CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2019/A/6463 & CAS 2019/A/6464 — Saman Ghoddos & Östersunds FK Elitfotboll AB v. SD Huesca & FIFA & Amiens Sporting Club

"Ghoddos" · CAS eliminated EUR 4 million compensation but upheld sporting sanctions after player breached employment contract without just cause during protected period.

What happened in Ghoddos

Iranian professional Saman Ghoddos signed an employment contract with Spanish club SD Huesca on 8 August 2018 while still under contract with Swedish club Östersunds FK Elitfotboll AB. A valid transfer agreement had been concluded by email on 7 August 2018 (EUR 3 million plus 20% sell-on). Östersunds FC, seeking a better deal, pressured Ghoddos to send a termination letter to Huesca on 18 August 2018 — a letter the player later admitted was 'full of lies' signed under 'immense pressure'. Ghoddos was then transferred to Amiens SC for EUR 4 million on 22 August 2018, netting Östersunds FC EUR 1 million more than the Huesca deal. SD Huesca filed before the FIFA DRC, which awarded EUR 4 million compensation and imposed a four-month playing ban on Ghoddos and a two-registration-period transfer ban on Östersunds FC. Both appealed to CAS. The Panel upheld the finding of unjustified termination during the protected period and confirmed both sporting sanctions, but set aside the EUR 4 million financial compensation because SD Huesca saved the EUR 3 million transfer fee and the player's salary, meaning no net damages were proven. The case is significant for its treatment of Art. 17 RSTP compensation methodology, the broad interpretation of 'signing club' under Art. 17.4, and detailed procedural guidance on late answers and video-conference hearings.

Procedural history of CAS 2019/A/6463

On 31 August 2018, SD Huesca filed a complaint before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber against Ghoddos, Östersunds FC, and Amiens SC. The DRC issued its operative decision on 14 June 2019 and grounds on 28 August 2019, ordering Ghoddos to pay EUR 4 million (Östersunds FC jointly liable), imposing a four-month playing ban on Ghoddos, and a two-registration-period transfer ban on Östersunds FC. Amiens SC was exonerated. On 18 September 2019, both Ghoddos (CAS 2019/A/6463) and Östersunds FC (CAS 2019/A/6464) filed Statements of Appeal with CAS. The proceedings were consolidated on 4 October 2019. SD Huesca's Answer, filed on 18 November 2019 after the 12 November 2019 deadline without any extension request, was declared inadmissible on 7 February 2020. A video-conference hearing was held on 25 May 2020. CAS was asked to set aside the DRC decision in full, or alternatively reduce compensation to zero and cancel the sporting sanctions.

Key holdings in CAS 2019/A/6463

• A valid transfer agreement was concluded by email on 7 August 2018 when Östersunds FC unequivocally accepted SD Huesca's offer of EUR 3 million plus 20% sell-on, as the parties had agreed on all essentialia negotii under Swiss law.
• The Huesca Employment Contract was valid and binding; there is no mandatory sequence under the RSTP requiring a signed transfer agreement or termination of a prior contract before an employment contract can take effect.
• Ghoddos terminated the Huesca Employment Contract without just cause during the protected period, triggering liability under Art. 17 RSTP, but SD Huesca proved no net damages because it saved the EUR 3 million transfer fee and the player's salary, reducing compensation to zero.
• Östersunds FC qualifies as the 'signing club' under Art. 17.4 RSTP because it benefited from the termination by retaining the player and selling him to Amiens SC for EUR 4 million, and it failed to rebut the presumption of inducement; the two-registration-period transfer ban is confirmed.
• A respondent whose answer is declared inadmissible for late filing retains the right to plead orally within the scope of first-instance submissions and to file post-hearing briefs limited to hearing evidence, but loses the right to submit new evidence, call witnesses, raise jurisdictional objections, or put forward motions for relief.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied Swiss law (SCO) subsidiarily to the FIFA RSTP. On the transfer agreement, it found that Östersunds FC's email acceptance of 7 August 2018 bound the parties to all essentialia negotii; secondary terms and unsigned draft documents did not negate that binding agreement under Art. 2 SCO. On contract validity, the Panel rejected implied conditions precedent, impossibility arguments, and fraud/error claims, noting the player's own DRC testimony that the Termination Letter was 'full of lies' signed under pressure. On compensation, the Panel applied the 'positive interest' principle from CAS jurisprudence and found that SD Huesca's savings — the EUR 3 million transfer fee never paid and the player's salary never paid — exceeded any loss, yielding zero net damages; the DRC had erred by using market value without deducting saved costs. On Art. 17.4, the Panel interpreted 'signing club' broadly to capture the club that actually benefited from the breach, rejecting a restrictive reading limited to the club with which the player formally re-registered. The Panel rejected Östersunds FC's good-faith defence, finding it had actively pressured the player to terminate while already negotiating a higher-value deal with Amiens SC. FIFA's argument that the RSTP Commentary automatically terminates a first contract upon signing a second was rejected as non-binding commentary contradicted by Art. 18.5 RSTP itself.

