CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9953 & CAS 2023/A/9954 & CAS 2023/A/9978 — FC A. v. FC B. & C. v. FC B.

"FC A. v. FC B." · CAS upheld the FIFA DRC finding that a player who caused his own non-registration terminated his contract without just cause.

What happened in FC A. v. FC B.

A professional player (C.) contracted with Moldovan club FC B. from 9 July 2021 to 30 June 2024. After participating in national team matches in June 2022, the player sustained an injury and remained abroad for over three months without returning to the club, despite three written warnings. FC B. was unable to register the player for the 2022/2023 season because the player's medical certificate expired on 26 July 2022 and he only returned on 29 September 2022, after the registration window closed. Upon return, the parties signed an Additional Agreement reducing the player's salary for a limited period. On 21 November 2022, the player terminated the contract, citing non-registration and alleged duress in signing the Additional Agreement. He then signed with Serbian club FC A. in January 2023 and was later transferred to FC D. in June 2023. The FIFA DRC on 7 July 2023 found the termination was without just cause and ordered the player to pay compensation to FC B., with FC A. jointly and severally liable. All three parties appealed to CAS. The Panel confirmed the termination was without just cause, adjusted the outstanding remuneration and compensation figures to account for the Additional Agreement's salary reduction, and confirmed FC A.'s joint and several liability. The case matters because it clarifies that a player whose own unauthorised absence causes a club's failure to register him cannot rely on that non-registration as just cause for termination.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9953

On 12 January 2023, the player lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal against FC B., seeking a finding of just cause termination and compensation. FC B. filed a counterclaim seeking compensation from the player and FC A. jointly and severally. On 7 July 2023, the FIFA DRC partially accepted both the claim and counterclaim: it ordered FC B. to pay the player outstanding remuneration and ordered the player to pay FC B. compensation for breach of contract without just cause, with FC A. jointly and severally liable. The grounds were notified on 14 August 2023. On 4 September 2023, all three parties filed Statements of Appeal with CAS. The proceedings were consolidated by agreement. A three-member panel was constituted and a hearing was held in Lausanne on 28 May 2024. FC B. withdrew its request for sporting sanctions at the hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9953

• A player whose own unauthorised absence prevents a club from obtaining the medical certificate required for registration cannot rely on the resulting non-registration as just cause to terminate the employment contract.
• The presumption that a club's failure to register a player constitutes a breach of fundamental contractual and personality rights can be rebutted where the failure is caused by the player's own unjustified conduct.
• An Additional Agreement reducing a player's salary for a limited period is not abusive conduct under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP where the reduction reflects the player's own unauthorised absence and consequent non-registration.
• When calculating compensation under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, remuneration under all subsequent contracts covering the original contractual period — not only the first new contract — must be included in the average remuneration calculation.
• Joint and several liability of the new club under Article 17(2) FIFA RSTP applies automatically regardless of whether the new club induced the breach, and no exceptional circumstances existed here to justify an exception.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied the burden of proof principle under Article 8 SCC, placing the onus on the player to establish just cause. On non-registration, the Panel accepted that registration is normally a club obligation whose breach presumptively violates a player's personality rights, but found FC B. rebutted this presumption: Article 6 of the FMF RSTP required a valid medical certificate for registration, the player's certificate expired on 26 July 2022, and the player only returned on 29 September 2022 after the registration window closed. The Panel rejected the player's claim that his absence was authorised, relying on three written warnings and WhatsApp evidence showing the agent Mr E. repeatedly urged the player to return. On the Additional Agreement, the Panel found the player failed to prove duress; two witnesses testified he received the draft the day before signing, and he never complained before terminating the contract 11 days after leaving the club. The Panel held the salary reduction was not abusive given the player's own conduct. On compensation, the Panel adjusted the residual contract value to reflect the Additional Agreement's salary reduction, confirmed inclusion of both the FC A. and FC D. contract remunerations for the overlapping period, and rejected the missed transfer fee argument for lack of logical nexus. The specificity of sport concept was found inapplicable to alter the result in either direction.

Why FC A. v. FC B. matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that the non-registration presumption in favour of a player is rebuttable where the player's own unauthorised absence directly caused the club's inability to register him. It also confirms that under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, all subsequent contracts covering the original contractual period — not merely the first new contract — must be factored into the compensation average, and that joint and several liability under Article 17(2) is automatic with no good-faith exception for new clubs.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2003/A/506 CAS 2004/A/587 CAS 2005/A/801 CAS 2005/A/909-910-911 CAS 2008/A/1447 CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 CAS 2009/A/1810&1811 CAS 2009/A/1975 CAS 2012/A/2698 CAS 2013/A/3091 CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093 CAS 2015/A/4122 CAS 2018/A/5607 CAS 2018/A/5624 CAS 2020/A/6796

Frequently asked questions about FC A. v. FC B.

Did the player have just cause to terminate his contract with FC B. because the club failed to register him?

No. The CAS Panel held that while a club's failure to register a player normally constitutes a breach of fundamental contractual and personality rights, that presumption was rebutted here. The player's own unauthorised absence from 17 June to 29 September 2022 meant he was not present to pass the mandatory medical examination required by Article 6 of the FMF RSTP before the registration window closed in early September 2022, so the non-registration was caused by his own conduct.

Was the Additional Agreement signed by the player with FC B. valid, and could it reduce his salary?

Yes. The Panel found the player failed to discharge his burden of proof that he was forced or pressured to sign the Additional Agreement; two witnesses testified he received the draft the day before signing. The Panel also held that the salary reduction for a limited future period did not fall under the waiver prohibition of Article 341 SCO and was not abusive conduct under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP given the exceptional circumstances of the player's own unauthorised absence.

Is FC A. jointly and severally liable for the compensation owed to FC B. even though it did not induce the player to breach his contract?

Yes. The Panel confirmed that joint and several liability under Article 17(2) FIFA RSTP applies automatically to the new club regardless of inducement or fault, citing CAS 2020/A/6796 and the Swiss Federal Tribunal decision 4A_32/2016. The Panel found no exceptional circumstances justifying an exception, and noted that FC A. signed the player despite being informed by FC B. that the termination was without just cause.

How did CAS calculate the compensation payable to FC B. under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, and was the FC D. contract included?

The Panel calculated the average between the residual value of the original contract (adjusted for the Additional Agreement's salary reduction) and the player's remuneration under both the FC A. contract and the FC D. contract for the period up to the original expiry date of 30 June 2024, then added the non-amortised transfer fee originally paid by FC B. The Panel held that Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP does not limit consideration to only the first new contract; any subsequent contract covering the original contractual period must be included to give a fair picture of the player's value during the relevant period.

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.