Authored By: Mohamed Samy Soliman
Abstract
Contractual stability is a cornerstone of the regulatory framework governing professional football, reflecting the need to balance players’ freedom of employment with clubs’ legitimate sporting and financial interests. The FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) regulate the unilateral termination of contracts and prescribe legal consequences where termination occurs without just cause 1. This article critically analyzes the legal framework governing such terminations, with particular emphasis on the interpretation of “just cause,” the calculation of compensation under Article 17 RSTP, and the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in shaping consistent jurisprudence. Through doctrinal and analytical examination of leading CAS awards, the article highlights inconsistencies in compensation methodology, the ambiguous application of the “specificity of sport,” and the unresolved tension between FIFA regulations and national employment law. It concludes by proposing legal and regulatory reforms aimed at enhancing predictability, fairness, and contractual stability in international football.
- Introduction
Professional football has evolved from a primarily sporting activity into a highly commercialized global industry characterized by significant financial investments, transnational labor mobility, and complex contractual relationships. Clubs operate as economic entities, investing heavily in player acquisition, development, and remuneration, while players increasingly assert their rights as employees within an international labor market. At the heart of this system lies the employment contract between the professional player and the club, which governs sporting performance, financial remuneration, and the duration of the professional relationship.
Contractual stability is fundamental to the integrity of this system. Clubs require certainty to plan sporting strategies and financial investments, while players must enjoy protection against arbitrary treatment and unjustified restrictions on their professional mobility. Tensions inevitably arise when one party seeks to terminate the contract unilaterally before its agreed expiry date. Such disputes pose risks not only to the contractual parties but also to competitive balance and the orderly functioning of football competitions.
FIFA has sought to regulate these tensions through the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), particularly Articles 13 to 17 1, which govern contract termination and its consequences. While the regulations establish a general framework, they intentionally leave certain concepts – most notably “just cause” and the “specificity of sport”- undefined. As a result, judicial interpretation by FIFA decision-making bodies and, more importantly, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), has become decisive in shaping the law 2 3 4.
This article critically examines unilateral termination of professional football contracts without just cause. It analyzes the legal framework under FIFA regulations, evaluates CAS jurisprudence on just cause and compensation, and assesses whether the current system sufficiently ensures contractual stability, legal certainty, and fairness.
- Research Methodology
This article adopts a doctrinal and analytical research methodology. Primary sources include the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 edition) and published CAS arbitral awards addressing contract termination and compensation. Secondary sources consist of academic literature, including textbooks and scholarly articles on international sports law and employment law 5 6.
Rather than merely describing legal provisions, the article critically evaluates judicial reasoning and identifies inconsistencies and structural weaknesses in the existing framework 5. The methodology emphasizes qualitative analysis of landmark CAS cases in order to assess broader trends and propose normative reforms.
- Legal Framework Governing Contract Termination
3.1 FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
Article 13 RSTP establishes the fundamental principle that contracts between professional players and clubs may only be terminated upon expiry or by mutual consent 1. This provision reflects FIFA’s commitment to contractual stability as a regulatory objective.
Article 14 permits unilateral termination only where “just cause” exists. However, the regulation deliberately refrains from providing an exhaustive definition, granting judicial bodies broad discretion to assess the circumstances of each case. Article 15 introduces the concept of “sporting just cause,” allowing a player to terminate a contract if he has participated in fewer than 10% of official matches during a season, subject to strict conditions.
Article 17 RSTP governs the consequences of termination without just cause 1. It provides for financial compensation and, where applicable, sporting sanctions. The provision lists several non-exhaustive factors for calculating compensation, including national law, the specificity of sport, the remaining value of the contract, and expenses incurred by the club. This flexible approach aims to avoid rigid damages formulas but has also generated significant legal uncertainty.
3.2 The Protected Period
The protected period is defined as the first three seasons of a contract (or two seasons if the contract is concluded after the player’s 28th birthday). Termination without just cause during this period exposes the breaching party to additional sporting sanctions, such as suspension or transfer bans.
