The case involves a dispute between Azovmash Mariupol Basketball Club and professional basketball player Panagiotis Liadelis over the termination of their employment contract. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the matter, emphasizing key legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The arbitrator, Martin Schimke, highlighted that CAS panels can decide disputes ex aequo et bono (based on fairness rather than strict legal rules) if the federation’s rules permit and the parties explicitly authorize it. The arbitrator also stressed the club’s duty of care toward players, particularly in cases involving potential mental health issues, which raises the threshold for justifying contract termination due to poor performance.
The employment contract, signed on 27 May 2008, was valid until 1 June 2009 and included a base salary of €430,000, payable monthly, along with performance bonuses. The contract required Liadelis to maintain peak physical condition, adhere to club rules, and undergo medical examinations. The club reserved the right to impose sanctions, including termination, for violations such as loss of form or disciplinary breaches. In September 2008, Liadelis suffered an injury during a friendly match, confirmed by medical examinations in Ukraine and Greece. After rehabilitation, he resumed playing in November 2008 but participated minimally in three games. Meanwhile, the club delayed payment of his October salary, prompting a complaint from his agent. The club eventually paid the October salary in December but proposed reducing his contract to €250,000 before unilaterally terminating the agreement on 5 December 2008. Liadelis left the club on 10 December and later filed a claim with the FIBA Arbitration Tribunal (FAT), seeking €301,000 in compensation for unjust termination.
The FAT ruled in Liadelis’s favor, stating the termination lacked just cause as the club failed to apply less severe measures before resorting to termination, violating the principle of proportionality. The FAT awarded Liadelis the remaining salary due under the contract, minus any earnings from other sources during the same period. The CAS upheld this decision, reinforcing the club’s obligation to act fairly and proportionally, especially when dealing with players facing health or performance challenges. The arbitrator found that the club’s termination appeared motivated by an attempt to reduce the player’s salary, which Liadelis rightfully rejected. The arbitrator dismissed the club’s argument that the contract was not "guaranteed" and could be terminated for any fault, injury, or loss of form, as this would render the termination clauses meaningless. The arbitrator also noted the club’s initial attempt to settle amicably, suggesting awareness of a potential breach.
The CAS confirmed the FAT’s award, ordering the club to pay the outstanding salary of €301,000, plus 5% annual interest from 11 December 2008, reimbursement of FAT costs (€5,700), and a contribution toward legal fees (€9,200). The decision underscores the importance of fair contractual termination practices in sports employment disputes, particularly when athletes face injury or personal challenges. The case highlights the necessity of due process, proportionality, and equitable treatment in resolving such disputes. The CAS ultimately dismissed the club’s appeal, upholding the FAT’s ruling and emphasizing the club’s failure to meet the burden of proof for just cause in terminating the contract.