CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11523 — Al Fayha Football Club v. Vuk Rašović

"Al Fayha v. Rašović" · CAS upheld a coach's contractually negotiated unilateral termination option, dismissing the club's USD 500,000 compensation claim.

What happened in Al Fayha v. Rašović

Serbian coach Vuk Rašović entered a four-season employment contract with Saudi club Al Fayha worth a total of USD 5,352,000. The club repeatedly defaulted on salary payments throughout the relationship. In March 2023, rather than terminating for just cause, Rašović negotiated a Second Amendment granting him a unilateral right to exit the contract after season 2023/24 by sending written notice between 1 and 15 July 2024, with no termination fee payable. On 1 July 2024, he exercised that option and immediately joined Kalba FC. Al Fayha filed before the FIFA Player Status Chamber claiming USD 500,000 compensation for breach of contract; Rašović counterclaimed for USD 100,000 outstanding June 2024 salary and SAR 275,000 in match bonuses. The FIFA PSC rejected the club's claim and partially upheld the counterclaim. Al Fayha appealed to CAS. The panel confirmed the FIFA PSC decision in its entirety, holding that the termination option was validly negotiated, freely accepted by the club, and properly exercised. The case matters because it confirms that a freely negotiated, unilateral potestative termination clause in a coaching contract is enforceable under FIFA RSTP and Swiss law, and that a club cannot later challenge such a clause by invoking contractual stability principles when it voluntarily agreed to it.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11523

On 10 July 2024, Al Fayha filed a claim before the FIFA Player Status Chamber (Ref. FPSD-15179) seeking USD 500,000 net plus 5% interest from 1 July 2024 for alleged breach of contract. Rašović filed a counterclaim on 12 August 2024 for USD 100,000 net outstanding salary for June 2024 and SAR 275,000 in outstanding bonuses. On 23 April 2025, the FIFA PSC rejected the club's claim in full and partially upheld the counterclaim, ordering Al Fayha to pay USD 100,000 net plus 5% p.a. from 1 July 2024 and SAR 275,000 plus 5% p.a. from 1 July 2024. Grounds were notified on 30 May 2025. Al Fayha filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS on 15 June 2025, requesting annulment of the decision in its entirety and an order that Rašović pay USD 500,000 plus 5% interest. CAS held a joint videoconference hearing on 15 December 2025 together with related cases CAS 2025/A/11524, CAS 2025/A/11525, and CAS 2025/A/11526.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11523

• A unilateral potestative termination option freely negotiated between a club and a coach is valid and enforceable under FIFA RSTP and Swiss law and does not automatically violate the principle of contractual stability.
• A club that voluntarily and unconditionally accepts a termination option clause cannot subsequently challenge its validity on grounds of imbalance or bad faith when the coach exercises it in accordance with its terms.
• Exercise of a contractually granted termination option constitutes termination by mutual agreement within the meaning of the FIFA RSTP, not unilateral termination without just cause.
• A coach on contractually agreed paid annual leave at the end of a season is entitled to his salary for that period, and the club cannot invoke exceptio non adimpleti contractus to withhold it.
• Where a club fails to call witnesses to contradict testimony that match bonuses were promised and unpaid, and refuses to provide its internal bonus regulations, the panel may be comfortably satisfied that the bonuses are due and payable.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel began by examining the context in which the Second Amendment was signed: the club had repeatedly defaulted on salary payments, which would have entitled the coach to terminate for just cause. Instead, the coach offered to continue the relationship in exchange for a unilateral exit right, which the club accepted the very next day without amendment or objection. The panel found the clause's object licit and its cause legitimate. It rejected the argument that potestative clauses are automatically void, noting that the clause was freely negotiated with no imbalance in bargaining power, that the club expressly acknowledged its legal force in the contract text, and that no coercion or vice of consent was proven. The panel characterised the termination as one by mutual agreement rather than unilateral termination without just cause, making just-cause analysis irrelevant. On the June 2024 salary, the panel relied on clause 4.7 providing for paid end-of-season holidays and the club's own email wishing the coach a happy holiday. On bonuses, the panel credited consistent witness testimony from coaching staff and players over the club president's bare denial, noting the club's failure to call contradicting witnesses or produce its internal bonus regulations.

Why Al Fayha v. Rašović matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that a unilateral, potestative termination option negotiated by a coach in exchange for forbearing from an immediate just-cause termination claim is enforceable under FIFA RSTP and Swiss law. It clarifies that such a clause constitutes a form of mutual agreement on termination modalities, placing it outside the just-cause/without-just-cause binary, and that a club's own repeated payment defaults can legitimately give rise to such negotiated exit rights.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2025/A/11524 CAS 2025/A/11525 CAS 2025/A/11526 CAS 2025/A/11287 Anthony Nnaduzor Nwakaeme v. Al Fayha Club

Frequently asked questions about Al Fayha v. Rašović

Was the termination option in Al Fayha v. Rašović valid even though it was purely unilateral and potestative?

Yes. The CAS panel held that a unilateral potestative termination clause does not automatically render it invalid. The panel found the clause valid because it was freely negotiated with no imbalance in bargaining power, the club accepted it unconditionally the day after receiving the draft, and the club expressly acknowledged its legal force in the contract text. No coercion or vice of consent was proven by Al Fayha.

Did Rašović need to give a reason for exercising the termination option under clause 6.5?

No. The panel held that clause 6.5 of the Second Amendment granted the coach the right to terminate the contract after season 2023/24 without any obligation to provide reasons. The panel stated that whether the coach's reasons were subjective, unreasonable or unjustified was 'of no avail', and that the fact he immediately joined Kalba FC or may have negotiated with them while still under contract was irrelevant.

Why was Al Fayha's claim for USD 500,000 compensation rejected in the Al Fayha v. Rašović case?

The club's claim was rejected because the panel found that Rašović exercised a validly negotiated contractual termination option, not a unilateral termination without just cause. The panel characterised the termination as one by mutual agreement within the meaning of the FIFA RSTP, meaning the provisions governing compensation for termination without just cause did not apply. The club had unconditionally accepted the termination option in the Second Amendment signed on 18 March 2023.

Was Rašović entitled to his June 2024 salary even though he was on holiday and not coaching?

Yes. The panel relied on clause 4.7 of the contract, which expressly provided that the club was obliged to pay the coach's remuneration during his holiday period and that in the absence of a specific schedule, holidays would fall at the end of the season. The club's own email of 3 June 2024 wishing the coach a happy holiday confirmed his authorised leave, and the club failed to prove he had already used his vacation days during the season.

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.