The concept reflects FIFA’s heightened concern for stability during the early phase of a contractual relationship, when clubs typically make their most substantial investments. However, the protected period has also been criticized for disproportionately restricting players’ freedom of movement.
- Judicial Interpretation by the Court of Arbitration for Sport
4.1 Concept of Just Cause
CAS jurisprudence consistently holds that just cause requires a serious and fundamental breach of contractual obligations. Termination must be a measure of last resort and justified only where the continuation of the employment relationship has become objectively intolerable.
In CAS 2006/A/1180, the panel emphasized that minor breaches 2, temporary difficulties, or isolated incidents do not constitute just cause. The principle of proportionality plays a central role: termination must be proportionate to the severity of the breach.
CAS has also stressed the importance of prior warnings and formal notices, particularly in cases involving alleged misconduct or non-performance. This approach aligns with general principles of employment law and reinforces contractual discipline.
4.2 Non-Payment of Salaries
Non-payment or delayed payment of remuneration is among the most frequently invoked grounds for just cause by players. CAS jurisprudence recognizes that persistent failure to pay salaries, especially after formal notice, constitutes a fundamental breach.
In CAS 2013/A/3091, the panel held that repeated salary delays undermined the mutual trust essential to the employment relationship and justified unilateral termination 4. Conversely, CAS has rejected claims based on isolated delays or situations where arrears were promptly settled, emphasizing a contextual and fact-specific analysis.
This nuanced approach seeks to balance players’ financial security with clubs’ occasional administrative or financial difficulties.
4.3 Sporting Just Cause
Sporting just cause under Article 15 RSTP is interpreted restrictively. CAS consistently treats this provision as an exception rather than a general right to terminate. Panels have emphasized that limited playing time must be substantial and unjustified, and that the player’s conduct and sporting level are relevant factors.
This restrictive interpretation reflects FIFA’s desire to prevent abuse of the provision while still protecting players who are effectively excluded from sporting participation.
- Critical Analysis of Compensation under Article 17 RSTP
5.1 Calculation of Compensation
Article 17 RSTP adopts a flexible approach to compensation, rejecting fixed damages in favor of a multifactorial assessment. CAS jurisprudence has developed the principle of “positive interest,” aiming to place the injured party in the position it would have occupied had the contract been properly performed.
In the landmark Webster case (CAS 2008/A/1519-1520), the panel clarified that compensation should generally reflect the residual value of the contract, subject to mitigation 3. This decision marked a turning point in CAS jurisprudence and has been widely cited in subsequent cases.
Nevertheless, panels have differed in their application of the relevant factors, leading to significant variations in compensation awards.
5.2 Mitigation of Damages
CAS consistently imposes a duty to mitigate damages. Players are expected to make reasonable efforts to secure alternative employment, and income earned under a new contract is deducted from the compensation owed.
While this principle aligns with general contract law, it may disadvantage players operating in weaker football markets, where comparable employment opportunities are limited. Critics argue that strict application of mitigation may undermine the protective purpose of Article 17.
5.3 The Specificity of Sport
The “specificity of sport” is one of the most controversial aspects of Article 17. CAS panels have invoked this concept to justify both increases and reductions in compensation, often without clear reasoning.
In some cases, it reflects the unique characteristics of football, such as transfer systems and competitive balance. In others, it functions as a discretionary adjustment factor. This inconsistency undermines predictability and has been criticized for granting panels excessive discretion.
- Sporting Sanctions and the Protected Period
6.1 The Protected Period
Sporting sanctions under Article 17, including match suspensions and transfer bans, aim to deter unjustified terminations and protect contractual stability. These sanctions apply primarily during the protected period.
6.2 Proportionality of Sanctions
CAS has repeatedly emphasized that sporting sanctions must comply with the principle of proportionality. In several cases, panels have reduced or annulled sanctions where the breach, although unjustified, did not warrant severe punishment.
