CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10775 — Al Salmiya Sporting Club v. Srdjan Spiridonovic

"Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic" · CAS upheld player's just-cause termination for unpaid wages and abusive training exclusion, reducing compensation to USD 381,788.33 after mitigation.

What happened in Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic

Austrian-Serbian footballer Srdjan Spiridonovic signed a contract with Kuwaiti club Al Salmiya SC on 27 January 2024, valid through 31 May 2025. From the outset, the Club failed to pay his USD 30,000 sign-on fee and USD 24,000 February 2024 salary. The Club also initiated disciplinary proceedings it could not substantiate, excluded the Player from collective training for over five consecutive weeks without rest days, and conditioned his reinstatement on waiving his right to appeal the disciplinary sanction. On 26 March 2024, the Player terminated the contract in writing. The FIFA DRC awarded him USD 78,000 in outstanding remuneration, USD 372,000 in compensation, EUR 403.65 in flight expenses, and imposed a two-registration-period transfer ban on the Club. Al Salmiya appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed just cause under Article 14 FIFA RSTP (though not Article 14bis, due to a procedural defect in the default notice), reduced outstanding remuneration to USD 54,000 (excluding the March 2024 salary not yet due), and recalculated compensation to USD 381,788.33 after deducting earnings the Player could have earned at NŠ Mura. The transfer ban challenge was dismissed as inadmissible because FIFA was not named as a respondent. The case matters for its treatment of Article 14bis procedural requirements, potestative termination clauses, and mitigation of damages through the date of the final award.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10775

On 5 April 2024, Spiridonovic filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) alleging breach of contract and seeking outstanding remuneration of USD 74,129 plus interest, compensation of USD 525,871, and flight reimbursement. On 11 July 2024, the FIFA DRC partially accepted the claim, awarding USD 78,000 in outstanding remuneration, USD 372,000 in compensation plus 5% interest p.a. from 26 March 2024, EUR 403.65 in flight expenses, and a two-consecutive-registration-period transfer ban on the Club. The grounds were notified on 25 July 2024. On 5 August 2024, Al Salmiya SC filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS, naming only the Player as respondent and omitting FIFA. The Club submitted its Appeal Brief on 4 September 2024; the Player filed his Answer on 6 November 2024. A video-conference hearing took place on 10 February 2025. CAS was asked to set aside the Appealed Decision in full, deny just cause, reduce or eliminate compensation, and lift the transfer ban.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10775

• A player who fails to include an explicit 15-day deadline in his written default notice does not satisfy the procedural requirements of Article 14bis FIFA RSTP, even if more than 15 days actually elapsed before termination.
• Non-compliance with Article 14bis FIFA RSTP does not preclude a finding of just cause under the general standard of Article 14 FIFA RSTP where the Club's persistent non-payment of at least two months' remuneration, combined with multiple formal warnings, rendered continuation of the employment relationship unreasonable.
• Requiring a professional footballer to train in isolation for several consecutive weeks without rest days, and conditioning reinstatement on waiving the right to appeal a disciplinary sanction, constitutes abusive conduct entitling the player to terminate with just cause under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP.
• A unilateral and potestative clause allowing a club to terminate a contract at the end of a season at its sole discretion, without objective criteria, is invalid and cannot reduce the residual value of the contract for compensation purposes.
• An appeal challenging FIFA-imposed disciplinary (transfer ban) sanctions is inadmissible before CAS if FIFA is not named as a respondent, and FIFA's voluntary waiver of its right to intervene does not cure that procedural defect.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first found that the Player's default notices lacked an explicit 15-day deadline, disqualifying the termination under Article 14bis FIFA RSTP. He then assessed just cause under Article 14 FIFA RSTP and Swiss law (ATF 108 II 444; ATF 130 III 213), asking whether the Club's conduct destroyed the mutual trust underpinning the employment relationship. He held it did: USD 54,000 remained unpaid from day one, the Club offered no credible explanation for its inability to pay a foreign bank account (contradicting its own 17 February 2024 letter), and the disciplinary fine lacked evidentiary support. Even if the alleged remarks were made, the Arbitrator was not persuaded they were racist or sufficiently serious to warrant sanctions. On abusive conduct, he relied on CAS 2017/A/5465 and CAS 2013/A/3091-93 and the FIFA RSTP Commentary to hold that prolonged isolation training without rest, combined with conditioning reinstatement on waiving appeal rights, constituted abusive conduct under Article 14(2). Clause 4's unilateral termination option was invalidated as potestative, following CAS 2016/A/4852 and CAS 2008/A/3675. Mitigation was calculated to the award date under Article R57 CAS Code and Article 337c Swiss CO, treating the Player's voluntary mutual termination with NŠ Mura as precluding further mitigation credit beyond what he could have earned. Additional Compensation was denied on non ultra petita grounds, citing CAS 2022/A/8572. The transfer ban challenge was dismissed as a vertical dispute requiring FIFA as respondent, per CAS 2014/A/3489 & 3490 and CAS 2007/A/1369.

