SC Dnipro-1 LLC v. Igor Jovicevic

At a glance

Parties

SC Dnipro-1 LLC (Ukraine) v. Igor Jovicevic (Croatian football coach)

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/10207

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition); appeal against a decision of the FIFA Players' Status Chamber

Treaty

Employment contract of 23 September 2020 and Additional Agreement (Article 5, unilateral extension clause); FIFA RSTP and Annexe 7

Tribunal

Marco Balmelli (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; coach employment contract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and the FIFA PSC decision confirmed (3 December 2024). The club's unilateral extension clause is invalid, so the contract expired on 30 June 2022 and the coach owes no compensation.

Amount

Claimed by the club: EUR 250,000 as compensation for termination without just cause. Awarded: nothing. The costs rulings are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

SC Dnipro-1, a Ukrainian club, employed Igor Jovicevic as head coach from 23 September 2020 until 30 June 2022. An Additional Agreement let the club extend the contract until 30 June 2023 by written notice given on or before 20 June 2022, at a monthly salary of EUR 25,000 net. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the contract was suspended under Annexe 7 of the FIFA RSTP. The club gave notice of extension on 17 June 2022. The coach replied that the extension clause was invalid and that the contract would end on 30 June 2022, and on 14 July 2022 he signed with FC Shakhtar Donetsk. The club claimed EUR 250,000 under the contract's early-termination clause (Article 2.5.3). The coach argued that the claim was precluded because the club had not raised it as a counterclaim in his earlier FIFA proceedings, that the extension clause was invalid, and that the club had acted in bad faith.

Key holdings

1. The club was not barred from bringing its claim. Article 21 of the FIFA Procedural Rules sets only the deadline for a counterclaim in pending proceedings. The earlier proceedings concerned salary and bonuses up to 30 June 2022, not the extension of the contract, so res judicata did not apply. ¶¶ 62–64
2. Unilateral extension options are not invalid per se under FIFA regulations, but their validity must be assessed case by case. The criteria from CAS 2013/A/3260 are important but are not absolute rules. ¶¶ 74–76
3. A deadline of ten days before expiry to exercise the option is too short. The coach must have time to look for other employment. ¶¶ 80–83
4. A 10% salary increase did not adequately compensate the coach for giving up his freedom of choice. Neither the clause nor the club's Annex addressed bonuses, so the extended terms were unclear and no better overall for the coach. Together with the short deadline, this left the coach at the mercy of the club, and the club's plan to keep the contract suspended through the extended term did not comply with good faith. ¶¶ 84–92
5. The coach did not act in bad faith by invoking the clause's invalidity. His public statements of loyalty were customary in football. The club gave no proof of the alleged assurances, and it exercised the option only when rumours of his move emerged. ¶¶ 94–97
6. The extension clause is invalid. The contract expired on 30 June 2022, so there was no termination without just cause and no basis for the EUR 250,000 claim. The appeal is dismissed. ¶¶ 98–101; operative part

Procedural history

1. 23 September 2020Employment contract and Additional Agreement, containing the unilateral extension clause, signed.
2. 17–29 June 2022The club gives notice of extension on 17 June 2022. On 29 June 2022 the coach rejects it as invalid and states that the contract will expire on 30 June 2022.
3. 14 July 2022The coach signs an employment contract with FC Shakhtar Donetsk.
4. 22 March 2023The coach files a claim with the FIFA PSC for outstanding remuneration. The grounds of the decision ordering the club to pay are notified on 12 June 2023.
5. 31 August 2023CAS issues a termination order on the club's appeal against that first decision because the club did not pay the advance of costs; the first FIFA PSC decision becomes final.
6. 15 September 2023The club files its own claim with the FIFA PSC for EUR 250,000.
7. 24 October 2023The FIFA PSC rejects the club's claim. The grounds are issued on 17 November 2023.
8. 8 December 2023The club files its Statement of Appeal with CAS. It files its Appeal Brief on 18 December 2023.
9. 22 March 2024Sole Arbitrator constituted. The parties agree to a decision on the written submissions.
10. 3 December 2024Award: appeal dismissed and FIFA PSC decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Marco Balmelli Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• unilateral extension clause
• option clause
• football coach
• FIFA RSTP Annexe 7
• war in Ukraine
• contract suspension
• termination without just cause
• res judicata
• counterclaim
• FIFA Procedural Rules Article 21
• pacta sunt servanda
• good faith
• salary increase
• applicable law Article R58
• Shakhtar Donetsk
• FIFA Players' Status Chamber
• Dnipro-1

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