The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Football Club Volyn Lutsk (FC Volyn) and a professional football player, referred to as N., concerning the termination of their employment agreement due to the club's failure to meet financial obligations. The contract, signed on April 25, 2012, and set to expire on June 30, 2015, stipulated monthly payments in both Ukrainian hryvnia (UAH) and US dollars (USD). However, FC Volyn consistently failed to pay the agreed amounts, prompting the player to issue multiple warnings and ultimately terminate the contract on May 27, 2013. The player initially sent a collective statement with other players on March 13, 2013, demanding payment and threatening termination if the club did not comply. Despite partial payments, the club's outstanding debt persisted, leading the player to extend deadlines and eventually terminate the contract formally.
The player filed a claim with the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of the Football Federation of Ukraine, which ruled in his favor on July 17, 2013. The DRC recognized the termination as justified due to the club's breach, declared the player a free agent, and ordered FC Volyn to pay outstanding salaries (USD 34,548) and compensation (USD 100,000). The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the DRC's decision. The CAS panel emphasized that non-payment or delayed payment of salaries constitutes just cause for termination under FIFA regulations and CAS jurisprudence. The panel noted that the employer's failure to meet financial obligations undermines trust in the contractual relationship, regardless of financial difficulties. The player had issued prior warnings, and the unpaid amount was substantial, meeting the conditions for justified termination.
The CAS panel rejected the club's arguments, including claims about formal termination procedures and training compensation. It clarified that training compensation is due between clubs, not between a player and his former club. The panel also dismissed the player's request for interest payments, as the initial DRC decision did not address this. The club further argued that the player's termination was invalid under Ukrainian labor laws and that he abused his rights by filing a claim despite partial payments. However, the CAS panel found these arguments unpersuasive, noting the club's persistent breaches and the player's adherence to contractual and regulatory requirements.
The case highlights the procedural complexities of sports disputes, including logistical challenges due to political unrest in Ukraine, which delayed hearings. Despite these hurdles, the CAS affirmed the player's right to terminate the contract with just cause, upheld the financial penalties imposed on the club, and confirmed the player's status as a free agent. The decision reinforces the principle that clubs must fulfill their financial obligations to maintain contractual validity and protect player rights. The CAS's ruling underscores the importance of adhering to contractual and regulatory obligations in sports governance, ensuring fairness and stability in professional football.