CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

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

"Hajer FC v. Gačanin" · CAS partially upheld Hajer FC's appeal, enforcing a negotiated USD 24,000 liquidated damages clause over FIFA PSC's USD 106,700 compensation award.

What happened in Hajer FC v. Gačanin

Hajer FC, a Saudi Arabian football 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) as lacking reciprocity and proportionality. Hajer FC appealed to CAS, arguing the termination was mutually agreed and, alternatively, that Clause 7's USD 24,000 liquidated damages provision should govern compensation. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the mutual termination argument but upheld Clause 7, finding it genuinely reciprocal and proportionate given the parties' express written agreement after long negotiation, the short contract duration, and the absence of any proven bargaining power imbalance. The USD 10,000 contract provider payment was reclassified as outstanding remuneration rather than part of the breach compensation. The appeal was partially upheld, reducing the compensation from USD 106,700 to USD 24,000. The case matters because it reinforces that freely negotiated, clearly worded liquidated damages clauses should be respected unless compelling evidence of invalidity is shown.

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 plus further contractual amounts. Hajer FC argued the termination was by mutual verbal agreement. 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, rejecting Clause 7's liquidated damages provision as non-reciprocal and disproportionate. The grounds were notified on 22 December 2023. On 8 January 2024, Hajer FC filed its Statement of Appeal before CAS, requesting annulment of the FIFA PSC decision and application of the USD 24,000 contractual liquidated damages clause, or alternatively a reduction of compensation through mitigation. The Coach filed his Answer on 16 February 2024, requesting full confirmation of the FIFA PSC decision. The parties agreed to proceed without a hearing before Sole Arbitrator Jordi López Batet.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10289

• Poor sporting results do not constitute just cause for termination of a coaching contract, and an unsubstantiated verbal mutual termination agreement cannot override the written record of unilateral termination.
• A liquidated damages clause in a coaching contract that provides the same fixed compensation (USD 24,000) to either party upon termination, regardless of which party terminates, is reciprocal within the meaning of FIFA and CAS jurisprudence.
• Proportionality of a liquidated damages clause must be assessed on a case-by-case basis considering not only the residual contract value but also the parties' bargaining positions, their degree of knowledge of the clause, the contract duration, and their express written agreement that the amount is fair and proportionate.
• Where parties expressly state in their contract that a liquidated damages amount is 'fair and proportionate and agreed between both parties after long negotiation,' a higher threshold of evidence is required to deviate from that written consensus.
• A contractual 'contract provider payment' that is triggered by the signature of the agreement constitutes outstanding remuneration rather than a component of compensation for breach of contract.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed the unilateral termination finding, noting the Club itself acknowledged in its Appeal Brief that poor results do not constitute just cause under FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, and that no written mutual termination agreement existed. On the liquidated damages clause, the Arbitrator disagreed with the FIFA PSC on both reciprocity and proportionality. On reciprocity, Clause 7 expressly applied 'if either party terminates the contract' and fixed the same USD 24,000 amount regardless of which party terminated, making it plainly reciprocal. On proportionality, the Arbitrator relied on CAS 2023/A/9756 to hold that proportionality cannot be assessed solely by comparing the clause amount to the residual contract value; other factors — bargaining power, knowledge of the clause, contract duration, and the parties' own written declaration of fairness — must also be weighed. The Arbitrator found no evidence of error, coercion, or bargaining power imbalance, noted the Coach was experienced and the clause was a simple three-line provision in a three-page contract, and emphasised the parties' express written statement that USD 24,000 was 'fair and proportionate' after 'long negotiation.' The Respondent failed to substantiate claims of weak bargaining power. Accordingly, Clause 7 was valid and applicable, reducing compensation from USD 106,700 to USD 24,000. The USD 10,000 contract provider payment was reclassified as remuneration. Costs were split equally given the mixed outcome.

Why Hajer FC v. Gačanin matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a liquidated damages clause providing identical compensation to both parties upon termination is reciprocal as a matter of law, and that proportionality must be assessed holistically — not merely by comparing the clause amount to residual contract value. By enforcing the parties' express written declaration of fairness after 'long negotiation,' the award raises the evidentiary bar for invalidating freely negotiated liquidated damages clauses in coaching contracts, reinforcing contractual autonomy in FIFA/CAS disputes.

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 USD 24,000 liquidated damages clause in Hajer FC v. Gačanin?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that Clause 7 of the employment agreement, which fixed USD 24,000 as compensation payable by either party upon termination, was both reciprocal and proportionate. The FIFA PSC's award of USD 106,700 in breach compensation was reduced to USD 24,000, the contractually agreed amount.

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 consistently rejects poor results as just cause, and no written mutual termination agreement was on file to support the Club's alternative argument.

How did CAS assess proportionality of the liquidated damages clause in the Hajer FC v. Gačanin case?

The Sole Arbitrator, relying on CAS 2023/A/9756, held that proportionality must be assessed case-by-case considering not only the residual contract value but also the parties' bargaining power, their knowledge of the clause, the contract's short duration (10 months), and the parties' own written statement that USD 24,000 was 'fair and proportionate and agreed between both parties after long negotiation.' The Coach failed to prove any bargaining power imbalance or defect of consent.

Was the USD 10,000 contract provider payment treated as compensation or remuneration in Hajer FC v. Gačanin?

The Sole Arbitrator reclassified the USD 10,000 'contract provider payment' as outstanding remuneration rather than part of the compensation for breach of contract, because it was a payment entitlement triggered by the signature of the agreement itself. It was therefore ordered separately alongside the two months of unpaid salary, each carrying 5% per annum interest.

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.