This jurisprudence reflects a growing sensitivity to players’ fundamental rights, including the right to work.
7. Critical Assessment of CAS Jurisprudence
7.1 Lack of Predictability
Despite the development of guiding principles, CAS awards continue to display significant variability, particularly in compensation calculations. This unpredictability undermines legal certainty for both clubs and players and complicates contractual risk assessment.
7.2 The Specificity of Sport
The absence of a clear definition or structured application of the specificity of sport remains a major weakness. Without clearer guidelines, the concept risks becoming an arbitrary corrective tool rather than a principled legal standard.
7.3 Interaction with National Employment Law
Article 17 explicitly refers to national law, yet CAS generally prioritizes FIFA regulations. This creates tension in jurisdictions with strong labor protections and raises questions about the compatibility of FIFA rules with domestic employment law.
7.4 Comparative and Policy – Oriented Perspectives
Beyond doctrinal analysis, a broader comparative perspective highlights structural weaknesses in the current FIFA – CAS regulatory model. In many national legal systems, particularly within the European Union, employment contracts are governed by mandatory labor protections that limit the enforceability of fixed-term contracts and prioritize the employee’s freedom to terminate subject to notice or compensation capped by statute. By contrast, the FIFA RSTP regime imposes a sui generis system in which contractual breach may trigger not only financial liability but also sporting sanctions, a feature largely unknown in domestic employment law.
CAS has consistently justified this exceptional regime by reference to the autonomy of sport and the need to preserve competitive balance. However, the increasing commercialization of football and the growing recognition of players’ labor rights challenge the legitimacy of treating professional footballers as a special category of workers subject to enhanced constraints. The lack of a clear hierarchy between FIFA regulations and national employment law exacerbates this tension and exposes the system to potential conflicts with public policy norms.
From a policy standpoint, greater regulatory clarity would benefit all stakeholders. Clubs would gain improved predictability in assessing contractual risk and investment exposure, while players would enjoy clearer guidance on the legal consequences of termination decisions. One possible reform would be the adoption of indicative compensation ranges or presumptive calculation methods under Article 17, subject to adjustment in exceptional circumstances. Such an approach would preserve flexibility while reducing arbitral inconsistency.
Additionally, FIFA could clarify the operational meaning of the “specificity of sport” by articulating objective criteria for its application, such as demonstrable impact on sporting integrity or competition structure. Without such guidance, the concept risks remaining an amorphous corrective device rather than a principled legal standard.
Ultimately, strengthening contractual stability in professional football does not require rigid formalism, but rather a coherent and transparent balance between regulatory autonomy, contractual freedom, and fundamental employment rights. A recalibrated framework would enhance the legitimacy and long-term sustainability of football’s global regulatory system.
- Conclusion
The unilateral termination of professional football contracts without just cause remains one of the most complex and contested areas of international sports law. While FIFA regulations establish a comprehensive framework, their effectiveness depends heavily on judicial interpretation by CAS.
Persistent inconsistencies in compensation awards, the vague application of the specificity of sport, and unresolved tensions with national employment law undermine legal certainty and contractual stability. To address these challenges, FIFA should consider issuing clearer guidelines on compensation calculation and the application of sporting specificity.
A more transparent, harmonized, and principled approach would better protect the legitimate interests of both players and clubs, ensuring that football’s regulatory system remains fair, predictable, and aligned with fundamental principles of contract and employment law.
Reference(S):
- FIFA, Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 ed.).
- CAS 2006/A/1180, Olympique de Marseille v. Frank Ribéry & FIFA, Award of 19 April 2007.
- CAS 2008/A/1519-1520, FC Shakhtar Donetsk v. Matuzalem Francelino da Silva & Others, Award of 19 May 2009.
- CAS 2013/A/3091–3093, FC Nantes, Al Nasr SC & Ismaël Bangoura, Award of 16 July 2014.
- James A.R. Nafziger, International Sports Law (2nd ed., 2004).
- Richard Parrish, Sports Law and Policy in the European Union (2003).
