The case involves a dispute between two Ukrainian football clubs, FC Obolon Kyiv and FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rig, concerning the termination of employment contracts by a coaching team and a physician who left FC Obolon to join FC Kryvbas. The dispute was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Mr. Manfred Nan serving as the sole arbitrator. FC Obolon claimed that the resignations of the coaching team and physician constituted a breach of contract and sought compensation from FC Kryvbas, arguing that the latter was liable for inducing the breaches. The case revolved around whether FC Kryvbas should be held responsible for the termination of these contracts and whether compensation was warranted under Ukrainian football regulations and labor laws.
The arbitrator determined that FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) did not apply to the dispute, as these regulations pertain only to players and not to coaches or medical staff. Instead, the applicable law was the rules of the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU), supplemented by Ukrainian labor law and, where necessary, Swiss law. The arbitrator noted that under general legal principles, a third party like FC Kryvbas is not liable for compensation unless there is evidence of unlawful conduct or prior knowledge of contractual breaches. In this case, FC Kryvbas had no reason to believe the coaching team and physician were still bound by contracts with FC Obolon, as their employment agreements with FC Kryvbas were signed after their contracts with FC Obolon had been terminated.
The facts revealed that the coaching team and physician submitted resignation letters in late December 2009, intending to terminate their contracts with FC Obolon by January 2010. The resignations were initially processed by FC Obolon's vice president, who instructed proper documentation. However, FC Obolon later contested the terminations as unilateral breaches. The FFU's Control and Disciplinary Committee and the Appeals Committee ruled that the resignations were valid under Ukrainian labor law and that FC Kryvbas was not liable for compensation. The Committees emphasized that the contracts allowed for amendments by mutual agreement and that the resignations had been approved by FC Obolon's vice president. They also rejected FC Obolon's claims for training compensation, noting that FFU regulations on such compensation applied only to players aged 12 to 23, not to coaches or medical staff.
The Sole Arbitrator upheld the FFU's decisions, concluding that FC Kryvbas was not liable for compensation as there was no evidence of wrongful conduct or prior knowledge of contractual breaches. The arbitrator emphasized that claims against third parties are exceptional and require clear legal or ethical violations, which were absent in this case. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that contractual disputes involving coaches and medical staff fall under national law and federation regulations, not FIFA's RSTP. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the limited scope of third-party liability in employment disputes within football. The CAS ultimately dismissed FC Obolon's appeal, confirming the validity of the FFU's rulings and bringing the matter to a close.