CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10553 — FC Košice v. Anane Tidjani & Al-Rayan Club

"FC Košice v. Tidjani" · CAS upheld that a club's failure to obtain a player's visa constitutes just cause for the player to terminate his contract.

What happened in FC Košice v. Tidjani

FC Košice, a Slovak club, signed Beninese player Anane Tidjani on 1 September 2023 on a contract running until 31 December 2024, paying EUR 4,000 net per month. From the outset, Košice failed to secure the necessary visa and work permit for the Player. Despite multiple default notices from the Player's representative between November and December 2023, Košice's efforts — including engaging a law firm only on 11 October 2023, nearly six weeks after signing — proved unsuccessful. The Player was forced to leave Slovakia on 2 December 2023 when his temporary visa expired, and on 18 December 2023 he unilaterally terminated the Contract. He subsequently signed with Saudi club Al-Rayan on 26 December 2023 for USD 4,000 total remuneration. The Player filed a claim before the FIFA DRC, which on 4 April 2024 found just cause and awarded EUR 8,200 outstanding remuneration and EUR 44,400 compensation. Košice appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed just cause but corrected the outstanding remuneration figure to EUR 4,400 (accounting for Košice's February 2024 partial payment of EUR 3,800), maintaining the EUR 44,400 compensation. The case matters because it reinforces that clubs bear a pre-contractual due-diligence duty to verify and secure visa eligibility before signing foreign players.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10553

On 25 December 2023, the Player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC). On 4 April 2024, the FIFA DRC rendered the Appealed Decision (No. FPSD-13169), partially accepting the Player's claims: it rejected Košice's counterclaim, ordered Košice to pay EUR 8,200 as outstanding remuneration and EUR 44,400 as compensation for breach of contract, both with 5% interest p.a. from 18 December 2023. The grounds were communicated on 24 April 2024. On 14 May 2024 — 20 days after notification, within the 21-day deadline — Košice filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Article R47 and R48 of the CAS Code. Košice sought to have the decision set aside, claiming the Player terminated without just cause and requesting EUR 48,000 compensation from the Player and EUR 275,000 from Al-Rayan. The matter was referred to a sole arbitrator. No hearing was held; the award was decided on written submissions alone.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10553

• A club bears the primary obligation to take all necessary steps to obtain a work permit and visa for a foreign player, and this duty arises before the contract is signed.
• A player's unilateral termination of an employment contract is justified with just cause where the club's failure to secure a visa is material, prevents the player from performing his contractual duties, and the termination is a last resort (ultima ratio).
• Article 17(1) of the FIFA RSTP applies to calculate compensation even where a contract is terminated with just cause, not only in cases of termination without just cause.
• Additional compensation under Article 17(1)(ii) of the FIFA RSTP (three monthly salaries) is not awarded where the early termination is due to visa/work permit failure rather than overdue payables.
• CAS cannot subpoena witnesses; each party is responsible for securing the attendance of its own witnesses, and a request to summon the opposing party's employees must be dismissed.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP and the FIFA RSTP Commentary (2023 edition) to assess just cause, requiring a material breach rendering continuation of the employment relationship unreasonable, with termination as ultima ratio. He held that clubs must exercise pre-contractual due diligence on visa requirements and cannot shift that obligation to the player via a contractual declaration of no obstacles. Košice's failure to assess visa needs before signing, its six-week delay in engaging a law firm, and its continued inability to resolve the situation despite five default notices were found collectively to constitute a material breach. The Arbitrator rejected Košice's argument that the Player was already negotiating with Al-Rayan, finding no evidence of bad faith and noting the Player had given Košice multiple opportunities to cure. On compensation, he applied Article 17(1)(ii) FIFA RSTP: residual value EUR 48,000 minus Al-Rayan remuneration EUR 3,600 equals EUR 44,400 mitigated compensation. He rejected Košice's challenge to the Al-Rayan contract as unsubstantiated. He declined additional compensation because the termination was not due to overdue payables. The outstanding remuneration was corrected to EUR 4,400 to reflect Košice's partial payment of EUR 3,800 in February 2024. Interest at 5% p.a. was awarded under Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

Why FC Košice v. Tidjani matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates the principle that a club's pre-contractual duty to verify and secure visa eligibility is non-delegable and cannot be contractually transferred to the player by a declaration of 'no obstacles.' It confirms that Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP governs compensation even in just-cause terminations by the player, and clarifies that additional compensation (three monthly salaries) is reserved strictly for terminations caused by overdue payables, not visa failures. The case also illustrates CAS's limits in compelling third-party witnesses.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6796 CAS 2016/A/4884 CAS 2014/A/3684 CAS 2009/A/1838 CAS 2017/A/5164 CAS 2018/A/5586

Frequently asked questions about FC Košice v. Tidjani

Did FC Košice v. Tidjani establish that a club must obtain a player's visa before signing the contract?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held, consistent with the FIFA RSTP Commentary (2023 edition), that obtaining a valid work permit and visa is an administrative formality a club must complete prior to signing a contract with a player. Košice's failure to assess the Player's visa needs before concluding the Contract on 1 September 2023, and its six-week delay in engaging a law firm, were found to constitute a material breach justifying the Player's termination.

How was the compensation calculated in FC Košice v. Tidjani, and why was the FIFA DRC figure changed?

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 17(1)(ii) of the FIFA RSTP: residual contract value of EUR 48,000 (12 monthly salaries of EUR 4,000 for January–December 2024) minus EUR 3,600 (the Al-Rayan remuneration of USD 4,000 for the corresponding period) equals EUR 44,400 mitigated compensation. The outstanding remuneration was reduced from EUR 8,200 to EUR 4,400 because Košice had paid EUR 3,800 of the November 2023 salary on 1 February 2024, a payment the FIFA DRC had not accounted for.

Was Al-Rayan held jointly liable for compensation in the FC Košice v. Tidjani case?

No. Košice requested EUR 275,000 from Al-Rayan based on the Player's transfermarkt.com market value, arguing Al-Rayan signed the Player without a transfer agreement while the Contract was still valid. The Sole Arbitrator found the Player had terminated with just cause, so there was no wrongful inducement, and all claims against Al-Rayan were dismissed.

Can a player's contractual declaration of 'no obstacles' to performing services shift the visa obligation from the club to the player under CAS jurisprudence?

No. In FC Košice v. Tidjani, Košice argued that Article II paragraph 3 of the Contract — in which the Player declared no knowledge of facts preventing him from performing — transferred the visa obligation to the Player. The Sole Arbitrator rejected this, holding that clubs cannot generally expect players to have knowledge of specific visa requirements in foreign countries, and that the pre-contractual due-diligence duty to verify visa eligibility rests with the club as employer.

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.