CAS 2018/A/6044
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 26 Jun 2020
Why it matters
This case clarifies that under Article 18(5) RSTP, signing a second contract for an overlapping period effectively terminates the first contract, even if the first contract was valid. It also confirms that a player lacks standing to request sporting sanctions against a club; only FIFA can impose such sanctions. The decision reinforces the importance of contractual stability and the consequences of signing multiple contracts.
Summary
Etzaz Hussain, a Norwegian footballer, claimed he signed an employment contract with FC Astana on 30 September 2016, valid from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019, with monthly salary of EUR 41,500 plus bonuses. He alleged the club breached the contract by failing to register him and refusing to let him join the team. However, on 7 October 2016, Hussain signed a contract with Croatian club NK Rudeš for the period 7 October 2016 to 15 June 2017, and played four matches for them. He argued this was at Astana's request to keep training. When Astana denied the contract's existence, Hussain filed a claim with FIFA DRC, which rejected it for lack of proof. On appeal to CAS, the panel first addressed FIFA's standing: Hussain had no standing to seek sporting sanctions against Astana, as that is FIFA's prerogative. On the merits, the majority found it unnecessary to decide whether the Astana contract was valid because, even if it was, Hussain's subsequent signing of the Rudeš contract for an overlapping period (1 January to 15 June 2017) effectively terminated the Astana contract under Article 18(5) RSTP. The Commentary to the RSTP states that signing a second contract terminates the first. There was no evidence of a loan arrangement or that Rudeš was a partner club. Therefore, the contractual claims were dismissed. The appeal was rejected, and the FIFA DRC decision upheld.
The detail
Parties: Etzaz Hussain v. FC Astana & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2018/A/6044
Outcome: The appeal is dismissed; the FIFA DRC decision rejecting the player's claim is upheld.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss law
Issues in play: The case involved the interpretation of Article 18(5) RSTP regarding multiple contracts covering the same period, and the standing of a player to request sporting sanctions against a club.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.