CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/12005 — Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF

"Oaidă" · CAS dismissed a Romanian player's claim that his club constructively terminated his contract by marginalising him from team training.

What happened in Oaidă

Romanian professional footballer Răzvan Constantin Oaidă signed an employment contract with Asociația Sportivă Fotbal Club Universitatea Cluj on 18 September 2024, valid until 31 May 2026, at EUR 11,000/month rising to EUR 12,000/month plus a EUR 15,000 sign-on bonus. Before the 2025/2026 pre-season, the Club's Head Coach and Sports Manager communicated that the Player was no longer in their plans. The Player reported for pre-season on 12 June 2025 but alleged he was forced to train individually, isolated from teammates and coaches. After sending multiple notices, the Player issued a 'Termination Letter' on 26 July 2025, asserting the Club had constructively terminated the contract. The Club denied termination and repeatedly called the Player back. The FRF NDRC and FRF Appeals Committee both dismissed the Player's claims. The Player appealed to CAS seeking EUR 108,000 compensation. Sole Arbitrator Espen Auberg dismissed the appeal, finding the Player failed to prove the Club had explicitly terminated the contract or materially breached its obligations. Evidence including photos, match sheets, and the Player's participation in a pre-season camp in Austria and a friendly match on 4 July 2025 contradicted the Player's narrative of total exclusion. The case matters as a clear restatement that constructive termination requires explicit, unequivocal communication and that the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/12005

On 30 July 2025, the Player filed a claim before the FRF National Dispute Resolution Chamber (FRF NDRC) seeking unpaid rent of EUR 1,500, a signing bonus of EUR 10,000, a qualification bonus difference of EUR 2,413, and compensation equal to financial rights from 27 July 2025 to 31 May 2026. The Club filed a counterclaim alleging the Player terminated without just cause. On 24 September 2025, the FRF NDRC rejected the Player's initial claims as lacking subject matter, rejected the supplementary claim as unfounded, and rejected the Club's counterclaim as unfounded. Both parties appealed to the FRF Appeals Committee, which on 6 November 2025 dismissed both appeals as unfounded (with a minority opinion favouring the Player). Grounds were issued on 22 December 2025. The Player filed a Statement of Appeal to CAS on 9 December 2025, with the Appeal Brief filed on 3 February 2026. Two requests for provisional measures were both dismissed by CAS orders dated 26 January 2026 and 8 February 2026 respectively.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/12005

• Unilateral termination of a contract between a club and a player requires that the termination is communicated in an explicit and unequivocal manner.
• The burden of proving that a club unilaterally terminated a contract lies with the player asserting that claim.
• A club's removal of a player from its A List and non-selection for official matches, as a direct consequence of the player's own refusal to attend training, does not constitute a breach of the club's contractual obligations.
• Only a breach of a certain severity — one that makes it objectively unreasonable to expect continuation of the employment relationship — justifies termination of a fixed-term contract with just cause, and such termination must be applied as ultima ratio.
• Evidence of a player's actual participation in collective training sessions, a pre-season camp, and a friendly match is sufficient to rebut allegations of total exclusion from team activities.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator conducted a de novo review under Article R57 CAS Code. He first assessed whether the Club had explicitly and unequivocally terminated the Contract, finding it had not: the Player's own Termination Letter stated only that he 'understood' the Club had terminated, and the Club's letter of 30 July 2025 denied termination and called the Player back. The Arbitrator then assessed whether the Club's conduct constituted a material breach justifying termination, applying the just-cause framework from Article 18(10-a) FRF RSTFP, Article 14 FIFA RSTP, and Swiss law principles as articulated in CAS 2006/A/1180. He rejected the Player's narrative of total isolation, noting that photos and match sheets showed the Player participated in collective training, travelled to Austria for a pre-season camp between 24 June and 5 July 2025, and played in a friendly match on 4 July 2025. The Arbitrator further held that the Club's removal of the Player from the A List was a foreseeable and proportionate response to the Player's own absence from training after 26 July 2025, not an independent breach. The WhatsApp message from the Sports Manager and the Head Coach's phone call were characterised as internal squad-planning dialogue, not operative acts of termination. The Player's failure to discharge his burden of proof was determinative.

Why Oaidă matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that constructive dismissal claims in football require explicit, unequivocal termination by the club and that a player bears the full burden of proving such termination. It confirms that internal squad-planning communications do not constitute operative termination acts, and that a club's removal of a player from its registration list following the player's own training absence is a proportionate response rather than a contractual breach. The case also clarifies the admissibility rule that the 21-day CAS appeal deadline runs from receipt of the full reasoned decision, not merely the operative part.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6796 CAS 2007/A/1369 CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2017/A/5312 CAS 2016/A/4846

Frequently asked questions about Oaidă

Did Universitatea Cluj constructively terminate Oaidă's contract by making him train alone?

No. The CAS Sole Arbitrator found that the Player failed to prove he was totally excluded from collective training. Evidence including photos, match sheets, and his participation in a pre-season camp in Austria and a friendly match on 4 July 2025 contradicted his claims. The appeal was dismissed and the FRF Appeals Committee decision confirmed.

What compensation was Oaidă seeking and did he receive anything?

The Player sought EUR 108,000 in compensation representing his net salary from 27 July 2025 to 31 May 2026 (at EUR 12,000/month), plus EUR 5,000 in attorney's fees and RON 2,955 in procedural fees from the domestic proceedings, and CAS costs. He received nothing; all claims were dismissed.

Does a WhatsApp message from a club's sports manager saying the coach is 'no longer counting on' a player constitute contract termination under CAS rules?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that unilateral termination requires explicit and unequivocal communication, citing CAS 2007/A/1369. The WhatsApp message from the Club's Sports Manager on 9 June 2025 was characterised as internal squad-planning dialogue, not an operative act of termination, especially since the Club subsequently denied termination and called the Player back to training.

When does the 21-day CAS appeal deadline start running in Romanian football disputes — from the operative part or the full reasoned decision?

From the full reasoned decision. The Sole Arbitrator, citing MAVROMATI/REEB Code Commentary (2nd ed. 2025, pp. 473-474), held that the appeal deadline under Article R49 CAS Code and Article 36 paragraph 18 FRF RSTFP runs from receipt of the decision with grounds. Here the operative part was issued on 6 November 2025 but grounds were communicated on 22 December 2025, and the Statement of Appeal filed on 9 December 2025 was held admissible.

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.