The case between Football Club FCSB SA and player Lukasz Gikiewicz revolved around the termination of the player's employment contract and whether the club had just cause for its actions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Fabio Iudica, Pascal Pichonnaz, and Manfred Nan, examined the dispute under contract law and employment rights in professional sports. The player terminated his contract on September 20, 2019, citing just cause under Article 14(2) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), alleging mistreatment by the club, including unpaid salary, relegation to the second team, and other contractual breaches. The club contested these claims, arguing the player's performance justified his demotion and denied any contractual violations.
The panel clarified that "just cause" for termination exists when a breach is so severe that continuing the employment relationship becomes unreasonable. The assessment must be case-specific, and unilateral changes to a player's status, such as preventing them from training with the first team without justification, can constitute a breach. Poor performance alone does not justify termination, as it does not breach the contract. The panel emphasized that preventing a player from training with the first team harms their career and infringes on their professional and economic rights. The club's actions, including the player's relegation to the second team—a youth squad in Romania's third-tier amateur league—without contractual justification or clear objectives for reinstatement, were deemed arbitrary. The club failed to provide performance evaluations or communicate reinstatement criteria, and the panel found the demotion could effectively become permanent, violating the player's rights.
The club's failure to pay the player's August 2019 salary further compounded the breach. The club claimed the delay was due to the player not providing a Romanian Tax Identification Number (TIN), but the panel found no evidence the club had requested this or informed the player of the issue. The club's conduct, including public criticism of the player, replacing his service car with an inferior model, and evicting him from accommodations without paying his salary, was deemed abusive and in bad faith. These actions, combined with the lack of communication, created a hostile environment aimed at pressuring the player to terminate his contract. The panel concluded the player had just cause to terminate the contract under Article 14(2) of the FIFA RSTP.
Regarding compensation, the club sought a reduction, citing the player's subsequent contract with Al-Faisaly FC and COVID-19-related salary cuts. However, the panel rejected these arguments as inadmissible because the club failed to raise them in its initial appeal, violating the principle of ne ultra petita. The panel upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's award of €85,000 in compensation, emphasizing the club's procedural shortcomings and lack of evidence for mitigation. The panel also dismissed the club's jurisdictional objections, confirming CAS's authority under FIFA statutes.
The case underscores the importance of contractual stability and the protection of players' rights against arbitrary club actions. The ruling reinforces that clubs must adhere to contractual obligations and cannot unilaterally alter a player's status without valid cause. The panel's decision highlights the balance between contractual obligations and athletes' rights, ensuring fair treatment in employment disputes within sports. The case serves as a precedent for evaluating just cause in contract terminations and the procedural limits of arbitration in sports disputes. The final award, issued on June 7, 2021, rejected the club's appeal and upheld the player's termination as justified.