The case revolves around a legal dispute between football player Gussev Vitali and C.S. Fotbal Club Astra, along with the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL), concerning the termination of his employment contract and disciplinary sanctions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on several key issues, including the unjustified reduction of the player’s salary by 25% during his recovery from injury and his subsequent relegation to a lower-tier team. The CAS found that such sanctions must be based on proven misconduct rather than subjective performance assessments, deeming the club’s actions unreasonable. The dispute originated from a 2010 contract, which stipulated increasing monthly salaries over three years. After the player returned from injury, the club imposed a salary reduction and sought to terminate the contract, citing poor performance. The RPFL initially upheld the club’s decisions, but the player appealed to the CAS, which overturned the rulings, declaring the disciplinary sanction unjust and the club’s termination without just cause. The CAS ordered the club to pay outstanding salaries and recognized the player’s right to terminate the contract due to unpaid wages, reinforcing principles of fair treatment and contractual obligations in sports law.
The CAS also addressed the admissibility of the player’s appeal, which challenged two RPFL Appeal Committee decisions. The sole arbitrator ruled the appeal admissible, noting the interconnected nature of the issues and the timely filing within the 21-day limit. The arbitrator confirmed CAS jurisdiction based on the Romanian Football Federation’s statutes and applied relevant regulations, including FIFA’s Rules on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Swiss law. The club defended its actions by citing the player’s alleged poor attitude during training and his participation in fewer than 10% of matches, but the arbitrator found these arguments insufficient to justify disciplinary measures or termination. The player, meanwhile, claimed just cause for termination due to unpaid salaries exceeding 90 days, a claim supported by CAS jurisprudence. The arbitrator emphasized that non-payment of salaries constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, entitling the player to terminate the agreement.
Regarding compensation, the arbitrator calculated the outstanding amount owed to the player, totaling EUR 44,731, after accounting for prior payments. The club’s attempt to justify salary reductions through disciplinary sanctions was rejected, as the arbitrator found no evidence of misconduct. The arbitrator also examined whether the termination was with or without just cause, concluding that the club’s actions lacked valid justification. The player’s entitlement to compensation was upheld, though the amount was adjusted to reflect his limited contribution to the club’s sporting objectives and his awareness of the club’s intent to terminate the contract. The final compensation was set at EUR 48,968 for the period from October 2011 to June 2012, plus EUR 41,032 for unpaid salaries, totaling EUR 90,000, with 5% interest from June 2012. The arbitrator partially upheld the player’s appeal, setting aside the RPFL’s decisions and ordering the club to pay the specified amount. The ruling underscored the importance of contractual stability, fair treatment of players, and the alignment of disciplinary measures with established legal principles. The case highlights the role of arbitration in resolving complex sports disputes and upholding players’ rights in contractual breaches.