Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the written submissions of the Parties, as well as the evidence examined in the course of the proceedings. This background information is given for the sole purpose of providing a summary of the dispute. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal analysis. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered carefully all the facts and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, this Award refers only to the facts and evidence considered necessary.

A. Background Facts

6. On 18 September 2024, the Player completed a transfer from the Romanian club Fotbal Club Rapid S.A. to the Club, and the Parties signed an employment contract, which was valid for the term from 18 September 2024 until 31 May 2026 (the “Contract”). Article 1 (2-i) of the Contract states, inter alia, that the Parties agree “to act in accordance with the laws of Romania, applicable collective agreements, the rules and regulations of FIFA, UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation when exercising the rights and obligations under this Contract”.

7. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Contract states that the Player undertakes to, inter alia, participate actively in the Club's training sessions and in the matches for which he is selected, unless he is prevented from doing so by illness, accident or permitted absence, and to execute the obligations on the basis of the Contract in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the head coach, other Club officers and the Club Directors.

8. Remuneration is regulated in Article 4 of the Contract, which stipulates that the Club undertook to pay to the Player a monthly net remuneration of EUR 11,000 for the period 18 September 2024 until 30 June 20025, and EUR 12,000 for the period 1 July 2025 until 31 May 2026, all payable on the 25th of each month, for the previous month.

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 3

Furthermore, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a sign-on bonus of EUR 15,000, payable in two instalments of EUR 7,500 each, on 1 October 2024 and 1 February 2025.

9. Article 5 of the Contract states that the Club undertook to, inter alia, ensure that the Player is given optimal conditions for playing matches and training with the Club.

10. Termination of the Contract is regulated in Article 13, which states as follows:

“Article 13: Termination of the contract

i. This contract is automatically terminated at the end of the period for which it is concluded.

ii. This contract may be terminated before its date of expiry, by mutual agreement of the parties.

iii. In case of occurrence of a force majeure, this contract shall be terminated in accordance with the provisions of applicable law.

iv. The player or the club may unilaterally terminate the contract only subject to the conditions and with the consequences stipulated by the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of FIFA/FRF (as applicable).

v. If the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract with just cause, the other party shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF in force (as applicable). Similarly, if the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract without just cause, the terminating party shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF in force (as applicable).

vi. The contract is automatically terminated, becomes null starting with 01.07.2025, if the team relegates in Second League at the end of the competitive season 2024 – 2025, and the player and the club agree with such termination of the contract.”

11. During the 2024/2025 season, the Player participated in seven official matches for the Club.

12. On 8 June 2025, after the conclusion of the 2024/2025 season, there was a telephone conversation between the Player and the Club’s Head Coach, Mr. Ioan Ovidiu Sabău. The Player alleges that the Head Coach informed the Player that the Head Coach was no longer counting on the Player and that the Player should look for another team.

13. On 9 June 2025, the Club’s Sports Manager, Mr. Gabriel Giurgiu, sent the Player a WhatsApp message with the following content:

“I know that this is not an easy moment and that it is a situation that no one wanted, but at this moment, unfortunately, Neluțu is no longer counting on your services in the next season! We need to find a solution together, but there is no question of paying you the remainder of your contract! Call me when you can! Have a good evening!”

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 4

14. On 12 June 2025 the Player reported for the Club’s first pre-season training for the 2025/2026 season. The Player alleges that he was instructed to train separately from the rest of the squad, and that he was requested to perform training sessions that consisted exclusively of running exercises. The Player further claims that from 12 June until 26 July 2025, with the exception of four training sessions conducted between 1 and 4 July 2025, he was not coached or assisted by the Club’s head coach or any other coach, and that he was denied access to collective team training and prevented from interacting with his teammates.

15. On 19 June 2025, the Player’s legal representative sent a letter to the Club, stating, inter alia, as follows:

“As a result of all the aspects mentioned above, we request you:

1. To communicate to us the program of the club's first division team in which, starting with June the 20th, 2025, the player Răzvan Oaidă is to participate;

2. Secondly, in the event that A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj does not understand to respect the player's right to team training, we request you to communicate to us the reasons why A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj decided to exclude the player from the first division team”

16. Also on 19 June 2025 the Player claims he was verbally informed by the Club’s Executive Manager that he would not be removed from the Club’s A List, which identifies the players the Club may register for matches organized by the Romanian Professional Football League (“LPF”), but that he would be required to train individually for the remainder of the competitive season.

