CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11275 — Frank Martins Franco v. KF Rahoveci 1931

"Franco v. Rahoveci" · CAS dismissed a Brazilian player's wrongful termination claim after WhatsApp evidence showed mutual agreement to terminate.

What happened in Franco v. Rahoveci

Frank Martins Franco, a Brazilian professional footballer, signed an employment contract with Kosovo club KF Rahoveci 1931 on 10 July 2024, providing a monthly salary of EUR 600 net payable in ten instalments. The Player alleged the Club dismissed him on 18 August 2024 without just cause and sought EUR 7,000 in compensation plus additional remedies under Article 17 FIFA RSTP. The Club never filed an answer at FIFA DRC level. The FIFA DRC dismissed the Player's claim on 13 February 2025, finding insufficient evidence that the Club had terminated the contract and that the Player had not met his burden of proof. The Player appealed to CAS on 18 March 2025. The Respondent's CAS Answer was declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article R31 of the CAS Code (not filed by courier or e-filing platform). The Sole Arbitrator conducted a de novo review and found that WhatsApp messages between the Player and the Club Secretary ('Alfred') demonstrated the Player had agreed to transfer to Albanian club KF Devolli in exchange for a bus ticket and EUR 200, constituting mutual termination under Article 13 FIFA RSTP. The appeal was dismissed and the FIFA DRC decision confirmed. The case underscores that informal digital communications can constitute decisive evidence of mutual contract termination, and that players bear the burden of proving unilateral dismissal.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11275

On 12 October 2024, Frank Martins Franco filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) alleging unilateral termination without just cause by KF Rahoveci 1931 and seeking compensation. The Club failed to file an answer. On 13 February 2025, the FIFA DRC dismissed the Player's claim, finding insufficient evidence of who terminated the contract and that the Default Notice did not specify which obligations the Club had failed to fulfil; the decision was communicated on 26 February 2025. The Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 18 March 2025, within the 21-day deadline, and was granted legal aid. The Respondent submitted an answer by email on 28 November 2025 but failed to file it by courier or via the CAS e-filing platform as required by Article R31 of the CAS Code; the Sole Arbitrator declared it inadmissible. Both parties waived an oral hearing. The Sole Arbitrator decided the matter on written submissions alone.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11275

• The Parties concluded a valid and binding employment contract on 10 July 2024, as the contract signed by the Club contained all essential elements including party names, salary of EUR 600 net per month, and duration.
• WhatsApp communications between the Player and the Club Secretary clearly indicated the Player accepted a transfer to KF Devolli in exchange for a bus ticket and EUR 200, constituting mutual termination under Article 13 FIFA RSTP.
• The Player failed to meet his burden of proof under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code in demonstrating that the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause.
• The Respondent's Answer was inadmissible because it was submitted only by email and not filed by courier or uploaded to the CAS e-filing platform within the first subsequent business day as required by Article R31 of the CAS Code.
• CAS appeal arbitration proceedings allow a full de novo review of facts and law pursuant to Article R57 paragraph 1 of the CAS Code, and are not limited to assessing whether the appealed decision was correct.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began by confirming jurisdiction and admissibility, then declared the Respondent's Answer inadmissible for non-compliance with Article R31 of the CAS Code, citing SFT 4A_690/2016 for the proposition that strict adherence to procedural deadlines is essential for equal treatment and legal certainty. On the merits, applying Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code, the Sole Arbitrator placed the burden of proof on the Player to establish both the existence of a valid contract and unilateral termination by the Club. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the contract's validity based on its essential elements. However, the Sole Arbitrator rejected the Player's termination narrative: the only contemporaneous evidence was the WhatsApp exchange, which showed the Player conditioning his departure on receiving EUR 200 and a bus ticket, and the Club Secretary confirming agreement. This was held to constitute mutual termination under Article 13 FIFA RSTP, not unilateral dismissal. The Player's bare assertion that the Club dismissed him on 18 August 2024 was unsupported by any independent evidence. The Sole Arbitrator expressly declined to apply Articles 14 or 14bis FIFA RSTP because the predicate finding of unilateral termination was not established. Arguments regarding Article 17 FIFA RSTP compensation were therefore moot.

Why Franco v. Rahoveci matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award illustrates that informal digital communications such as WhatsApp messages can constitute decisive evidence of mutual contract termination under Article 13 FIFA RSTP, defeating a player's claim of unilateral dismissal. It reinforces the strict application of the burden of proof under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code in CAS proceedings and confirms that procedural non-compliance with Article R31 of the CAS Code — specifically failure to file by courier or e-filing platform — renders a party's submissions inadmissible, even where the substance was transmitted by email within the deadline.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6796 CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092 & 3093 CAS 2021/A/8114 SFT 4A_690/2016

Frequently asked questions about Franco v. Rahoveci

Did the CAS find that KF Rahoveci terminated Franco's contract without just cause?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that WhatsApp messages between Franco and the Club Secretary 'Alfred' showed the Player agreed to transfer to Albanian club KF Devolli in exchange for a bus ticket and EUR 200, which constituted mutual termination under Article 13 FIFA RSTP. The Player failed to provide any independent evidence supporting his claim that the Club dismissed him on 18 August 2024.

Why was KF Rahoveci's CAS Answer declared inadmissible in Franco v. Rahoveci?

The Club submitted its Answer by email on 28 November 2025 but never filed it by courier or uploaded it to the CAS e-filing platform as required by Article R31 of the CAS Code. The CAS Court Office reminded the Club of this requirement on 2 and 8 December 2025, but the Club still failed to comply. The Sole Arbitrator, citing SFT 4A_690/2016, held that strict adherence to procedural deadlines is essential and declared the Answer inadmissible.

How much compensation did Frank Martins Franco claim and what did CAS award him?

Franco claimed EUR 7,000 in compensation for breach of contract under Article 17 FIFA RSTP, plus an additional EUR 2,100 (three times his monthly salary) if mitigation applied, a two-registration-period transfer ban on the Club, and 5% per annum interest. CAS awarded him nothing; the appeal was dismissed in its entirety and the FIFA DRC decision rejecting his claim was confirmed.

What was Franco's monthly salary under his contract with KF Rahoveci 1931?

Under Article VI of the employment contract dated 10 July 2024, Franco's monthly salary was EUR 600 net, payable in ten monthly instalments in accordance with Article II of the Contract. The contract was valid from 10 July 2024 until 30 June 2025.

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.