The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Hungarian football club Békéscsaba 1912 Futball and professional player George Koroudjiev, concerning the termination of an employment agreement. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on September 20, 2018, addressing key legal issues such as the distinction between procedural law (lex arbitri) and substantive law (lex causae), the determination of applicable law in football disputes, and the conditions for "just cause" termination. Procedural law was governed by Swiss law, while substantive law was determined by Article R58 of the CAS Code, which prioritizes FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) over any other chosen law. The RSTP establishes global standards, with references to Swiss law serving only to ensure consistent interpretation, not to override these standards.
The central issue was whether the player had "just cause" to terminate his contract unilaterally. Under the RSTP and Swiss law, a party may terminate a contract immediately if fundamental terms are no longer respected, making continuation unreasonable under good faith principles. Material breaches are required for "just cause," and while warnings are generally necessary, they may be waived if the other party clearly intends not to comply. The player argued that being excluded from team training and forced to train alone constituted a severe breach of his rights, justifying termination. The tribunal agreed, finding that unjustified isolation from team activities amounts to a material breach, granting the player just cause.
The dispute arose from a 2015 employment contract between the player and the club, valid until 2017. The club excluded the player from team activities without explanation, leading him to terminate the contract and file a claim with FIFA. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled in the player's favor, ordering the club to pay HUF 25,500,000 plus interest. The club appealed to CAS, which upheld the decision, reinforcing that unjustified exclusion from training constitutes just cause for termination.
The club claimed the player breached his contract by refusing to train with the reserve team, but the panel found its arguments unsubstantiated and contradictory. The club failed to provide evidence of instructing the player to join reserve training or properly communicating its actions. The player, meanwhile, demonstrated that the club's behavior—including ignoring his protests and offering financial incentives for mutual termination—showed a lack of interest in retaining him, justifying his unilateral termination.
Regarding compensation, the panel upheld the FIFA DRC's calculation based on the remaining contract value and the player's subsequent employment at lower salaries, confirming the award of HUF 25,500,000 plus interest. The CAS dismissed the club's appeal, emphasizing the importance of contractual adherence and proper communication in employment disputes. The ruling clarifies that FIFA RSTP, supplemented by Swiss law, governs such disputes, ensuring uniformity and fairness in football's regulatory environment. The decision underscores the need for clubs to act in good faith and respect contractual obligations to avoid unjustified terminations.