CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10382 — U Craiova 1948 SA v. André Lourenço Duarte & Reggiana 1919 SRL

"Craiova v. Duarte" · CAS invalidated a unilateral extension clause because the club failed to notify the player and the exercise deadline ran to the last day of the season.

What happened in Craiova v. Duarte

U Craiova 1948 SA (Romania) signed Portuguese midfielder André Lourenço Duarte on 28 June 2022 for one season (to 30 June 2023) with a unilateral option for Craiova to extend by one year to 30 June 2024. On 5 December 2022, Craiova notified the Romanian PFL — but not the player directly — that it was activating the option. The player disputed the extension from January 2023 onward, and on 1 July 2023 signed with Italian club Reggiana 1919 SRL. Craiova filed before the FIFA DRC claiming compensation of no less than 580,968.15 lei plus 5% p.a. and sporting sanctions. On 14 December 2023 the DRC rejected Craiova's claim, found the unilateral extension clause invalid, and ordered Craiova to pay the player EUR 6,500 in outstanding June 2023 salary plus 5% p.a. from 16 July 2023. Craiova appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the DRC decision in its entirety, holding the clause invalid on two independent grounds: (1) Craiova failed to prove it had notified the player of the option's exercise, as required by Clause VI.1.e of the contract itself; and (2) the deadline to exercise the option ran until 30 June 2023 — the very last day of the season — leaving the player at Craiova's mercy for a disproportionately long period. The case reinforces the Portmann criteria framework and the strict notification requirement for unilateral extension clauses.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10382

On 15 August 2023, Craiova filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber against the player and Reggiana, seeking compensation of no less than 580,968.15 lei plus 5% p.a. and sporting sanctions, on the basis that the player had breached a contract valid until 30 June 2024 by signing with Reggiana. The player filed an answer and counterclaim on 11 September 2023, requesting rejection of Craiova's claim, a declaration that Article IX was null and void, and payment of EUR 6,500 in outstanding salary. On 14 December 2023, the DRC issued Decision FPSD-11347, rejecting Craiova's claim, partially accepting the player's counterclaim, and ordering Craiova to pay EUR 6,500 plus 5% p.a. from 16 July 2023. Grounds were notified on 13 February 2024. Craiova filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 1 March 2024 and its Appeal Brief on 12 March 2024. A videoconference hearing was held on 29 October 2024. The Sole Arbitrator issued the award on 28 February 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10382

• A unilateral extension clause in a football employment contract is invalid where the club fails to prove it directly notified the player of the option's exercise, particularly when the contract itself (Clause VI.1.e) expressly grants the player the right to be informed of the activation of the extension clause.
• A unilateral extension clause that may be exercised until the very last day of the sporting season (30 June 2023) is unreasonable and invalid because it leaves the player at the club's mercy for a disproportionately long period, preventing him from seeking alternative employment during the transfer window.
• The validity of a unilateral extension clause must be assessed on a case-by-case basis applying the Portmann criteria and subsequent CAS/DRC jurisprudence; no FIFA regulation absolutely prohibits such clauses, but they are subject to strict scrutiny.
• A club that fails to submit evidence of a player's alleged unjustified absence from training cannot rely on that absence to justify non-payment of salary; the principle of pacta sunt servanda obliges the club to pay the outstanding remuneration.
• The burden of proving that a unilateral extension clause was validly exercised rests on the club invoking that right; failure to discharge that burden results in the clause being deemed not properly exercised.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the seven-factor Portmann/CAS framework drawn from CAS 2013/A/3260 and CAS 2005/A/973 to assess the clause on a case-by-case basis. He acknowledged that several criteria were satisfied: the extension was clearly stated in the contract, limited to one year, and the extended salary was pre-defined. However, two decisive defects rendered the clause invalid. First, although the clause on its face only required notification to the FRF/PFL, Clause VI.1.e of the same contract expressly gave the player the right to be informed of the activation. Craiova bore the burden of proving it had notified the player (per Article 8 Swiss Civil Code and CAS 2023/A/9444) but produced no such evidence. Second, the deadline to exercise the option ran until 30 June 2023 — the last day of the season — which the Sole Arbitrator found unreasonable by analogy with CAS 2013/A/3260 and Article 18(3) RSTP (which allows players to seek new clubs only within six months of contract expiry). This left the player unable to plan his career and at Craiova's mercy for an excessive period. The Sole Arbitrator rejected Craiova's argument that the player's agent had advised him, finding no evidence the agent represented the player (the Representation Agreement was between Craiova and the agent). On the salary issue, Craiova offered no evidence of the player's alleged training absences, so the pacta sunt servanda principle required payment of EUR 6,500.

