The case involves an appeal by professional football player Neagu Cosmin Florin against his former club, Dacia Uniera Braila Sport Club Association, and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF), concerning unpaid salaries and the proper forum for resolving disputes. Neagu claimed outstanding wages from February to August 2017, arguing that these were not waived by a subsequent transfer agreement. He also contested the validity of an addendum to his service agreement, alleging lack of consent. The RFF's adjudicative bodies dismissed his claim, ruling it was filed in the wrong forum and that any arrears had been waived. Neagu appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined jurisdiction, the scope of review, and the validity of the waiver under Romanian law and RFF regulations.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Michael Beloff QC, confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code, as the RFF statutes provided for CAS jurisdiction. The panel emphasized that football-related disputes should generally be resolved within the sport's governance system, per FIFA and RFF regulations, unless explicitly non-football-related. The panel ruled that the RFF's judicial bodies were the appropriate forum, rejecting the argument that state courts should handle the matter. On the waiver issue, the panel found the transfer agreement's language clearly extinguished all financial obligations, including unpaid salaries. The player's reliance on Article 38 of the Romanian Labor Code, which voids agreements limiting statutory rights, was dismissed as his salary claims arose from contract, not statutory law. The panel also upheld the validity of the addendum, noting the player’s consent was implied by his agreement to the original contract, which included a unilateral extension clause.
The panel declined to address the salary arrears issue further, given the waiver, and did not examine the addendum in detail since the RFF Appeal Committee had not considered it due to its jurisdictional decision. The panel also ruled no sanctions were applicable as no breach of contract was established. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the enforceability of contractual waivers and the role of sports arbitration in resolving football-related disputes. The case highlights the importance of contractual clarity and the preference for specialized arbitral bodies in sports governance, aligning with FIFA's regulations and the RFF's statutory framework. The decision underscores the principle that football disputes should be resolved within the sport's judicial system unless overriding legal provisions require otherwise.