CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/8849 — AFC Chindia Targoviste v. Yameogo Franck Alex Neeb – Noma Blaise

"Chindia Targoviste v. Yameogo" · CAS upheld FIFA DRC's award of RON 48,000 bonus to player after club avoided relegation via play-off during COVID-altered season.

What happened in Chindia Targoviste v. Yameogo

AFC Chindia Targoviste, a Romanian club, entered an employment contract with Burkinabe player Yameogo Franck Alex Neeb – Noma Blaise on 28 August 2019. A first addendum dated 28 May 2020 promised the player a net bonus of RON 48,000 if the club 'ranked in a non-relegated position' at the end of the 2019–2020 season and the player played at least 60% of effective playing time. Due to COVID-19, the RFF Emergency Committee stopped the League 1 championship on 6 August 2020 while the club sat 14th (a relegation spot), changed the league format from 14 to 16 teams, and required the 14th-placed club to play a promotion/relegation play-off. Chindia defeated CS Mioveni and remained in League 1. The player filed a claim before the FIFA DRC, which awarded RON 48,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 18 November 2021. The club appealed to CAS, arguing (1) FIFA lacked jurisdiction because the contract's forum clause pointed to Romanian civil courts, and (2) the bonus was not earned because the club had finished in a relegation position on sporting merit. The Sole Arbitrator rejected both arguments: the forum clause was insufficiently precise to oust FIFA jurisdiction, and the club's non-relegation resulted from genuine sporting performance in the play-off, not merely an administrative decision. The FIFA DRC award was confirmed in full. The case matters because it clarifies how ambiguous forum clauses are treated and how bonus conditions are interpreted when competition formats change mid-season.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/8849

On 18 November 2021 the player filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal's Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) seeking RON 48,000 (season 2019–2020 bonus), RON 16,041 and RON 3,950 (season 2020–2021 bonuses), 5% annual interest, and EUR 2,000 in costs. On 8 March 2022 the FIFA DRC issued its decision (FPSD-4334), partially accepting the claim: it ordered the club to pay RON 48,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 18 November 2021, and rejected all further claims. The grounds were notified on 12 April 2022. The club filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 2 May 2022 under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, followed by its Appeal Brief on 23 May 2022. The player filed his Answer on 10 August 2022. The Sole Arbitrator decided on written submissions alone, also obtaining information from the RFF and the FIFA case file. The Order of Procedure was signed by both parties on 20 October 2022.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/8849

• A forum clause that merely refers to 'the court materially and territorially competent according to the law' without identifying a specific court is insufficiently exact, precise and clear to oust FIFA DRC jurisdiction under Article 22(b) of the FIFA RSTP.
• A choice-of-law clause (here, Romanian law) does not create a parallel choice-of-forum agreement, because there is no parallelism between applicable law and jurisdiction.
• Where a competition format is changed mid-season due to COVID-19 and the club avoids relegation by winning a play-off, the non-relegation bonus condition is satisfied because the outcome reflects sporting performance, not merely an administrative decision.
• Under Article R58 of the CAS Code, FIFA regulations apply primarily and take precedence over any direct choice-of-law clause agreed by the parties when CAS retains jurisdiction.
• The undisputed fact that the player participated in more than 60% of effective playing time entitled him to the full RON 48,000 bonus once the non-relegation condition was met.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first examined jurisdiction. Clause N of the contract referred only to 'the court materially and territorially competent according to the law' without specifying any particular court or type of court, rendering it inexact, imprecise and unclear. The Appellant's attempt to read Clause N together with Clause O (choice-of-law) was rejected: choice of law does not equal choice of forum, and Clause O itself referenced RFF regulations, which could also confer jurisdiction on RFF committees — creating a plurality of possible forums that confirmed ambiguity rather than resolving it. The Arbitrator also relied on CAS 2020/A/7605 for the proposition that in international football contracts parties are presumed to accept the standard two-tier FIFA/CAS dispute resolution system. On the merits, the Arbitrator distinguished two scenarios: a format change after the competition ends (ranks are final and sporting performance assessable) versus a change during the competition (ranks may be frozen but sporting performance cannot be fully assessed). Here the change occurred mid-competition; the club was ranked 14th but the final ranking was uncertain. Crucially, the club was not saved by administrative fiat alone — it had to win a play-off against CS Mioveni, which constituted genuine sporting performance. The ultimate objective of the bonus clause — avoiding relegation — was therefore achieved through sport, satisfying the condition in Article 3 of the Addendum.

Why Chindia Targoviste v. Yameogo matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the strict CAS standard that a choice-of-forum clause must be 'exact, precise and clear' to displace FIFA DRC jurisdiction in international employment disputes. It also establishes a useful analytical framework for bonus clauses affected by mid-season competition format changes: where the club avoids relegation through actual sporting performance (a play-off victory) rather than a purely administrative reprieve, the non-relegation bonus condition is satisfied. The decision confirms that choice-of-law and choice-of-forum are legally distinct concepts in the FIFA dispute resolution framework.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2017/A/5465 CAS 2017/A/5374 CAS 2018/A/5624 CAS 2020/A/7605 Mol Fehervar FC v. Joan Carrillo Milan & FIFA

Frequently asked questions about Chindia Targoviste v. Yameogo

Did Chindia Targoviste have to pay the RON 48,000 non-relegation bonus even though it finished 14th in League 1?

Yes. CAS confirmed the FIFA DRC award requiring payment of RON 48,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 18 November 2021. The Sole Arbitrator found that because the club won the play-off against CS Mioveni and remained in League 1, the non-relegation condition in Article 3 of the Addendum was satisfied through genuine sporting performance, not merely an administrative decision by the RFF.

Can a Romanian employment contract clause referring to 'the court materially and territorially competent according to the law' exclude FIFA DRC jurisdiction?

No, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that such a clause is insufficiently exact, precise and clear to constitute a valid choice-of-forum agreement under Article 22(b) of the FIFA RSTP. Because the clause did not identify a specific court or type of court, FIFA jurisdiction prevailed.

Does a choice-of-law clause (e.g. Romanian law) in a football contract also create a choice-of-forum agreement in favour of Romanian courts?

No. The Sole Arbitrator expressly rejected any parallelism between choice of law and choice of forum, noting that the CAS itself could apply Romanian law. The reference to RFF regulations in the same clause further confirmed that multiple forums could be competent, reinforcing the ambiguity.

How does CAS treat non-relegation bonus clauses when the competition format is changed mid-season due to COVID-19?

CAS distinguished between format changes after a competition ends (ranks final, sporting performance assessable) and changes during a competition (ranks uncertain, performance not fully assessable). Where the club still had to win a play-off to avoid relegation — as Chindia did against CS Mioveni — the non-relegation was attributed to sporting performance and the bonus condition was deemed fulfilled.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses 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.