CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10289 — Hajer FC v. Rodion Gačanin

"Hajer FC v. Gačanin" · CAS upheld a negotiated liquidated-damages clause of USD 24,000, reducing FIFA PSC's compensation award of USD 106,700.

What happened in Hajer FC v. Gačanin

Hajer FC, a Saudi Arabian club, hired Croatian coach Rodion Gačanin as head coach on 18 June 2023 for a term of 1 July 2023 to 31 May 2024 at USD 12,000 per month plus a USD 10,000 contract provider payment. On 29 September 2023, the club terminated the agreement citing poor sporting results. The coach filed a claim before the FIFA Player Status Chamber (PSC), which on 5 December 2023 awarded him USD 24,000 in outstanding salaries and USD 106,700 in compensation for breach of contract, rejecting the contractual liquidated-damages clause (Clause 7, USD 24,000) as lacking reciprocity and proportionality. Hajer FC appealed to CAS, arguing the clause was valid and should cap compensation. The Sole Arbitrator partially upheld the appeal, finding Clause 7 both reciprocal (same amount payable by either party) and proportionate given the parties' express written agreement after 'long negotiation,' the short contract duration, and the absence of any proven bargaining-power imbalance. Compensation was reduced from USD 106,700 to USD 24,000. The USD 10,000 contract provider payment was reclassified as outstanding remuneration rather than part of the breach compensation. The case matters because it sets a high threshold for disregarding freely negotiated liquidated-damages clauses in coaching contracts.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10289

On 13 October 2023, coach Rodion Gačanin filed a claim before the FIFA Player Status Chamber (FIFA PSC) against Hajer FC seeking outstanding remuneration, a contract provider payment, compensation for breach of contract, return air tickets and additional compensation. On 5 December 2023, the FIFA PSC partially accepted the claim, ordering Hajer FC to pay USD 24,000 in outstanding salaries and USD 106,700 in compensation for breach of contract (plus 5% p.a. interest), while rejecting the contractual liquidated-damages clause as disproportionate and non-reciprocal. The grounds were notified on 22 December 2023. On 8 January 2024, Hajer FC filed a Statement of Appeal before CAS, followed by an Appeal Brief on 25 January 2024. The Respondent filed his Answer on 16 February 2024. No hearing was held; the Sole Arbitrator decided on written submissions. The Respondent confirmed he had not been employed since the termination.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10289

• Poor sporting results do not constitute just cause for terminating a coaching contract, and the club's failure to prove a mutual termination agreement meant the termination was without just cause.
• A contractual liquidated-damages clause takes precedence over Article 17.1 FIFA RSTP for calculating breach compensation, provided it is reciprocal and proportionate.
• Clause 7 of the Agreement was reciprocal because the same USD 24,000 compensation applied regardless of which party terminated, and proportionate given the parties' express written acknowledgment of fairness after long negotiation, the short contract duration, and the absence of proven bargaining-power imbalance.
• The USD 10,000 'contract provider payment' is outstanding remuneration triggered by the signature of the Agreement, not part of the compensation for breach of contract.
• Interest at 5% per annum accrues on the compensation amount from 30 September 2023 (the day after premature termination) in accordance with Articles 102 and 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed the termination was without just cause, noting the club itself acknowledged in its Appeal Brief that poor results are not just cause under FIFA/CAS jurisprudence, and no mutual termination agreement was on file. On compensation, the Arbitrator applied the principle from CAS 2016/A/4826 that a contractual clause takes precedence over Article 17.1 FIFA RSTP. He disagreed with the FIFA PSC's finding that Clause 7 lacked reciprocity, observing that the clause applied equally to both parties and set the same amount regardless of who terminated. On proportionality, drawing on CAS 2023/A/9756, he held that disproportion must be assessed case-by-case considering bargaining power, degree of knowledge, and contractual balance — not merely by comparing the liquidated sum to the residual contract value. Key factors favouring validity: the parties expressly wrote that USD 24,000 was 'fair and proportionate' after 'long negotiation'; the coach was experienced and the clause was clear; the contract was short (10 months); and the coach neither alleged nor proved error, coercion, or bargaining-power imbalance. The Arbitrator concluded that a higher threshold was needed to override the parties' written consensus, which neither the FIFA PSC nor the Respondent met.

Why Hajer FC v. Gačanin matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that freely negotiated, clearly worded, and expressly reciprocal liquidated-damages clauses in coaching contracts should be enforced, setting a high threshold for their disregard. It clarifies that proportionality must be assessed holistically — including bargaining power, negotiation history, and contractual balance — not solely by comparing the agreed sum to the residual contract value, aligning with the approach in CAS 2023/A/9756 and limiting the reach of CAS 2016/A/4605 and CAS 2020/A/7011.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4826 CAS 2016/A/4605 CAS 2020/A/7011 CAS 2023/A/9756

Frequently asked questions about Hajer FC v. Gačanin

Did CAS enforce the liquidated damages clause in Hajer FC v. Gačanin?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that Clause 7 of the employment agreement, which fixed compensation at USD 24,000 for termination by either party, was both reciprocal and proportionate. He reduced the FIFA PSC's compensation award from USD 106,700 to USD 24,000, finding that the parties had expressly agreed the amount was 'fair and proportionate' after 'long negotiation.'

What test does CAS apply to decide whether a liquidated damages clause in a coaching contract is proportionate?

According to this award, proportionality must be assessed case-by-case considering all relevant circumstances, including the parties' bargaining power, their degree of knowledge of the clause, the balance of the clause, and the parties' own written acknowledgment of fairness — not merely by comparing the liquidated sum to the residual value of the contract. The Arbitrator relied on CAS 2023/A/9756 for this broader approach.

Can poor sporting results justify termination with just cause under FIFA rules, as argued in Hajer FC v. Gačanin?

No. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that poor results do not constitute just cause for terminating a coaching contract. Notably, Hajer FC itself acknowledged in its Appeal Brief that FIFA and CAS jurisprudence does not recognise poor results as just cause, and the club failed to prove any mutual termination agreement existed.

How did CAS treat the USD 10,000 contract provider payment in the Hajer FC v. Gačanin award?

The Sole Arbitrator reclassified the USD 10,000 'contract provider payment' as outstanding remuneration — a payment triggered by the signature of the Agreement — rather than as part of the compensation for breach of contract. The FIFA PSC had included it within the USD 106,700 compensation figure, but CAS treated it as a separate remuneration entitlement owed to the coach regardless of the breach calculation.

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.