The case involves a contractual dispute between Club Ittihad Riadi de Tanger de Basketball (the Club) and professional basketball player Danilo Mitrovic (the Player) regarding the termination of their agreement for the 2015/2016 season. The contract stipulated a total salary of USD 45,000, payable in monthly installments, with a clause allowing the Player to terminate the contract and claim the remaining salary if payments were delayed by more than ten days. The Club also agreed to cover two round-trip flights between Morocco and Serbia.
In December 2015, the Club permitted the Player to return to Serbia for Christmas under the condition that his December salary would be paid before his departure. However, the Club failed to make the payment, prompting the Player to express his intention to terminate the contract. Despite this, he traveled to Serbia on December 24 without receiving his salary. A dispute arose over his return date, with the Club insisting on December 29, while the Player refused to return without his unpaid salary. The Club declined to fund a new return ticket, and the Player did not resume training.
Subsequently, the Club hired new players, relocated the Player’s belongings, and reassigned his apartment, effectively treating the contract as terminated. The Player formally terminated the agreement on March 4, 2016, citing non-payment, and signed with another Moroccan club. However, the Club refused to issue a "letter of clearance," preventing him from playing. The Player then filed for arbitration with the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT), seeking unpaid salaries, interest, and legal costs. The BAT ruled in his favor, leading the Club to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS upheld the BAT’s decision, acknowledging that the Club’s failure to pay justified the Player’s termination. However, it also noted that the Player’s delayed response contributed to the dispute, adjusting the compensation under the principle of ex aequo et bono (fairness and equity). The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, ruling that neither the BAT’s procedural rules nor the contract required a prior reasoned decision for an appeal. The Club’s breach of contract was deemed the primary cause, but the Player’s actions were also considered.
The CAS partially ruled in the Player’s favor, ordering the Club to pay USD 25,000 (covering December 2015 and March–June 2016 salaries) with 5% interest from April 3, 2016, while deducting January and February 2016 salaries due to the Player’s delay. The Player was also required to contribute €1,500 to procedural fees, with his legal expenses reduced to €1,800. The CAS found the Club’s appeal admissible but only partially justified, overturning the BAT’s decision and issuing a revised ruling. The case underscores the importance of timely payments and clear communication in contractual disputes within professional sports.