A high profile tug-of-war between Lucas Ribeiro and Mamelodi Sundowns FC has pushed a perennial question back to centre stage: how do South African club contracts interact with FIFA's "just cause" regime when a player seeks to walk away mid-term? Reports suggest Ribeiro's deal runs to July 2028, yet he now invokes "just cause" – a route that, if sustained, can unwind a contract without sanction, but which sits uneasily with the 'pacta sunt servanda' principle that clubs rely on to protect investment and squad planning.
This note unpacks the legal tension – between contractual certainty and player autonomy – through the lens of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, recent commentary, and market realities, without taking a view on the merits. The aim is to offer calm guidance to stakeholders in South African football navigating similar flashpoints in an increasingly globalised transfer market.
In the prevailing dispute, the contract law principle of pacta sunt servanda finds application. This principle provides that contractual provisions must be upheld, subject to termination grounds expressly contained in the said contract. Ribeiro's contract with Sundowns runs until July 2028, as publicly reported. He claims to be terminating for "just cause", which implicitly suggests that Mamelodi Sundowns FC may not be in breach. Otherwise, one would expect reliance to be placed on more substantive grounds of termination such as contractual non-performance by the club.
Article 14 of the Fifa Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players provides that a contract may be terminated by either of the parties without consequences of any kind where there is just cause. Just cause is broadly interpreted to include non-payment of salaries, failure to provide playing opportunities to the player, abusive behaviour, a hostile working environment and/or other serious breaches by the club.
Objectively, it must be acknowledged that Mamelodi Sundowns FC is a commercial entity with legitimate business interests in football. Should the club wish to sell any of its players, it retains the right to do so on its own terms for as long as the player remains contracted to the club.
It is worth observing that there is a growing trend of elite international clubs expressing interest in African talent, often enticing players with offers without the necessary will to provide fair compensation to the clubs from which the players originate. This raises questions about ethics and commercial fairness in such transactions. Whilst it is important for local players to gain international exposure, the agreements for same must be based on fair commercial transactions that do not detriment any of the parties involved.
As a result of these or similar occasions, clubs like Sundowns are left to face the challenge of managing disgruntled players as a result of external interest. This situation underscores the need for consistent application of principles of fairness and sportsmanship, both by the clubs and players involved.
On a positive note, reports indicate that negotiations have resumed between the parties involved in the dispute. A key takeaway is that African clubs must not be coerced into limiting their ambitions and participation in the global football economic market. Disputes like these highlight the importance of equitable participation in the sports commercial landscape.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
