CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2026/A/12098 — Football Club Ordabasy v. Yevhenii Makarenko

"Ordabasy v. Makarenko" · CAS upheld a player's just-cause termination under Art. 14bis FIFA RSTP where a Kazakh club failed to cure overdue remuneration within the 15-day notice period.

What happened in Ordabasy v. Makarenko

FC Ordabasy, a Kazakh Premier League club, signed Ukrainian midfielder Yevhenii Makarenko on a fixed-term contract from 10 July 2023 to 10 November 2025. The contract included a base salary and a schedule of guaranteed monthly bonuses under an Additional Agreement, plus a conditional Championship Bonus governed by a First Bonus Agreement (signed by 27 individuals) requiring payment by 31 March 2024. After the club won the 2023 Kazakhstan Premier League, disputes arose over unpaid bonuses and salary. In early 2025, the player was placed on an individual training programme and not registered for the first three league matches. On 24 March 2025, the player served a written default notice identifying outstanding remuneration. The club made only partial payments. On 9 April 2025, the player terminated the contract. The FIFA DRC found just cause and awarded outstanding remuneration, expense reimbursements, and compensation for breach. The club appealed to CAS. Sole Arbitrator Benoît Pasquier dismissed the appeal, confirming: (1) no just cause existed under Art. 14 (abusive conduct not proven); (2) just cause existed under Art. 14bis because the notice was valid, the bonuses were overdue, the First Bonus Agreement was not novated by the Second, and the club failed to cure in full within 15 days. The case matters for its treatment of guaranteed bonuses as salary for Art. 14bis purposes and its rejection of novation without express intent.

Procedural history of CAS 2026/A/12098

On 29 April 2025, Makarenko filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal (ref. FPSD-19067) seeking determination of just-cause termination, compensation for breach, outstanding salary and bonuses, and reimbursement of travel and medical expenses. On 25 May 2025, FC Ordabasy filed its response and a counterclaim seeking rejection of the player's claim, recognition of unjust termination, compensation, and sporting sanctions. On 25 July 2025, the player answered the counterclaim. On 13 November 2025, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber rendered its decision, finding just cause for termination, awarding outstanding remuneration in KZT, EUR flight reimbursement, AED expense reimbursement, and KZT compensation for breach, while rejecting the counterclaim entirely. The DRC notified the grounds on 19 December 2025. On 7 January 2026, FC Ordabasy filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS. The Appeal Brief was filed on 9 February 2026 and the player's answer on 24 February 2026. A hearing by videoconference was held on 13 April 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2026/A/12098

• A default notice under Art. 14bis FIFA RSTP is valid even if it erroneously includes one already-paid salary instalment, provided the remaining claims are substantial, clearly identified, and the club is able to understand and investigate the default.
• Monthly bonuses in an Additional Agreement that expressly state 'until [date]' fall due on those stated dates and are not deferred to the 10th of the following month under a general wage-payment clause in the main contract.
• A Second Bonus Agreement that is silent on payment date and makes no reference to a First Bonus Agreement does not novate the First Bonus Agreement under Art. 116 SCO; the original due date of 31 March 2024 in the First Bonus Agreement therefore continued to govern.
• Guaranteed fixed remuneration forming an integral part of total remuneration—rather than a contingent reward—counts as salary for the purpose of the two-month threshold under Art. 14bis FIFA RSTP.
• Art. 14bis FIFA RSTP requires full, not merely partial, cure of all overdue obligations within the 15-day period; partial payments reducing the debt below two months' salary do not satisfy the cure requirement and do not obligate the player to serve a fresh notice.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first addressed Art. 14 (abusive conduct): while the player may have subjectively perceived marginalisation, the individual training regime was temporary, the player was subsequently registered with the first team, and the record did not show bad faith or a purpose to force departure. Just cause under Art. 14 was therefore not established. Turning to Art. 14bis, the arbitrator applied Art. 18 SCO to interpret the Additional Agreement: the natural meaning of 'until [date]' is a payment deadline, not merely an accrual date, and the club's own prior payment practice confirmed this reading. On the Championship Bonus, the arbitrator applied Art. 116 SCO and CAS precedent on novation: the Second Bonus Agreement's silence on payment date and its failure to reference the First Bonus Agreement meant no novation occurred, leaving the 31 March 2024 due date intact. The arbitrator rejected the club's argument that its current president's ignorance of the First Bonus Agreement was relevant, noting that leadership changes do not extinguish prior obligations. On the notice, the arbitrator held that the erroneous inclusion of December 2024 salary did not vitiate the notice because the club investigated, responded, and made partial payments—demonstrating it understood the default. Finally, the arbitrator rejected the ultima ratio objection, holding Art. 14bis confers an automatic termination right once its objective conditions are met.

Why Ordabasy v. Makarenko matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates and applies several strands of Art. 14bis jurisprudence in a single decision: it confirms that guaranteed fixed bonuses count as salary for the two-month threshold, that a notice containing a minor inaccuracy remains valid if the club can understand and investigate the default, that Art. 14bis confers an automatic termination right without an additional ultima ratio requirement, and that novation of a multi-party bonus agreement requires express intent under Art. 116 SCO—a leadership change at the club being irrelevant to pre-existing obligations.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7262 CAS 2024/A/10299 CAS 2024/A/10777 CAS 2017/A/5046 CAS 2024/A/10775 CAS 2022/A/8963

Frequently asked questions about Ordabasy v. Makarenko

Did FC Ordabasy's argument that the default notice was invalid because it included an already-paid salary succeed at CAS?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the erroneous inclusion of the December 2024 salary did not materially affect the validity of the Second Notice as a whole. The remaining claims were substantial and clearly identified, and the club's own conduct—investigating the claims, responding, and making partial payments—confirmed it understood the default. A minor inaccuracy does not require the player to restart the process with a fresh notice.

How did CAS treat the guaranteed monthly bonuses under the Additional Agreement for the purpose of the Art. 14bis two-month salary threshold in Ordabasy v. Makarenko?

The Sole Arbitrator found that the guaranteed remuneration under the Additional Agreement formed part of the player's average monthly salary for Art. 14bis purposes. Because the bonuses were fixed and objectively determinable and formed an integral part of total remuneration rather than a contingent reward, they were treated as salary. Combined with the base salary, the overdue amounts exceeded the equivalent of two months' remuneration.

Was the Second Bonus Agreement signed on 21 September 2023 held to have novated the First Bonus Agreement and its 31 March 2024 payment deadline?

No. Applying Art. 116 SCO, the Sole Arbitrator held that novation is not presumed and requires a clear intention to replace an existing debt. The Second Bonus Agreement made no reference to the First Bonus Agreement and was silent on the payment date. Additionally, the Second Bonus Agreement was signed by only three individuals whereas the First was signed by 27, and the club did not establish how those three signatories were authorised to extinguish the earlier arrangement. The 31 March 2024 due date therefore continued to govern.

Does Art. 14bis FIFA RSTP require a player to show that termination was a last resort (ultima ratio) before exercising the right to terminate for overdue salary?

No. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that Art. 14bis is an autonomous mechanism that confers an automatic right to terminate once its objective conditions are met—namely, at least two months' salary overdue and a valid 15-day written default notice not fully cured. The player is not required to prove an additional element of abusive conduct, broken trust, or ultima ratio under Art. 14 RSTP. The club's partial payments did not amount to full compliance and therefore did not defeat the termination right.

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.