CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9686 — FC Krasnodar v. Erik Botheim and FC Salernitana 1919 S.R.L.

"Botheim" · CAS dismissed both the player's EUR 500,000 sign-on bonus claim and Krasnodar's compensation claims, finding the player terminated without just cause but awarding no damages under Article 337b(2) CO.

What happened in Botheim

Norwegian striker Erik Botheim joined FC Krasnodar in December 2021 on a contract running to 30 June 2025, with a EUR 1,000,000 net sign-on bonus payable in three instalments and a EUR 30,000,000 termination-payment clause. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Botheim left Russia on 3 March 2022 with the club's logistical assistance. Krasnodar proposed an unpaid-leave addendum, which the player rejected. After Krasnodar withheld all payments, Botheim served a termination notice on 17 May 2022 invoking Article 14bis FIFA RSTP and claiming the first sign-on instalment of EUR 500,000 plus salary arrears. He then signed with Salernitana. The FIFA DRC (1 February 2023) found a mutual departure, awarded the player EUR 500,000 (the sign-on bonus) plus 5% interest, and rejected Krasnodar's EUR 30,000,000 compensation claim. Krasnodar appealed to CAS. The panel held: (i) no contract suspension was agreed; (ii) the sign-on bonus did not fall due because the contractual disruption preceded its payment date; (iii) the player terminated without just cause by refusing to exercise the Annex 7 suspension option and demanding full payment; but (iv) Article 17(1) RSTP was not fit for purpose, the penalty clause did not apply to these extraordinary war-related circumstances, and under Article 337b(2) CO no compensation was owed to Krasnodar. Both claims were dismissed. The case matters because it is the first CAS award to apply Article 337b(2) CO to a war-disrupted football contract and to hold that Annex 7 FIFA RSTP constitutes the fair compromise a good-faith player should have accepted.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9686

On 24 June 2022 Botheim filed a claim before the FIFA DRC seeking outstanding salary, the EUR 500,000 first sign-on instalment, and compensation for termination with just cause. On 5 July 2022 Krasnodar filed a counter-claim for EUR 30,000,000 under the contractual penalty clause. The proceedings were consolidated on 22 July 2022. On 1 February 2023 the FIFA DRC rendered its decision: it found a mutual departure as of 5 April 2022, rejected both compensation claims, but ordered Krasnodar to pay EUR 500,000 as an outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. from 11 March 2022. The grounds were notified on 8 May 2023. Krasnodar filed its CAS Statement of Appeal on 29 May 2023, within the 21-day deadline under Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes. CAS was asked to annul the Appealed Decision, dismiss the player's EUR 500,000 award, and grant Krasnodar compensation of EUR 30,000,000 (or alternatively EUR 11,522,466 or EUR 6,000,000) jointly and severally against Botheim and Salernitana.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9686

• No verbal or tacit agreement to suspend the employment contract was concluded at the 2 March 2022 meeting, as no individual negotiations took place and no meeting of minds could be established.
• The first sign-on bonus instalment of EUR 500,000 did not fall due because the contractual disruption occurred before its payment date of 10 March 2022, and the Appellant was not in creditor's default given the objective, war-related reasons for non-performance.
• The player terminated the contract without just cause on 17 May 2022 by refusing to exercise the Annex 7 FIFA RSTP suspension option, demanding full payment for services not rendered, and failing to negotiate in good faith.
• Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP is not fit for purpose where the player's breach did not cause the loss of services (which would have been lost anyway under a lawful Annex 7 suspension), and the EUR 30,000,000 penalty clause in Clause 9.5.2 does not apply to the extraordinary war-related circumstances of this case.
• Under Article 337b(2) CO, exercising full discretion and considering all circumstances including the short effective service period, the absence of concrete transfer offers, and the player's relatively low degree of fault, no compensation is due to Krasnodar.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first assessed whether a suspension agreement existed, finding the burden on Krasnodar unmet: the meeting was chaotic, no individual negotiations occurred, and the player's boarding a club-arranged bus did not constitute implicit consent. The panel then analysed Annex 7 FIFA RSTP, concluding it gave the player a unilateral option to suspend — not an obligation — and that pending his decision the parties' obligations were factually suspended. Once the player definitively refused the option on 6 April 2022, obligations resumed in principle, but the player's insistence on full payment without providing services was incompatible with good faith. On the sign-on bonus, the panel applied Swiss law (Art. 82 and 324 CO), finding the war constituted an objective reason excluding creditor's default, so the bonus never fell due. On compensation, the panel rejected Art. 17(1) RSTP as inapt because the player's breach was not causally linked to the loss of services. The majority declined to apply Clause 9.5.2, reasoning it was not designed for war-disrupted contracts and that the parties' de facto suspension arrangement displaced it. Applying Art. 337b(2) CO — as endorsed in CAS 2020/A/7262 — the majority awarded nil, weighing the short effective contract duration, absence of concrete transfer offers, the club's own delay in formalising the situation, and the player's low overall fault in navigating unprecedented circumstances.

Why Botheim matters in CAS jurisprudence

This is the first CAS award to hold that Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP is 'not fit for purpose' where a player's unjustified termination did not causally deprive the club of services it would have retained anyway under a lawful Annex 7 suspension. The award establishes that Annex 7 FIFA RSTP constitutes the fair, good-faith compromise a player in the Russia-Ukraine war context was obliged to accept, and that Article 337b(2) CO fills the resulting lacuna, permitting a panel to award nil compensation even where the player terminated without just cause.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4387 CAS 2014/A/3523 CAS 2017/A/5256 CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402 CAS 2016/A/4859 CAS 2020/A/7262 CAS 2023/A/9404 CAS 2015/A/3953 & 3954 CAS 2023/A/9670 & 9671 CAS 2020/A/7567 CAS 2024/A/10279-10281

Frequently asked questions about Botheim

Did Botheim have just cause to terminate his contract with Krasnodar?

No. The CAS panel found that Botheim terminated the contract without just cause on 17 May 2022. The panel held he was not entitled to the EUR 500,000 sign-on bonus or the March/April 2022 salaries because the contractual disruption preceded those payment dates, and he breached his good-faith obligation to negotiate by refusing to exercise the Annex 7 FIFA RSTP suspension option while simultaneously demanding full payment.

Why did Krasnodar not receive the EUR 30 million penalty clause compensation?

The majority of the panel held that Clause 9.5.2 of the contract — which stipulated EUR 30,000,000 if the player terminated without just cause — was not intended to cover the extraordinary war-related circumstances of this case. The majority also found that Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP was not fit for purpose because the player's breach did not causally deprive Krasnodar of services it would have retained anyway under a lawful Annex 7 suspension. Applying Article 337b(2) CO, the panel exercised its discretion to award nil compensation.

Was Salernitana held jointly and severally liable for Botheim's termination?

No. Because the panel awarded no compensation to Krasnodar against Botheim, the claim against Salernitana under Article 17(2) FIFA RSTP was equally dismissed. The panel noted there was no evidence that Salernitana induced or was involved in the termination of the contract.

What did the Botheim case decide about the EUR 500,000 sign-on bonus?

The CAS panel reversed the FIFA DRC's award of EUR 500,000 to Botheim. It held that the sign-on bonus did not fall due because the contractual disruption — caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine — occurred before the 10 March 2022 payment date, and Krasnodar was not in creditor's default given the objective, war-related reasons that prevented the player from providing services. The panel applied Swiss law (Articles 82 and 324 CO) to reach this conclusion.

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.