The case revolves around Khazar Lankaran Football Club's appeal against a decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute stemmed from the club's unilateral termination of a player's contract without just cause during the protected period, as defined by Article 17(4) of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The FIFA DRC ruled that the club must pay the player a small portion of the claimed compensation (approximately EUR 3,000) and imposed a two-registration-period ban on the club, citing the need to uphold contractual stability in football. The DRC also considered the club's history of similar breaches as an aggravating factor, justifying the sporting sanction.
Khazar Lankaran appealed the decision, specifically challenging the registration ban. The club argued that the minimal financial compensation awarded to the player indicated a minor breach and that it had improved its compliance with employment contracts since earlier violations in 2012 and 2013. The club also claimed the ban would severely impact its operations, including sponsorship agreements. However, the CAS panel rejected these arguments, emphasizing that Article 17(4) of the RSTP mandates strict sporting sanctions for breaches during the protected period, leaving no room for discretion based on the financial compensation awarded. The panel also noted the club's repeated violations, with over eleven player claims lodged in recent years, undermining its claim of improved conduct.
FIFA defended the DRC's decision, asserting that the club's breach warranted the sanctions and rejecting the notion of improved compliance by referencing unresolved cases from 2014. The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and applied FIFA's RSTP, with Swiss law as a subsidiary. It upheld the FIFA DRC's ruling, dismissing the appeal and reinforcing the mandatory nature of sporting sanctions for contract breaches during the protected period. The decision underscores the importance of contractual stability in professional football and the limited scope for clubs to challenge such sanctions, particularly when they have a history of similar violations. The case serves as a reminder of the consequences clubs face for unjustly terminating player contracts and the strict enforcement of FIFA's regulatory framework.