Why Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that strict compliance with Article 14bis FIFA RSTP's explicit 15-day deadline requirement is mandatory, yet failure to comply does not bar a just-cause finding under Article 14 FIFA RSTP where the factual threshold is otherwise met. It reinforces that potestative unilateral termination clauses are void under CAS jurisprudence. It also confirms that mitigation must be assessed up to the date of the final CAS award, that a player's voluntary mutual termination of a subsequent contract caps mitigation credit at what could have been earned, and that Additional Compensation under Article 17(1)(ii) FIFA RSTP requires an express claim. The procedural ruling on vertical/horizontal disputes and the necessity of naming FIFA as respondent to challenge transfer bans consolidates established CAS practice.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/A/8891 CAS 2016/A/4852 CAS 2008/A/3675 CAS 2014/A/3489 & CAS 2014/A/3490 CAS 2022/A/8572 CAS 2007/A/1369

Frequently asked questions about Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic

Did the player in Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic have just cause to terminate even though he didn't give an explicit 15-day deadline in his default notice?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that the Player failed to satisfy the procedural requirement of Article 14bis FIFA RSTP because his default notices did not include an explicit 15-day deadline, even though more than 15 days actually passed before termination. However, the Arbitrator found just cause under the general standard of Article 14 FIFA RSTP because USD 54,000 remained unpaid from the outset, the Player had issued multiple formal warnings, and the Club had made no payments whatsoever, rendering continuation of the employment relationship unreasonable.

How was compensation calculated in Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic and why was it lower than the FIFA DRC awarded?

The FIFA DRC awarded USD 372,000 in compensation and treated the March 2024 salary as outstanding remuneration. CAS recalculated the residual contract value at USD 396,000 (including the March 2024 salary as part of compensation rather than outstanding remuneration) and deducted EUR 13,125.80 — the full amount the Player could have earned at NŠ Mura from 29 July 2024 to 31 May 2025 — because the Player voluntarily agreed to a mutual termination of that contract, precluding further mitigation credit. The resulting Mitigated Compensation was USD 381,788.33. Clause 4's unilateral termination option was also invalidated as potestative, so the full contract term to 31 May 2025 was used as the basis.

Why was Al Salmiya SC's challenge to the FIFA transfer ban dismissed in this CAS case?

The Club named only the Player as respondent in its Statement of Appeal and failed to include FIFA, despite the CAS Court Office's notification on 26 August 2024 that respondents must be named within the Article R49 deadline. The Sole Arbitrator held that challenges to FIFA-imposed disciplinary sanctions are 'vertical' disputes requiring FIFA as a formal respondent, following CAS 2014/A/3489 & 3490 and CAS 2007/A/1369. FIFA's voluntary waiver of its right to intervene did not cure this procedural defect, and the two-registration-period transfer ban was therefore confirmed.

Was the Club's unilateral option to terminate the contract at the end of the 2023/24 season valid under CAS jurisprudence in Al Salmiya v. Spiridonovic?

No. Clause 4 of the contract gave the Club the right to terminate unilaterally at the end of the 2023/24 season without objective criteria. The Sole Arbitrator, applying CAS 2016/A/4852 and CAS 2008/A/3675, held the clause to be unilateral and potestative, serving solely the Club's benefit, and therefore invalid. As a result, the full remaining contract period through 31 May 2025 was used as the basis for calculating compensation.

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.