Introduction: A Landmark Case on War, Waivers, and Player Safety
When does a dangerous situation, like drone attacks in a city at war, give a player “just cause” to unilaterally terminate their contract? And what happens if that player had already explicitly waived their right to use the war as a reason to leave?
These are the high-stakes questions at the heart of the consolidated CAS award involving Mathias Normann, FC Dynamo Moscow, and Al Raed SC. The player cited imminent danger from drone attacks as force majeure. The club pointed to a signed contract where the player, in exchange for a lucrative deal, knowingly accepted that very risk.
The CAS decision (CAS 2024/A/10491 et al.) is a critical, modern precedent on the limits of contractual freedom, the high bar for force majeure, and the unwavering enforcement of FIFA’s player contract regulations, even in the most extreme circumstances.
The Legal Framework: Key Principles in Conflict
This dispute forced the CAS Panel to navigate a direct clash between a player’s fundamental safety and the core principles of contractual law.
- FIFA RSTP – Annexe 7: This is the key regulation created by FIFA after the invasion of Ukraine. It grants foreign players and coaches the right to unilaterally suspend their employment contracts with Russian clubs. This was the “escape clause” available to all foreign players.
- FIFA RSTP – Article 17 (Contractual Stability): This is the foundational rule of the transfer system. A player who terminates a contract without “just cause” must pay compensation. Critically, Article 17.2 establishes that the player’s new club (Al Raed, in this case) is jointly and severally liable for paying that compensation. This is a strict liability rule.
- Swiss Law – Force Majeure (Art. 119 SCO): This principle allows an obligation to be extinguished if its performance becomes impossible due to an unforeseeable, unavoidable, and external event that was beyond the parties’ control.
- Swiss Law – Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus (Changed Circumstances): This doctrine allows a contract to be voided or modified if a fundamental change in circumstances—one that was entirely unforeseeable—makes the original terms unconscionable.
Case Analysis: The Waiver, the Drones, and the Ruling
The Panel’s findings were a methodical rejection of the player’s claims, with every decision coming back to one central fact: the contract he signed after the war began.
The Facts: A Calculated Risk
- The War Starts (Feb 2022): The conflict in Ukraine begins.
- Player Uses Annexe 7 (June 2022): Mathias Normann correctly uses Annexe 7 to suspend his contract with his parent club, FC Rostov.
- The Fateful Waiver (Sept 2022): The Player revokes his suspension to sign a new, lucrative loan contract with FC Dynamo Moscow. This new contract, signed months after the war began, contained two critical clauses (Paras 14 & 16):
- The Player “explicitly and irrevocably waives” his right to use Annexe 7.
- The Parties agree that the conflict “shall not constitute a force majeure or a just cause” for termination. This was a “material condition” of the deal.
- The Drones (July 2023): Drone attacks strike Moscow, with one reportedly exploding near the Player’s apartment (Para 29).
- The Termination (Aug 3, 2023): Citing fear for his life and these new attacks, the Player unilaterally terminates his contract with 18 days remaining.
- The New Contract (Aug 16, 2023): The Player signs with Saudi club Al Raed.
The FIFA DRC and CAS Ruling: Pacta Sunt Servanda (Contracts Must Be Kept)
All three parties appealed the initial FIFA DRC decision, and the CAS Panel dismissed all three appeals, confirming the DRC’s ruling in its entirety.
The Panel found the Player terminated his contract without just cause for three main reasons:
- The Waiver Was Absolute: The Player, assisted by lawyers, was fully aware of the war when he signed the Dynamo contract. He consciously “contracted for the risk.” He cannot subsequently claim that the known risk of war (which he waived) constitutes just cause.
- No Force Majeure or Rebus Sic Stantibus: The drone attacks were not a new, unforeseeable event. The Panel ruled they were an “escalation of a pre-existing situation” (Para 86). This does not meet the high legal standard for force majeure, which requires a fundamentally new and unforeseeable circumstance.
- Player Failed to Prove Imminent Danger: The Player (who had the burden of proof) did not demonstrate that his life was in such objective, imminent danger that termination was the ultima ratio (last resort). The Panel noted that (a) other foreign players stayed, (b) a new foreign player even joined Dynamo after he left, and (c) the club had offered to relocate him to a different apartment, an offer he did not pursue (Para 91, 93).
The Financial Rulings
- Dynamo’s Claim (WON): The Player and Al Raed were ordered to pay €101,059.10 in compensation. CAS confirmed Al Raed’s liability is automatic and strict under Article 17.2.
- Player’s Claim 1 (WON): Dynamo was ordered to pay the Player €46,951 in outstanding salaries, as the club failed to provide clear proof of payment.
- Player’s Claim 2 (LOST): The Player also demanded the return of a €102,000 incentive payment the club had withheld as a fine for his missing pre-season. The Panel rejected this, noting that the Player’s lawyer had negotiated and agreed in writing to this 50% reduction at the time (Para 117). This is a classic application of venire contra factum proprium—you cannot act against your own prior, settled agreement.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Agents, Clubs & Lawyers
The Normann award is a resounding, and perhaps cold, affirmation of contractual stability over subjective feelings of fear.
- Waivers Are Binding: This is the case’s most critical lesson. If a player, advised by counsel, explicitly waives a specific right (like Annexe 7) in exchange for a contract, CAS will enforce that waiver.
- The Force Majeure Bar is Sky-High: An “escalation” of a known risk (even a war) does not constitute force majeure. The circumstances must be fundamentally new and unforeseeable at the time of signing.
- Liability for New Clubs is Automatic: Al Raed’s argument that it didn’t “induce” the breach was irrelevant. Article 17.2 is a strict liability trap. Signing a player who has unilaterally terminated their contract makes the new club jointly liable for the debt, period.
