The case involves a dispute between professional football player Iván Bolado Palacios and PFC CSKA Sofia regarding the termination of his employment contract and subsequent claims for compensation. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on several key issues, confirming its jurisdiction under Article 67(1) of the FIFA Statutes (2015 edition). The dispute arose from two employment contracts signed in 2012—one in Spanish and one in Bulgarian—both valid until June 2013. The Spanish Contract included terms for salary payments and a clause allowing the player to terminate the contract if the club failed to pay three monthly installments. The Bulgarian Contract contained similar terms but specified disputes would be resolved by the Bulgarian Football Union's Arbitration Committee. After sustaining an injury in March 2012, the player claimed the club failed to meet its financial obligations.
In July 2012, the parties signed a termination agreement, which the CAS interpreted as a mutual decision to end the employment relationship. When the club failed to comply with this agreement, a subsequent settlement was reached, which the club also breached. The CAS found the player entitled to damages based on the second employment contract, as referenced in the termination agreement. The tribunal emphasized the autonomy of arbitration agreements under Swiss law, noting that the termination agreement granted the player the right to pursue claims through FIFA's dispute resolution bodies, overriding previous jurisdictional clauses.
The CAS ruled that the club's failure to pay contractual amounts on time and its signing of the termination agreement constituted an acknowledgment of responsibility for the premature termination. Compensation was determined based on the financial obligations in the governing contract, applying Article 17(1) of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the principle of "positive interest." The decision reinforced the binding nature of mutual termination agreements and the enforceability of arbitration clauses, even when underlying contracts are disputed.
The player sought moral damages of EUR 272,000, referencing the distress caused by the club's abandonment and uncooperative conduct. However, the Sole Arbitrator found this claim inadmissible because it exceeded the scope of the previous litigation before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), where the player had only claimed EUR 10,000 for damages. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the claim for moral damages, noting that the Settlement Agreement aimed at signing a new contract and did not reference such damages.
The Sole Arbitrator ruled in favor of the player, finding that the club was responsible for the early termination of the employment relationship, which was set on 22 July 2012. The dispute was governed by the Bulgarian Contract, and the FIFA DRC was deemed competent to handle the player’s claim. The player was awarded EUR 72,000 in outstanding salaries and EUR 200,000 as compensation for breach of contract, both with 5% interest from the relevant dates until payment. The decision reinforced contractual stability in football and upheld the principle of compensating the injured party for losses incurred due to contractual breaches. The ruling ensures the player receives the owed amounts with accrued interest, finalizing the dispute.