FC Sheriff Tiraspol v. Luis Mateo Ortiz Lara

At a glance

Parties

FC Sheriff (Tiraspol, Moldova) v. Luis Mateo Ortiz Lara (Ecuadorian professional footballer)

Case no.

CAS 2025/A/11338

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (February 2023 edition), against a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (ref. FPSD-16059)

Tribunal

Omar Ongaro (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Professional football; player employment contract

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (15 April 2026). The player validly terminated the contract with just cause, but his compensation is reduced to take account of his new contract with Manta FC.

Amount

DRC award: USD 7,000 outstanding remuneration and USD 112,000 compensation. CAS award: USD 7,000 outstanding remuneration (5% p.a. from 26 September 2024) and USD 81,700 compensation (5% p.a. from 16 September 2024). The costs provisions of the operative part are not reproduced in the published text.

The dispute

FC Sheriff, a Moldovan club, employed the Ecuadorian player Luis Mateo Ortiz Lara under a contract of 20 January 2024 running to 31 December 2025 at USD 7,000 net per month. From May 2024 the club had him train separately, bought him only a one-way ticket home, removed him from the team WhatsApp group and, on 4 July 2024, sent him a termination agreement paying two monthly salaries (USD 14,000). The club said the player signed it electronically; the player denied this, insisted on being reintegrated, and on 7 September 2024 asked for safe departure from the country after being arrested. The FIFA DRC found that the player terminated with just cause and awarded him USD 7,000 and USD 112,000. On appeal the club argued that the contract ended by mutual agreement or, in the alternative, that the player's earnings at Manta FC must be deducted; the player objected to the club's new evidence and asked for higher compensation and sporting sanctions.

Key holdings

1. The club's new evidence, not filed before the DRC because the club did not answer the claim, is admitted. Under Article R57 para. 3 CAS Code, evidence may be excluded only for abusive procedural conduct, and the player did not show any abuse. The club's silence before the DRC will instead be taken into account in allocating costs. ¶¶ 106–118
2. Even if the player signed it, the termination agreement is void and unenforceable under Swiss law (Articles 341 and 362 SCO). The player had at most about 48 hours to reflect on a document not in his language. He also gave up 17 monthly salaries for one month's compensation, so the concessions were not of equivalent value. ¶¶ 130–148
3. The player terminated the contract by his letter of 7 September 2024, and he had just cause. Before the alleged agreement the club had shown it no longer wanted his services: it bought a one-way ticket, sent no holiday training programme, removed him from the team WhatsApp group, recalled his kit and drafted a termination agreement. No default notice was needed. ¶¶ 159–178
4. The August 2024 salary of USD 7,000 is outstanding. The residual value of the contract is USD 112,000 (16 x USD 7,000). ¶¶ 179–185
5. Mitigation applies to a new contract signed after the DRC decision, because the duty to mitigate continues until a final decision and CAS reviews de novo. The breach falling within the protected period does not exclude mitigation under Article 17 para. 1.2 RSTP. The whole value of the Manta FC contract is deducted, appearance bonuses included (USD 30,300), leaving compensation of USD 81,700. ¶¶ 190–204
6. The player's requests for higher compensation and for sporting sanctions are inadmissible. He filed no appeal of his own, counterclaims are not allowed in CAS appeals, and only FIFA, which was not a party, can seek sporting sanctions. ¶¶ 206–210
7. The player was ordered to produce his Manta FC contract. The requests for his bank statements and for FIFA to supply the contract from TMS were refused: the help of a non-party deciding body is limited to documents in the file of the challenged decision. ¶¶ 96–101

Procedural history

1. 20 January 2024Employment contract no. 0324-F signed, valid until 31 December 2025.
2. 4 July 2024The club sends the player a draft termination agreement providing for payment of USD 14,000; the club pays USD 14,300 on 9 July 2024.
3. 7 September 2024The player is arrested and writes to the club demanding safe departure from the country within 48 hours.
4. 16 September 2024The player files a claim before the FIFA DRC; the club does not reply.
5. 23 January 2025DRC decision awards the player USD 7,000 and USD 112,000 plus interest; grounds notified on 21 March 2025.
6. 10 April 2025FC Sheriff files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
7. 27 June 2025Sole Arbitrator Omar Ongaro appointed.
8. 30 October 2025Hearing by videoconference.
9. 15 April 2026Award: appeal partially upheld; compensation reduced to USD 81,700.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Omar Ongaro Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Yury Yakhno · Maksim Kozyrev

For the respondent

Juan Pablo Giraldo Grisales

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• just cause
• termination by mutual agreement
• termination agreement
• Article 341 SCO
• period of reflection
• Article 17 RSTP
• mitigation of damages
• protected period
• Article 14 para. 2 RSTP
• abusive conduct
• exclusion from team
• Article R57 CAS Code
• new evidence
• de novo review
• counterclaim
• sporting sanctions
• FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
• Manta FC

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.