CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10241 & CAS 2023/A/10247 — Istanbul Spor AS v. Club Estoril Praia Futebol SAD & Racine Coly / Racine Coly v. Club Estoril Praia Futebol SAD

"Coly / Istanbul Spor" · CAS upheld Club Estoril's just-cause termination of Coly's contract but relieved Istanbul Spor of joint-and-several liability under Art. 17(2) FIFA RSTP.

What happened in Coly / Istanbul Spor

Racine Coly, a Senegalese professional footballer, signed a three-year employment contract with Club Estoril Praia (Portugal) on 5 July 2021, valid until 30 June 2024. After the 2021-22 season Coly travelled to Senegal and failed to return by 27 June 2022, citing visa difficulties. Club Estoril initiated disciplinary proceedings and on 9 December 2022 terminated the contract for just cause. Coly filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal seeking outstanding salaries and compensation totalling EUR 242,500; Club Estoril counterclaimed. On 16 October 2023 the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected Coly's claim, ordered him to pay EUR 161,250 compensation to Club Estoril (plus 5% p.a. interest from 10 April 2023), and held Istanbul Spor — which had signed Coly in July 2023 — jointly and severally liable. Both Istanbul Spor and Coly appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed Coly's appeal in full, finding his prolonged unauthorised absence constituted a serious breach justifying termination. However, she partially upheld Istanbul Spor's appeal, removing its joint-and-several liability because there was no evidence it induced the breach and the club merely hired a player who had already been dismissed. The case is significant for limiting Art. 17(2) RSTP strict liability where a new club plays no causal role in the termination.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10241

On 26 February 2023 Coly filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal requesting outstanding salaries and compensation of EUR 242,500. On 10 April 2023 Club Estoril filed a counterclaim for EUR 242,500 compensation plus a EUR 10,000,000 penalty clause. Istanbul Spor intervened upon FIFA's invitation. On 16 October 2023 the FIFA DRC rejected Coly's claim, partially accepted Club Estoril's counterclaim, ordered Coly to pay EUR 161,250 plus 5% p.a. interest from 10 April 2023, and held Istanbul Spor jointly and severally liable. Grounds were notified on 30 November 2023. Istanbul Spor filed its Statement of Appeal on 19 December 2023 (CAS 2023/A/10241) and Coly filed his on 21 December 2023 (CAS 2023/A/10247). The two appeals were consolidated by agreement. Club Estoril also filed proceedings before the Portuguese Tribunal Arbitral do Desporto (TAD), whose decision of 27 May 2024 was excluded from the CAS record as belatedly submitted.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10241

• A player's prolonged unauthorised absence of approximately six months, without justification, constitutes a serious breach of contract entitling the club to terminate for just cause after conducting disciplinary proceedings.
• A player who culpably misses his return flight and fails to visit the Portuguese embassy in Senegal to obtain his visa bears responsibility for his inability to return, not the club.
• Article 17(2) of the 2023 FIFA RSTP does not impose joint-and-several liability on a new club where the old club dismissed the player for just cause and the new club played no causal role in and did not induce the termination.
• Clause 15(b) of the Player Contract, providing for a EUR 10,000,000 penalty upon the player's transfer to a third club, cannot serve as the basis for calculating compensation because it lacks reciprocity and proportionality.
• Compensation under Art. 17(1) FIFA RSTP is properly calculated as the average of the residual value of the old contract (EUR 242,500) and the player's remuneration under the new contract for the overlapping period (EUR 80,000), yielding EUR 161,250.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed CAS jurisdiction under Art. 57(1) FIFA Statutes and Art. R47 CAS Code, and admitted Istanbul Spor's Statement of Appeal despite courier non-delivery, accepting that a DHL Service Point error during the holiday season explained the failure. On the merits, she found that Coly's duty to cooperate in obtaining his visa required him personally to visit the Portuguese embassy in Senegal; his two alleged phone calls were insufficient, and he only notified Club Estoril of visa problems two days before his scheduled return flight. Once his visa was issued on 22 August 2022, no justification existed for his continued absence, and his claim of insufficient funds to buy a EUR 1,000 ticket was not credible given his salary level. Disciplinary proceedings with legal representation constituted adequate warning before termination as ultima ratio. On joint liability, the Arbitrator endorsed CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, holding that Art. 17(2) presupposes a causal link between the new club's conduct and the player's departure; where the old club dismisses the player and the new club merely provides subsequent employment, no such link exists. She declined to rule on the Diarra Decision's retroactive effect, finding Istanbul Spor not liable under the existing 2023 RSTP on its own terms. The TAD Decision was excluded as belatedly filed without exceptional circumstances justifying the five-week delay.

Why Coly / Istanbul Spor matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that Art. 17(2) FIFA RSTP's strict joint-and-several liability regime does not extend to a new club that hires a player already dismissed by his former club for just cause, where no inducement is established. Endorsing CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, the award draws a principled boundary between deterring contract-poaching and penalising innocent employers, and anticipates the post-Diarra revision of Art. 17(2) that now expressly requires proof of inducement before a new club can be held liable.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4408 CAS 2011/A/2567 CAS 2009/A/1838 CAS 2017/A/5164 CAS 2017/A/5092 CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366

Frequently asked questions about Coly / Istanbul Spor

Did CAS uphold Club Estoril's just-cause termination of Racine Coly's contract?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator found that Coly's failure to return to Portugal by 27 June 2022, and his continued absence after obtaining a valid visa on 22 August 2022, constituted a serious breach of the Player Contract. Club Estoril had conducted disciplinary proceedings in which Coly participated with legal counsel before terminating on 9 December 2022, satisfying the ultima ratio requirement.

Why was Istanbul Spor's joint-and-several liability under Art. 17(2) FIFA RSTP removed?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Art. 17(2) of the 2023 FIFA RSTP presupposes a causal link between the new club's conduct and the player's departure from his former club. Because Club Estoril dismissed Coly for just cause and there was no evidence that Istanbul Spor induced the breach or was involved in the termination, the strict liability provision did not apply. The award expressly endorsed the reasoning in CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366 to reach this conclusion.

How was the EUR 161,250 compensation figure calculated in the Coly case?

The FIFA DRC, confirmed by CAS, took the residual value of Coly's contract from the date of termination (December 2022) to its natural expiry (June 2024), amounting to EUR 242,500, and the remuneration Coly was entitled to under his Subsequent Player Contract with Istanbul Spor for the overlapping period (EUR 80,000), then calculated the average: (EUR 242,500 + EUR 80,000) ÷ 2 = EUR 161,250.

What impact did the CJEU Diarra Decision have on the Istanbul Spor / Coly case?

Istanbul Spor argued that the Diarra Decision (C-650/22, 4 October 2024), which found Art. 17(2) FIFA RSTP incompatible with Art. 45 TFEU, should apply retroactively to remove its liability. The Sole Arbitrator found it unnecessary to rule on retroactivity because she had already concluded that Istanbul Spor was not liable under the 2023 FIFA RSTP on its own terms, given the absence of any inducement. She noted that FIFA's Interim Regulations of 23 December 2024 subsequently revised Art. 17(2) to require proof of inducement.

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.