The case involves a dispute between the Football Association of Thailand (FAT) and Victor Jacobus Hermans, a Dutch futsal coach, regarding the termination of his employment contract. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the matter, addressing several key legal issues. The parties agreed to CAS jurisdiction, implying an implicit choice of law, primarily applying FIFA regulations and subsidiarily Swiss law. The employment contract between FAT and Hermans was deemed valid as it included essential elements such as duration, remuneration, and signatures. The contract specified a net salary, meaning FAT was responsible for tax obligations, and required FAT to arrange Hermans' work permit and visa, though the absence of these did not invalidate the contract. The dispute arose when FAT stopped paying Hermans' salary and rent in March 2016. Hermans repeatedly requested payment and ultimately terminated the contract for "just cause," citing continuous non-payment. The CAS found that late or unpaid salary, especially if repeated, constitutes just cause for termination if the unpaid amount is substantial and the employer was notified. The principle of positive interest was applied, entitling Hermans to outstanding remuneration and future earnings under the contract, minus any income earned elsewhere due to early termination, to avoid overcompensation. The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in employment relationships within sports, particularly regarding timely payment and compliance with legal and regulatory standards. The CAS emphasized the need for uniformity in international sports disputes to ensure fairness and integrity. The dispute began when FAT failed to pay Hermans his agreed-upon salary and apartment rental reimbursements. On April 1, 2016, FAT proposed a new employment agreement offering a monthly salary of $10,000 USD, but Hermans continued to demand payment of the outstanding amounts. After multiple requests went unanswered, Hermans terminated the contract on June 24, 2016, citing FAT's failure to meet its obligations. FAT responded on July 4, 2016, acknowledging the termination and agreeing to pay the outstanding amount of THB 1,922,662, pending approval from its Board of Directors. Unsatisfied with FAT's response, Hermans filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) on September 30, 2016, seeking unpaid salaries, rental reimbursements, flight ticket costs, and compensation for breach of contract. On February 28, 2017, the PSC partially ruled in Hermans' favor, ordering FAT to pay outstanding remuneration, flight reimbursement, and compensation, plus interest. FAT appealed the PSC decision to CAS on May 26, 2017. The appeal process involved written submissions, witness testimonies, and a hearing in Lausanne, Switzerland, on October 19, 2017. The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, reviewed the case, including witness testimonies from FAT representatives. The central issue revolved around whether Mr. Makudi, the FAT President, had the authority to bind FAT through the employment contract with Hermans. The text argued that under Thai and Swiss law, Mr. Makudi lacked the power to enter into the contract on behalf of FAT without ratification from the Executive Committee, which did not occur. Consequently, the contract was deemed not binding on FAT, and any claims by Hermans should be directed at Mr. Makudi personally. As an alternative argument, the document asserted that the employment contract was contingent on Hermans obtaining a work visa, which he never did. Under Swiss law, this condition precedent was not met, rendering the contract invalid. Additionally, Thai law prohibits employers from hiring workers without valid work permits, making it legally impossible for FAT to fulfill the contract. Swiss law further supports this by stating that obligations are extinguished if performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond the obligor's control. The document also challenged the validity of Hermans' termination of the contract, arguing that he terminated it prematurely without just cause. According to Swiss law, termination for just cause requires the contractual relationship to be untenable, which Hermans admitted was not the case. Furthermore, he failed to issue a proper warning before termination, which is a prerequisite under Swiss law. In response, Hermans contended that the contract is valid and binding, citing FIFA and CAS jurisprudence that emphasizes the inclusion of essential terms in a signed document as sufficient for validity. He argued that the contract meets these criteria and should be upheld.