CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/8905 — Elnur Chodarov v. Sumgayit Football LLC & Association of Football Federations of Azerbaijan

"Chodarov" · CAS upheld Azerbaijani assistant coach's appeal, awarding AZN 10,725 for club's unjustified unilateral contract termination.

What happened in Chodarov

Elnur Chodarov, an Azerbaijani assistant football coach, signed a one-year employment agreement with Sumgayit Football LLC worth AZN 40,000 net, running from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. When the club's head coach was dismissed by mutual consent on 16 December 2021, Chodarov sent a farewell WhatsApp voice message and left the team group. The club subsequently hired a new coaching staff, excluded Chodarov from training and a Turkey camp, and on 21 January 2022 purported to terminate his contract with effect from 18 January 2022 for gross violation of obligations. The AFFA Committee on Status and Transfer of Players awarded Chodarov AZN 14,000; the AFFA Appeal Arbitration Tribunal annulled that decision on procedural grounds. Chodarov appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found CAS had jurisdiction because, at the time of filing, no internal remedy was readily and effectively available. On the merits, the club's termination lacked just cause: it never issued the contractual warning required by Clause 6.3, never imposed a penalty under Clause 8.3, and itself contributed to the situation by failing to communicate with Chodarov after the head coach's departure. Compensation was fixed at the residual contract value of AZN 10,725 (total AZN 40,000 minus AZN 29,275 already paid). AFFA was dismissed as a respondent for lack of standing to be sued in this horizontal contractual dispute.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/8905

On 27 January 2022 Chodarov filed a claim before the AFFA Committee on the Status and Transfer of Players (AFFA CSTP), seeking the residual contract value for unlawful termination. On 17 March 2022 the AFFA CSTP partially upheld the claim and ordered the club to pay AZN 14,000. On 30 March 2022 the club appealed to the AFFA Appeal Arbitration Tribunal. On 4 May 2022 the Tribunal issued the Appealed Decision, annulling the AFFA CSTP Decision solely on procedural grounds (failure to comply with the pre-claim letter requirement of Article 14.4 of the Procedural Rules). On 25 May 2022 Chodarov filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code. On 9 June 2022 — after the CAS appeal was filed — the AFFA Appeal Arbitration Tribunal chairperson issued a clarifying letter purporting to remit the matter to the AFFA CSTP for reconsideration. A hearing was held by video-conference on 9 February 2023. The Sole Arbitrator was appointed on 2 November 2022.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/8905

• CAS has jurisdiction where, at the time of filing, the operative part of the appealed decision cancelled the lower-body decision outright and no internal remedy was readily and effectively available to the appellant, applying the perpetuatio iurisdictionis principle (CAS 2014/A/3477).
• A post-appeal clarifying letter issued by the AFFA Appeal Arbitration Tribunal chairperson is irrelevant to the jurisdiction assessment because jurisdiction is determined as at the date the appeal was filed.
• AFFA lacks standing to be sued in a horizontal contractual dispute between a coach and a club where AFFA's only role was as an adjudicative body and no relief is sought against it.
• A club's unilateral termination of a coaching contract is unjustified where it failed to issue the contractual warning required by Clause 6.3 before terminating and never imposed a penalty under Clause 8.3, and where the club itself contributed to the situation by not communicating with the coach after the head coach's departure.
• Compensation for unjustified termination of a coach's contract under Annex 8 Article 6(a) of the FIFA RSTP equals the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract and may never exceed that residual value, precluding additional moral-damage awards.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first applied the perpetuatio iurisdictionis principle to fix jurisdiction as at the date of filing: the operative part of the Appealed Decision said the AFFA CSTP Decision 'shall be cancelled', not remitted, so no further internal remedy was readily available. The post-filing clarifying letter was irrelevant and, even if relevant, gave no procedural roadmap for reinitiation. On standing, the arbitrator applied the horizontal/vertical distinction from CAS 2020/A/7144 and CAS 2017/A/5359: because the dispute arose purely from the employment contract and AFFA was only an adjudicative body, AFFA had no stake in the outcome and was dismissed. On the merits, the arbitrator accepted that Chodarov's WhatsApp farewell and departure from the group constituted a breach, but held it did not rise to a gross or material breach justifying termination. The club never issued the Clause 6.3 warning, never imposed a Clause 8.3 penalty, and itself contributed by failing to contact Chodarov after the head coach's dismissal. Drawing on CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093 and CAS 2016/A/4588, the arbitrator required a prior warning before termination. Compensation was calculated under Annex 8 Article 6(a) FIFA RSTP as the residual value (AZN 40,000 minus AZN 29,275 paid = AZN 10,725); the claim for additional AZN 14,000 was rejected as unsubstantiated and exceeding the statutory cap.

Why Chodarov matters in CAS jurisprudence

Chodarov is one of the first CAS awards to apply the newly introduced FIFA RSTP Annex 8 Article 6 compensation framework for coaches, confirming that the same contractual-stability principles governing player contracts apply to coaching contracts. It also clarifies that the perpetuatio iurisdictionis principle governs CAS jurisdiction assessments, that post-filing clarifications by a federation body cannot retroactively defeat CAS jurisdiction, and that a federation acting solely as an adjudicative body in a horizontal dispute lacks standing to be sued.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2014/A/3477 CAS 2007/A/1373 CAS 2013/A/3052 CAS 2019/A/6626 CAS 2020/A/7144 CAS 2017/A/5359 CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093 CAS 2016/A/4588

Frequently asked questions about Chodarov

Why did CAS accept jurisdiction in Chodarov even though the AFFA tribunal tried to remit the case for reconsideration?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the perpetuatio iurisdictionis principle, fixing jurisdiction as at the date the appeal was filed (25 May 2022). At that date the operative part of the Appealed Decision simply 'cancelled' the AFFA CSTP Decision with no remission language, so no internal remedy was readily and effectively available. The chairperson's clarifying letter of 9 June 2022 was issued after the CAS appeal and was therefore irrelevant to the jurisdiction analysis.

How was Chodarov's compensation of AZN 10,725 calculated under the FIFA RSTP?

The Sole Arbitrator applied Annex 8 Article 6(a) of the FIFA RSTP, which provides that where a coach has not signed a new contract after termination, compensation equals the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract. The total contract value was AZN 40,000; the club had already paid AZN 29,275 per its bank statements, leaving a residual of AZN 10,725. The coach's separate claim for an additional AZN 14,000 was rejected as unsubstantiated and as exceeding the statutory cap that overall compensation may never exceed the residual value.

Why did the Sole Arbitrator find the club's termination of Chodarov's contract unjustified despite his WhatsApp farewell message?

Although the arbitrator accepted that Chodarov's farewell voice message, exit from the WhatsApp group, and failure to attend training from 6 January 2022 constituted a breach of contract, the breach did not rise to a gross or material breach justifying termination. The club never issued the prior warning required by Clause 6.3 before terminating, never imposed a penalty under Clause 8.3, and itself contributed to the situation by failing to contact Chodarov after the head coach's departure. CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093) requires a prior warning before termination for just cause.

Did AFFA have standing to be sued in the Chodarov case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator classified the dispute as a horizontal contractual matter between the coach and the club, applying the framework from CAS 2020/A/7144 and CAS 2017/A/5359. AFFA was not a party to the Employment Agreement, had no rights or obligations arising from it, and acted solely as an adjudicative body. Because all of Chodarov's requests for relief were directed at the club, AFFA had no stake in the outcome and was dismissed as a respondent.

Topics: 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.