Why Craiova v. Duarte matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that unilateral extension clauses in football employment contracts face a high threshold of validity under the Portmann criteria. It establishes that a club must directly notify the player — not merely the federation — when exercising such an option, especially where the contract itself grants the player that right. It also confirms that a deadline running to the last day of the season is per se unreasonable, as it prevents the player from using the transfer window to secure alternative employment, constituting an excessive restriction on freedom of movement.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2004/A/678 CAS 2005/A/973 TAS 2005/A/983 & 984 CAS 2013/A/3260 CAS 2014/A/3852 CAS 2020/A/7011 CAS 2023/A/9444

Frequently asked questions about Craiova v. Duarte

Why did CAS invalidate the unilateral extension clause in Craiova v. Duarte?

The Sole Arbitrator found two independent grounds for invalidity. First, Craiova failed to prove it had directly notified the player of the option's exercise, even though Clause VI.1.e of the Employment Agreement expressly gave the player the right to be informed of the activation of the extension clause. Second, the clause allowed Craiova to exercise the option until 30 June 2023 — the very last day of the sporting season — which was held unreasonable because it left the player unable to seek alternative employment during the transfer window and at Craiova's mercy for a disproportionately long period.

What are the Portmann criteria for unilateral extension clauses and how were they applied in Craiova v. Duarte?

The Portmann criteria, as consolidated in CAS 2013/A/3260, require that: (1) the maximum duration of the employment relationship is not excessive; (2) the option is exercised within an acceptable deadline before contract expiry; (3) the salary reward is defined in the original contract and constitutes a substantial increase; (4) one party is not at the mercy of the other; (5) the option is clearly established in the original contract; (6) the extension period is proportional to the main contract; and (7) the number of extensions is limited to one. In this case, the Sole Arbitrator found criteria (1), (5), (6), and (7) satisfied, but held the clause invalid because the exercise deadline ran to the last day of the season (failing criterion 2) and the player was left at Craiova's mercy due to lack of direct notification (failing criterion 4).

Was the player's June 2023 salary owed even though Craiova claimed he missed training?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the DRC's order that Craiova pay EUR 6,500 as outstanding salary for June 2023 plus 5% p.a. from 16 July 2023. Craiova argued the player had unjustifiably absented himself from training between 9 and 12 January 2023 and had imposed a EUR 2,000 fine, but it failed to submit any evidence of the alleged absences in June 2023. Applying the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Sole Arbitrator held Craiova was obliged to pay the contractually agreed monthly salary.

Did Craiova's notification to the PFL/FRF satisfy the requirement to exercise the unilateral extension option in Craiova v. Duarte?

No. Although Article IX of the Employment Agreement stated the option could be exercised 'by means of a written notification, sent to the RFF/PFL', the Sole Arbitrator held that this had to be read together with Clause VI.1.e, which expressly granted the player the right to be informed of the activation of the extension clause. Craiova sent its notification to the PFL on 5 December 2022 but produced no evidence of direct notification to the player. The player only learned of the extension through press interviews given by Craiova's representative on 9 and 14 January 2023, which the Sole Arbitrator found insufficient to satisfy the notification requirement.

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.