Why Ghoddos matters in CAS jurisprudence

Ghoddos clarifies that Art. 17.1 RSTP compensation must deduct costs saved by the injured club (transfer fee and salary), potentially reducing damages to zero even where breach is proven. It also establishes that the 'signing club' under Art. 17.4 RSTP extends to any club that benefits from the breach by retaining the player, not only the club with which the player formally re-registers. The award further provides authoritative procedural guidance on late answers, video-conference hearings during COVID-19, and FIFA's status as a full respondent in contractual disputes.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1189 CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 CAS 2008/A/1589 CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881 CAS 2010/A/2145, 2146 & 2147 CAS 2016/A/4462

Frequently asked questions about Ghoddos

Why was the EUR 4 million compensation against Ghoddos set aside if he was found to have breached his contract?

The Panel applied the 'positive interest' principle under Art. 17.1 RSTP and found that SD Huesca suffered no net loss. Because the breach occurred, SD Huesca never paid the EUR 3 million transfer fee agreed with Östersunds FC and never paid Ghoddos's salary (EUR 600,000 for 2018-19, reduced to EUR 300,000 after relegation, etc.). Those savings exceeded any loss SD Huesca could demonstrate, so compensation was reduced to zero.

How did CAS treat Östersunds FC as the 'signing club' under Art. 17.4 RSTP when the player never formally re-registered with them?

The Panel interpreted 'signing club' broadly to mean any club that benefits from the unjustified termination by having the player at its disposal after the breach. Östersunds FC called Ghoddos back under his existing contract, pressured him to terminate the Huesca Employment Contract, and then sold him to Amiens SC for EUR 4 million — EUR 1 million more than the SD Huesca deal — making it the clear beneficiary of the breach.

What are the procedural consequences under the CAS Code when a respondent files its answer late without requesting an extension?

Under Art. R32 CAS Code, an extension can only be granted before the deadline expires; SD Huesca's failure to request one in time rendered its answer inadmissible. The Panel held that SD Huesca still retained the right to plead orally within the scope of its first-instance submissions and to file post-hearing briefs limited to hearing evidence, but lost the right to submit new evidence, call witnesses, raise jurisdictional objections, or put forward motions for relief.

Did the Ghoddos case establish that a transfer agreement must be signed before an employment contract is valid?

No. The Panel held there is no mandatory sequence of steps under the RSTP for signing a player. The validity of the Huesca Employment Contract was not preconditioned on a written transfer agreement or termination of the prior Östersunds contract. In any event, the Panel found a valid transfer agreement had already been concluded by email on 7 August 2018 when Östersunds FC accepted SD Huesca's offer of EUR 3 million plus 20% sell-on, satisfying all essentialia negotii under Swiss law.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS · Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.