’t work like that. Every Webster-like case will be judged on an individual basis.

And here’s how CAS judged this one:

During the CAS procedure, it was undisputed that Matuzalem terminated his contract with Shakhtar
Donetsk unilaterally, prematurely and without just cause, and that the compensation due had to be
calculated in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA Players’ Status Regulations.

The CAS Panel underlined that the termination of a contract without just cause, even if it occurs outside the so-called Protected Period, remains a violation of contractual obligations and that Article 17 of the FIFA Players’ Status Regulations does not give, neither to a club nor to a player, a free pass to unilaterally breach an existing agreement. In order to determine the compensation for breach or
unjustified termination of a valid contract, the competent authority shall be led by the principle of the socalled positive interest, i.e. it shall aim at determining an amount which shall put the affected party in the position that the same party would have had if the contract had been performed properly.
In order to calculate the compensation due to Shakhtar Donetsk, the CAS Panel applied the following
criteria:

(i) The value of lost services of Matuzalem for Shakhtar Donetsk based on the amount of the transfer fee agreed between Real Zaragoza and SS Lazio Spa, plus the average yearly salary paid by the two clubs (and capitalized on the remaining time of the contract, i.e. two football seasons).

(ii) The amount of salary expenses that Shakhtar Donetsk did not have to pay to Matuzalem shall be deducted.

(iii) The specificity of sport: the status and the behaviour of the player is also taken into consideration; the player left Shakhtar Donetsk just a few weeks before the start of the qualification rounds of the UEFA Champions League 2007/2008, after the season in which he became captain of Shakhtar Donetsk; the CAS Panel set an additional indemnity amount equal to six months of salary paid by Shakhtar Donetsk.

In conclusion, the CAS has ruled that the compensation to be paid by Matuzalem to Shakhtar Donetsk
was equal to EUR 11’858’934, plus interest of 5% per year starting on 5 July 2007 until the effective
date of payment. Real Zaragoza SAD is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount.

The compensation in the Webster case was so low because his relationship with Hearts (his club before Wigan) had already turned sour. But in Matuzalém’s case, the relationship was good (Matuzalém was captain and top scorer (from midfield) in 2007, and the club had just qualified for the Champions League) and so Shakhtar were due a lot more. Which actually makes a lot of sense.

Here’s why this is massively important: CAS has made it clear that the Webster ruling does not allow players to terminate their contracts, at least not without paying massive compensation fees to the club they leave. Which means the Webster ruling is not the Bosman+ next step in player power that we all thought it might be, just a weird FIFA law that can get you in a lot more trouble than it’s worth if you try to exploit it.