The case involves a dispute between FC Ural Sverdlovsk, a Russian football club, and Toto Tamuz, an Israeli professional football player, concerning the termination of their employment contract. Signed on July 30, 2013, the contract was set to run until July 31, 2015, and included terms regarding the player’s obligations, salary, bonuses, and image rights. The club unilaterally terminated the contract on January 17, 2014, citing repeated breaches by the player, such as missed training sessions and improper performance of duties. Tamuz contested these allegations, arguing his absences were justified and that the club failed to meet its payment obligations.
The legal issues centered on the definition of "just cause" for termination under FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP). Since the FIFA RSTP does not define "just cause," Swiss law, specifically Article 337 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), was referenced. This article states that just cause exists when continuing the employment relationship in good faith becomes unconscionable due to material breaches. The burden of proof lies with the party invoking just cause, and prior warnings are generally required before termination.
The club alleged Tamuz missed training sessions without valid reason, justifying termination. Tamuz countered that his absences were either approved or due to medical reasons, and he accused the club of withholding bonuses and other entitlements. The club withheld payments for professional excellence for October, December 2013, and January 2014, citing Tamuz’s alleged misconduct.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the evidence and found the club failed to prove Tamuz’s breaches were severe enough to constitute just cause. The club did not provide sufficient warnings or demonstrate that Tamuz’s actions made continuing the contract unconscionable. Consequently, the termination was deemed unlawful, and the club was ordered to compensate Tamuz for damages under Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP and Article 97 of the SCO. Tamuz had signed a new contract with FC Petrolul Ploiesti in February 2014, which was considered in assessing compensation.
Tamuz filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in August 2014, seeking unpaid salaries totaling EUR 155,627 and compensation of EUR 1,007,000 for the remaining contract value. The club argued all payments had been made and, if liable, compensation should be limited to three months' salary. The club also filed a counterclaim demanding RUB 450,000 from Tamuz for breach of contract.
In November 2016, the FIFA DRC partially upheld Tamuz’s claim, ruling the club terminated the contract without just cause. The DRC ordered the club to pay Tamuz outstanding salaries of EUR 155,627 with 5% annual interest, additional compensation of EUR 159,000, and RUB 75,000 for rent expenses, also with interest. The DRC rejected the club’s counterclaim, citing insufficient evidence.
The club appealed to CAS, which upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision. The Sole Arbitrator found the club failed to prove Tamuz’s breaches or provide prior warnings, rendering the termination unjustified. The arbitrator confirmed Tamuz was entitled to outstanding salaries and compensation, dismissing the club’s claims of prior payments due to lack of evidence. The decision reinforced the principle of "pacta sunt servanda," emphasizing the importance of contractual adherence and proper evidence in termination disputes.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled FC Ural Sverdlovsk unlawfully terminated the contract without just cause and was liable to compensate Toto Tamuz for damages incurred. The case underscores the necessity of proper procedure, evidence, and prior warnings in employment disputes within football.