CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10646 — Club A. v. B.

"Club A. v. B." · CAS upheld FIFA DRC's award of KZT 66,112,606.45 to a Belarusian player after his Kazakh club failed to validly invoke a contractual no-compensation termination window.

What happened in Club A. v. B.

A Kazakh football club (Club A.) signed a Belarusian player (B.) on 12 July 2023 on a contract running to 30 November 2024. Clause 11.7 permitted either party to terminate without compensation between 1–15 December 2023, provided written notice was given at least five working days before the termination date. The club attempted to terminate on 6 December 2023 by routing a WhatsApp message through the sporting director of the player's former club, and again on 12 December 2023 directly to the player. The player objected; the club insisted the termination was valid. The player filed a claim with the FIFA DRC on 6 February 2024. The club failed to participate in those proceedings due to email/portal access issues. On 22 April 2024 the FIFA DRC found the termination unlawful and ordered the club to pay KZT 66,112,606.45 plus 5% p.a. interest from 12 December 2023. The club appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator conducted a de novo review, held that the 6 December notice was not validly delivered (routed through an unauthorised third party) and the 12 December notice was out of time (deadline was 10 December 2023 at 23h59), confirmed the termination was without just cause, and upheld the FIFA DRC award in full. The case matters because it clarifies how contractual no-compensation windows must be interpreted under in dubio contra stipulatorem and Swiss law, and confirms that routing termination notices through unauthorised intermediaries is ineffective.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10646

On 6 February 2024 the player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (case No. FPSD-13848). The club failed to submit a timely defence, allegedly due to technical issues accessing the FIFA Legal Portal after changing its email address. On 22 April 2024 the FIFA DRC partially accepted the player's claim, ordering the club to pay KZT 66,112,606.45 as compensation plus 5% p.a. interest from 12 December 2023; the grounds were issued on 16 May 2024. The club filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 5 June 2024, within the 21-day limit under Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes. An Appeal Brief was filed on 9 July 2024; the player's Answer followed on 20 August 2024. An online hearing was held on 18 November 2024. The Sole Arbitrator was asked to annul the FIFA DRC decision and find the termination valid, or alternatively to reduce any compensation.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10646

• Under Article 11.7 of the Contract, interpreted pursuant to the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem and Article 18(1) CO, written notice of termination without compensation had to be delivered to the counterparty by 10 December 2023 at 23h59 at the latest.
• A termination notice routed through the sporting director of the player's former club (Mr Dmitry Ageev) was not a valid delivery, as he was neither the player's official agent nor in any contractual relationship with him, and Article 5(1) FIFA RSTP prohibits a club official from representing a player.
• The club's failure to participate in the FIFA DRC proceedings was due to its own fault in not taking all available steps (e.g. submitting a support ticket or contacting FIFA by registered mail) to access the portal; accordingly its right to be heard was not violated, and any such violation would in any event be cured by CAS's de novo review.
• Because the club provided no just cause for the unilateral termination beyond reliance on the inapplicable Article 11.7, the termination was without just cause and compensation is owed under Article 17(1) RSTP.
• Applying the principles of ne iudex eat ultra petita partium and non reformatio in peius, the compensation is confirmed at KZT 66,112,606.45 gross plus 5% p.a. interest from 12 December 2023 pursuant to Article 104(1) CO.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first dismissed the right-to-be-heard complaint, finding the club responsible for its own portal access failure and noting that CAS's de novo review cures any such defect. On the merits, he interpreted Article 11.7 by reference to the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem (the clause was ultimately drafted by the club) and Article 18(1) CO: because the termination window closed on 15 December 2023 and five working days' notice was required before the termination date, the latest permissible notice date was 10 December 2023 at 23h59. The 6 December 2023 attempt failed because the notice was routed through Mr Ageev, who was neither the player's agent nor an authorised communication channel, and WhatsApp had not been established as a regular means of communication between the parties; the player was also on vacation. The 12 December 2023 attempt was simply out of time. The Arbitrator declined to assess the clause's validity under Articles 334 and 335c CO on grounds of procedural economy, since the club had failed to comply with the clause's conditions regardless. No just cause was identified. Compensation was calculated at KZT 99,234,831 residual value, mitigated by the player's new earnings of RUB 6,250,000 (KZT 32,437,500 at the 17 January 2025 exchange rate of 5.19), yielding KZT 66,797,331, but capped at the claimed KZT 66,112,606.45 by ne ultra petita and non reformatio in peius.

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

The award provides a detailed framework for interpreting contractual no-compensation termination windows in player contracts under Swiss law and FIFA RSTP, confirming that: (i) ambiguous notice deadlines are construed against the drafting club under in dubio contra stipulatorem; (ii) routing termination notices through unauthorised third parties (including officials of a player's former club) is legally ineffective; and (iii) a club's self-inflicted failure to participate in FIFA DRC proceedings does not constitute a violation of the right to be heard where CAS conducts a full de novo review.

Cases cited in this award

BGE 113 II 261 E. 2

Frequently asked questions about Club A. v. B.

What did the CAS decide in Club A. v. B. about the no-compensation termination window?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 11.7 of the contract, which allowed termination without compensation between 1–15 December 2023, required written notice to be delivered by 10 December 2023 at 23h59 at the latest. Because the club's first attempt on 6 December 2023 was routed through an unauthorised third party and its second attempt on 12 December 2023 was out of time, neither notice was valid and the termination was unlawful.

Can a football club send a termination notice through the sporting director of a player's former club?

No. In CAS 2024/A/10646 the Sole Arbitrator ruled that routing a termination notice through Mr Dmitry Ageev, the sporting director of the player's former club FC X., was not a valid delivery. Ageev was neither the player's official agent nor in any contractual relationship with him, and Article 5(1) FIFA RSTP prohibits a club official from representing a player.

How is the in dubio contra stipulatorem principle applied to termination clauses in CAS 2024/A/10646?

The Sole Arbitrator found that although Article 11.7 was mutually agreed upon, the final wording was drafted by the club. Applying in dubio contra stipulatorem alongside Article 18(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations, he interpreted the ambiguous notice deadline against the club, requiring notice by 10 December 2023 at 23h59 rather than the club's preferred reading of 15 December 2023.

What compensation was awarded to the player in Club A. v. B. and how was it calculated?

The FIFA DRC and CAS confirmed compensation of KZT 66,112,606.45 gross plus 5% p.a. interest from 12 December 2023. The residual contract value was KZT 99,234,831; this was mitigated by the player's new earnings of RUB 6,250,000 (equivalent to KZT 32,437,500 at the 17 January 2025 exchange rate of 5.19), yielding KZT 66,797,331, but the amount was capped at the player's claimed figure of KZT 66,112,606.45 under the principle of ne iudex eat ultra petita partium.

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.