CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10725 — Anorthosis Famagusta FC v. Erik Sabo

"Anorthosis Famagusta v. Sabo" · CAS dismissed Cypriot club's appeal and confirmed EUR 215,000 plus 15% interest owed to Slovakian player under termination agreement.

What happened in Anorthosis Famagusta v. Sabo

Anorthosis Famagusta FC, a Cypriot club, and Slovakian player Erik Sabo concluded an Employment Agreement on 7 July 2022 worth EUR 200,000 net per season plus allowances. On 10 January 2024 the parties signed a Termination Agreement under which the club owed EUR 220,000 net in twelve instalments. A 1 February 2024 Amendment Agreement restructured the first instalment into payments of EUR 5,000 and EUR 14,000. The club paid only EUR 5,000 and made no further payments. The player filed a claim before the FIFA DRC on 19 March 2024. The DRC (Decision FPSD-14134, 30 May 2024) awarded EUR 215,000 net plus 15% interest p.a. from 19 March 2024, rejecting the player's primary claim to revert to the full Employment Agreement value. The club appealed to CAS, arguing (i) the CFA NDRC had exclusive jurisdiction and (ii) the parties had orally agreed to defer all remaining payments to 31 December 2024. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed both grounds: the Termination Agreement's Clause 11 expressly conferred jurisdiction on FIFA's Football Tribunal, the club had waived any jurisdictional objection by not responding before the DRC, and the club produced no evidence of the alleged oral modification. The DRC decision was confirmed in full. The case matters because it reinforces that a termination/settlement agreement supersedes an earlier employment contract's forum-selection clause, and that unproven oral modifications cannot override written agreements.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10725

On 19 March 2024 Erik Sabo filed a claim before the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (DRC), seeking primarily EUR 295,000 net (full Employment Agreement value less amounts paid) with 18% interest, or alternatively EUR 215,000 net (unpaid Termination Agreement balance) with 18% interest. The club did not submit any answer. On 30 May 2024 the DRC issued Decision FPSD-14134, partially accepting the claim and ordering the club to pay EUR 215,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 15% interest p.a. from 19 March 2024; all further claims were rejected. The grounds were notified on 21 June 2024. On 8 July 2024 Anorthosis Famagusta filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Article R48 of the CAS Code, requesting a sole arbitrator and English as the language of proceedings. The player did not object. Both parties ultimately agreed to proceed on written submissions only, waiving a hearing. The Order of Procedure was signed by the player on 8 December 2024 and by the club on 14 January 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10725

• The Termination Agreement's Clause 11, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to FIFA's Football Tribunal, superseded the CFA NDRC arbitration clause in the earlier Employment Agreement's Standard Employment Contract, because the dispute arose from non-payment under the Termination Agreement, not the Employment Agreement.
• A club that fails to contest FIFA's jurisdiction before the DRC — including by simply not responding to the claim — is deemed to have waived its right to challenge that jurisdiction on appeal before CAS.
• The burden of proving an alleged oral modification of a written agreement rests on the party asserting it; the club's unsupported assertion of a phone-call agreement was insufficient to discharge that burden under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.
• A contractually agreed interest rate of 15% per annum does not violate Swiss public policy, as the Swiss Federal Tribunal has held that rates up to 18% per annum are acceptable (ATF 93 II 189).
• Where a party claiming an oral agreement provides no evidence of when, between whom, or what was discussed, CAS will apply the written agreement as executed, consistent with the principle pacta sunt servanda.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first identified the Termination Agreement as the governing document because the dispute concerned non-payment of termination instalments, not obligations under the original Employment Agreement. Clause 11 of the Termination Agreement expressly assigned exclusive jurisdiction to FIFA's Football Tribunal, displacing the CFA NDRC clause in the Standard Employment Contract. The arbitrator further noted that the club had not responded before the DRC and offered no justification for that silence, triggering the CAS-established principle of deemed waiver of jurisdictional objections (citing CAS 2020/A/7267 and CAS 2021/A/8991, among others). On the merits, the club admitted the EUR 215,000 outstanding balance but claimed an oral agreement had deferred all payments to 31 December 2024. The arbitrator acknowledged that oral contracts are enforceable under Swiss law (Article 11 CO, citing CAS 2021/A/8252), but held that the club bore the burden of proof under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code and produced no evidence — no date, no participants, no details of the alleged call. Citing CAS 2019/A/6129, CAS 2018/A/5607, and CAS 2023/A/9438 and CAS 2023/A/9444, the arbitrator rejected the oral-modification argument. Finally, reviewing the 15% interest rate ex officio for Swiss public policy compliance, the arbitrator confirmed it was within the permissible ceiling of 18% established by ATF 93 II 189.

Why Anorthosis Famagusta v. Sabo matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a termination/settlement agreement containing its own forum-selection clause will govern jurisdictional questions arising from non-payment of that agreement, overriding any forum clause in the underlying employment contract. It also reinforces the CAS doctrine that silence before the DRC constitutes a waiver of jurisdictional objections on appeal, and confirms that unsubstantiated oral-modification defences will fail under the burden-of-proof standard applied consistently across CAS jurisprudence.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7267 CAS 2021/A/8991 CAS 2021/A/8252 CAS 2019/A/6129 CAS 2023/A/9438 CAS 2023/A/9444

Frequently asked questions about Anorthosis Famagusta v. Sabo

Why did CAS reject Anorthosis Famagusta's argument that the CFA NDRC had exclusive jurisdiction over the Sabo dispute?

The Sole Arbitrator held that the dispute arose from non-payment under the Termination Agreement, not the Employment Agreement, so the Termination Agreement's Clause 11 — which granted exclusive jurisdiction to FIFA's Football Tribunal — governed. Additionally, the club had not raised any jurisdictional objection before the DRC (it did not even file an answer), and CAS jurisprudence treats that silence as a deemed waiver of the right to contest FIFA's jurisdiction on appeal.

Can a club escape liability under a termination agreement by claiming the player orally agreed to a new payment schedule?

Not without evidence. In Anorthosis Famagusta v. Sabo the club argued the parties had agreed by phone to defer the entire EUR 215,000 balance to 31 December 2024, but provided no details of when the call occurred, who participated, or what was said. The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code and consistent CAS jurisprudence to hold that the club bore the burden of proving the oral modification and had failed to discharge it, so the written Termination Agreement stood.

Is a 15% per annum interest rate in a football termination agreement enforceable at CAS?

Yes. In this case the Sole Arbitrator reviewed the 15% rate ex officio for Swiss public policy compliance and confirmed it was permissible. Citing CAS 2021/A/7673 & CAS 2021/A/7699 and ATF 93 II 189, the arbitrator noted that the Swiss Federal Tribunal has held interest rates up to 18% per annum acceptable; only above that threshold is a rate considered usurious and contrary to public morals.

What happens if a club ignores a FIFA DRC claim and then tries to contest FIFA's jurisdiction at CAS?

The club will almost certainly be precluded from doing so. In Anorthosis Famagusta v. Sabo the Sole Arbitrator applied the well-established CAS principle — confirmed in CAS 2020/A/7267 and multiple earlier awards — that a party which participates in (or simply fails to respond to) FIFA DRC proceedings without raising a jurisdictional objection is deemed to have waived that objection and cannot revive it on appeal before CAS.

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.