CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11728 — AFC Botosani v. Francisco da Silva Junior

"Botosani v. Da Silva Junior" · CAS confirmed player had just cause to terminate for unpaid salaries and awarded EUR 28,000 compensation.

What happened in Botosani v. Da Silva Junior

AFC Botosani, a Romanian football club, signed Francisco da Silva Junior on 6 August 2024 on a contract running to 30 June 2025 at EUR 7,000 net per month. The club fell into arrears on multiple salaries. On 6 February 2025 the player issued a written default notice demanding EUR 21,000 for October–December 2024 salaries and granting 15 days to pay. The club failed to cure the default in full. On 24 February 2025 the player terminated the contract under FIFA RSTP Article 14bis, claiming EUR 28,000 outstanding remuneration and EUR 35,000 compensation. The FIFA DRC on 27 June 2025 awarded EUR 35,000 outstanding remuneration plus EUR 28,000 compensation, both with 5% p.a. interest. Botosani appealed to CAS. During CAS proceedings the player acknowledged receiving EUR 21,000 in salary payments, prompting a second round of submissions. The Sole Arbitrator conducted a de novo review and found that at the moment of termination the club still owed EUR 19,458 net (partial November 2024, full December 2024, and full January 2025 salaries), satisfying the two-salary threshold of Article 14bis. Since the player remained unemployed, compensation equalled the residual contract value of EUR 28,000 net. The appeal was partially upheld only to the extent that the outstanding remuneration award was removed (having been paid during proceedings), leaving EUR 28,000 compensation plus 5% p.a. interest from 24 February 2025.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11728

On 24 March 2025 the player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal. The FIFA DRC rendered its decision on 27 June 2025, awarding EUR 35,000 net as outstanding remuneration and EUR 28,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, both with 5% p.a. interest, and threatening a registration ban if unpaid within 45 days. The grounds were communicated on 12 August 2025. AFC Botosani filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 2 September 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article R49 of the CAS Code and Article 50(1) of the FIFA Statutes. The club sought to set aside the Appealed Decision on the basis that the player lacked just cause at the time of termination. The player requested full confirmation of the Appealed Decision. CAS was asked to conduct a de novo review of both the just-cause finding and the quantum of compensation.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11728

• A player has just cause to terminate under FIFA RSTP Article 14bis where, at the moment of termination, the club owes at least two monthly salaries and a written default notice granting at least 15 days to pay has been served.
• Partial payments made before termination reduce the outstanding balance but do not extinguish just cause if the remaining unpaid amount still equals or exceeds two monthly salaries at the date of termination.
• Where a player has not signed a new contract following termination with just cause, compensation under FIFA RSTP Article 17(1) equals the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract.
• Additional compensation of three monthly salaries under FIFA RSTP Article 17(1)(ii) cannot be awarded where it would cause total compensation to exceed the residual value of the terminated contract.
• Evidence submitted in proceedings before the FIFA Football Tribunal that is not in English, Spanish or French and is not translated into one of those languages must be disregarded pursuant to Article 13(1) and (3) of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a de novo standard of review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. On the just-cause question, he identified the two cumulative requirements of Article 14bis: (i) at least two monthly salaries unpaid and (ii) a written default notice with a minimum 15-day cure period. He then reconstructed the actual payment timeline from the evidence accepted in the CAS proceedings, finding that the October 2024 salary was paid in full on 18 December 2024, November 2024 was only partly paid (EUR 1,542 of EUR 7,000) on 20 December 2024, and December 2024 and January 2025 remained entirely unpaid at termination on 24 February 2025. This left EUR 19,458 net outstanding — more than two monthly salaries — satisfying requirement (i). The 6 February 2025 default letter satisfied requirement (ii). The club's argument that salaries had been paid before termination was rejected because the evidence showed only partial payment of November 2024 before that date. On compensation, the Arbitrator applied Article 17(1)(i) because the player remained unemployed, yielding the residual value of EUR 28,000 (four months at EUR 7,000). He declined to add three months' additional compensation because the overall cap — the residual contract value — would have been exceeded. Interest at 5% p.a. was awarded from 24 February 2025 under Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, consistent with the Appealed Decision and unchallenged by the club.

Why Botosani v. Da Silva Junior matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that partial salary payments made before a player's termination notice do not cure a just-cause situation under Article 14bis if the remaining unpaid balance still equals or exceeds two monthly salaries at the moment of termination. It also confirms that Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP applies to compensation calculations even where the contract was terminated with just cause, and that the additional three-month compensation element is subject to the hard cap of the residual contract value, preventing any windfall above that ceiling.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6796 CAS 2020/A/6727

Frequently asked questions about Botosani v. Da Silva Junior

Did AFC Botosani successfully argue that paying some salaries before termination removed the player's just cause under Article 14bis?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that although the October 2024 salary was paid in full on 18 December 2024 and a partial payment of EUR 1,542 was made toward November 2024 on 20 December 2024, the remaining balance of EUR 19,458 net was still outstanding when the player terminated on 24 February 2025. Because that amount exceeded two monthly salaries of EUR 7,000 each, the Article 14bis threshold was met and just cause was established.

How was the EUR 28,000 compensation figure calculated in Botosani v. Da Silva Junior?

Because the player remained unemployed after termination, the Sole Arbitrator applied Article 17(1)(i) of the FIFA RSTP, which sets compensation equal to the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract. The contract had four monthly instalments of EUR 7,000 net remaining (March through June 2025), totalling EUR 28,000 net. The additional three-month compensation available under Article 17(1)(ii) was not awarded because adding it would have exceeded the residual contract value cap.

Why did the FIFA DRC disregard the club's payment evidence in the Botosani case?

The FIFA DRC held that the documentary evidence submitted by AFC Botosani to prove payment of the October and November 2024 salaries was not in English, Spanish or French and had not been translated into any of those languages, as required by Article 13(1) and (3) of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (January 2025 edition). Accordingly, the evidence was disregarded at first instance, though CAS accepted it in the de novo review.

What interest rate applies to the compensation awarded in CAS 2025/A/11728, and from what date does it run?

The Sole Arbitrator awarded interest at 5% per annum on the EUR 28,000 compensation, running from 24 February 2025 (the date of termination) until the date of effective payment. The rate is grounded in Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which sets the default statutory interest rate at 5% per annum, and was consistent with the player's original claim and the Appealed Decision; the club did not contest the rate.

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.