CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11907 — Ulsan HD FC v. Giorgi Arabidze

"Arabidze" · CAS held the player lacked just cause to terminate because the club remedied its breaches before the player's own deadline expired, yet dismissed the club's compensation claim.

What happened in Arabidze

Giorgi Arabidze, a Georgian professional footballer, signed a contract with South Korean club Ulsan HD FC on 27 July 2024, valid until 31 December 2027, for annual salaries rising from USD 800,000 to USD 1,100,000. From 7 January 2025, during a Dubai pre-season camp, the club's head coach excluded Arabidze from collective training, friendly matches, and team activities, and removed his jersey number 9. The player sent three formal warning emails (18, 20, and 28 January 2025) demanding reinstatement by 6 February 2025, receiving no written response. On 5 February 2025, the club's assistant coach verbally offered full reintegration and return of jersey number 9. The player declined, stating he preferred to continue individual training while seeking a new club, and terminated the contract on 6 February 2025 citing Article 14 FIFA RSTP. The FIFA DRC found just cause and awarded the player USD 3,116,667 plus EUR 2,631.66. On appeal, a CAS majority reversed: the player lacked just cause because the club had sufficiently remedied its breaches within the player's own deadline, and the player's refusal of reintegration violated the venire contra factum proprium principle. However, the club's compensation counterclaim was also dismissed because the club had consented to the player's departure and contributed to the breakdown of the relationship.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11907

On 13 February 2025, Arabidze filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) alleging just cause termination under Article 14 FIFA RSTP and seeking USD 3,116,667 plus EUR 2,631.66 in flight reimbursement and USD 200,000 in moral damages. Ulsan HD FC filed a counterclaim for USD 580,517.17 plus KRW 22,290,780. On 24 July 2025, the FIFA DRC partially accepted the player's claim, awarded USD 3,116,667 plus EUR 2,631.66, rejected the counterclaim, and dismissed the moral damages claim. Grounds were communicated on 10 October 2025. Ulsan HD FC filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 31 October 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article 50(1) FIFA Statutes. The player cross-requested inadmissibility of four audio-recording exhibits. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 6 March 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11907

• A player who sets a deadline for the club to remedy contractual breaches cannot validly terminate the contract if the club sufficiently rectifies those breaches before the deadline expires, as doing so violates the principle of venire contra factum proprium.
• Audio recordings of meetings secretly made by a party participant are admissible in CAS proceedings where the interest in establishing the truth outweighs the personality-rights infringement, applying a careful balancing test under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence.
• Under Article R57(3) CAS Code, the panel's discretion to exclude evidence available before the first-instance decision must be exercised with caution and is limited to situations of bad faith or abusive procedural conduct.
• A club that has consented to a player's departure and contributed to the breakdown of the contractual relationship through its own breaches is not entitled to compensation under Article 17 FIFA RSTP, even where the player terminated without just cause.
• The burden of proving abusive conduct under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP lies on the party alleging such conduct, in accordance with the FIFA RSTP Commentary (2023 edition) and Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The majority panel first admitted the audio recordings of the 4 and 5 February 2025 meetings, balancing the financial significance of the dispute and the need to establish truth against the personality-rights infringement, and finding no bad faith in the club's failure to produce them before FIFA. On the merits, the panel accepted that the club had unilaterally excluded the player from collective training and activities from 7 January 2025, constituting a severe contractual breach. However, the panel found that on 5 February 2025 — one day before the player's own deadline — the club's assistant coach offered full reintegration and return of jersey number 9. The player explicitly declined, stating he preferred individual training while seeking a new club. The panel held this conduct violated venire contra factum proprium: having set a deadline and received a sufficient remedy offer, the player could not then terminate on the same grounds. The termination was also premature as the deadline had not yet lapsed. On compensation, the panel relied on TAS 2015/A/3955 & 3956 to hold that a club which consented to the player's departure and contributed to the breakdown through its own breaches cannot claim damages, dismissing Ulsan's USD 3,116,663 counterclaim entirely.

Why Arabidze matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a player who issues a cure notice with a specific deadline is bound by the venire contra factum proprium principle: if the club remedies the invoked breaches within that deadline, the player loses the right to terminate on those grounds even if the underlying conduct was a severe contractual breach. It also establishes that a club which has expressly consented to a player's departure and contributed to the contractual breakdown forfeits its Article 17 FIFA RSTP compensation claim, even when the player terminates without just cause. The panel's nuanced admissibility analysis of secretly recorded meetings under Swiss law further refines CAS evidentiary standards.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2009/A/1879 CAS 2011/A/2425 CAS 2017/A/5090 CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2018/A/6029 TAS 2015/A/3955 & 3956

Frequently asked questions about Arabidze

Did Arabidze have just cause to terminate his contract with Ulsan HD FC?

No. The CAS majority found that although Ulsan HD FC had unilaterally excluded Arabidze from collective training from 7 January 2025, constituting a severe contractual breach, the club sufficiently remedied those breaches on 5 February 2025 — one day before Arabidze's own deadline of 6 February 2025. When the assistant coach offered full reintegration and return of jersey number 9, Arabidze declined, stating he preferred individual training while seeking a new club. Terminating the next day violated the venire contra factum proprium principle.

Was Ulsan HD FC awarded compensation after Arabidze terminated without just cause?

No. Despite finding the player lacked just cause, the panel dismissed Ulsan's compensation claim entirely. The panel relied on TAS 2015/A/3955 & 3956 to hold that a club which consented to the player's departure — the head coach explicitly told Arabidze the club would let him go for free — and which contributed to the breakdown through its own contractual breaches cannot claim damages under Article 17 FIFA RSTP.

Were the secret audio recordings of the 4 and 5 February 2025 meetings admissible at CAS?

Yes. The panel admitted the recordings, applying a balancing test under Swiss law and the CAS jurisprudence established in CAS 2009/A/1879 and CAS 2011/A/2425. It found that the interest in establishing the truth in a dispute with a substantial financial element outweighed the personality-rights infringement caused by the secret recordings. The panel also declined to exclude them under Article R57(3) CAS Code, finding no evidence of bad faith or abusive procedural conduct by the club in not producing them before the FIFA DRC.

What compensation had the FIFA DRC originally awarded Arabidze, and what happened to it on appeal?

The FIFA DRC decision of 24 July 2025 awarded Arabidze USD 3,116,667 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum from 6 February 2025, and EUR 2,631.66 for flight ticket reimbursement. CAS set aside the entire FIFA DRC decision. Because the player was found to have terminated without just cause and the club's own compensation claim was also dismissed, neither party received any financial award from 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.