17. On 24 June 2025 the Player travelled with the team to Austria and subsequently attended a pre-season training camp between 24 June and 5 July 2025.

18. On 26 June 2025, the Player’s legal representative sent an email with an enclosed letter to the Club. The email states, inter alia, as follows:

“In view of the lack of any response from you over the last 6 weeks and of the impossibility of continuing the abuses to which Mr. Oaidă Răzvan is knowingly and intentionally subjected, please find attached the fourth notice sent, regarding the finding that, without just cause, as of 17 July 1015, A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj has terminated the contractual relationship.”

19. The letter enclosed with the email sent on 26 June 2025 states, inter alia, as follows:

“From June the 19th, 2025 until the present date, player Răzvan Constantin Oaidă has been training at the same hours as the first division team, but outside the team, being required to do individual training, consisting exclusively of running (…)

We reiterate the request addressed to you back in June the 19th, 2025 and we ask you to communicate to us within one day from the date of communication of this, the following:

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 5

The training program for the first division teams starting with June the 28th, 2025 to which the player Răzvan Oaidă is to report, with the exact indication of the date and hours of training.

In the event that this request remains unanswered, or you deny the player access to the team’s training, we will understand that Cluj University Football Club Sports Association has expressed its intention to terminate, without just cause, the sports activities agreement concluded on September the 18th, 2024, and the arbitration committees within the Romanian Football Federation (FRF) will be notified.”

20. On 4 July 2025, during the pre-season training camp in Austria, the Player participated in a friendly match between the Club and Slovan Liberec.

21. On 16 July 2025, the Player’s legal representative sent a letter to the Club, stating, inter alia, as follows:

“In the event that you continue to decline the participation of the player Răzvan Oaidă in collective training, within the club’s team, the player's reinstatement and his evolution for A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj (Cluj University Football Club Sports Association) or this notification remains unanswered, we will consider that A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj has expressed its intention to terminate the sports activities agreement no. 1166/18.09.2024, without just cause.”

22. Match sheets from two qualifying matches played on 24 and 30 July 2025 indicate that the Player was registered by the Club for participation in UEFA Conference League qualifying matches.

23. At an unknown date the Player was included on the Club’s A List for the 2025–2026 season.

24. On 26 July 2025, the Player’s legal representative sent a letter to the Club entitled “Termination Letter”, stating, inter alia, as follows:

“Considering the impossibility of continuing the present situation and mediating in another manner the conduct of A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj, which, during the last 6 weeks, refused to respect the contractual and regulatory rights of Mr. Răzvan Oaidă, without any basis, by referring to the provisions of article 18 paragraph 10 letter a) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players (R.S.T.J.F.) and articles 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP), we will understand that A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj has terminated, without just cause, the sports activities agreement no. 1166/18.09.2024, starting from July the 17th, 2027 (the date of the deadline in the last notification sent).

As a result, we will immediately notify the arbitration committees within the Romanian Footbaal Federation (F.R.F.) to establish the consequences of the termination, which will be the responsibility of the A.S.F.C. of the University of Cluj.”

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 6

25. Since 26 July 2025, the Player has not participated in the Club’s training sessions or matches.

26. In a letter dated 30 July 2025 the Club replied to the Termination Letter, stating, inter alia as follows:

“Considering the notification sent by the Player Răzvan Constantin Oaidă /hereinafter referred to as the “Player”) through the Law Firm “Iordaucescu Andrei”, on 26.07.2025, by which it is claimed the unilateral termination without just cause by the Club of the sports activity contract no. 1166/18.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”

(…)

As of 26.07.2025, the player has not attended the team’s training sessions. Subsequently, on 28.07.2025, he vacated the used house in Cluj-Napoca and left the city, ceasing the sports activity on his own initiative.

(…)

By this letter, the Club formally calls upon Player Răzvan Constantin Oaidă to immediately resume his participation in the team’s sporting activity. Failing this, the Club reserves its right to initiate all necessary regulatory proceedings before the competent committees of the Romanian Football Federation, including invoking the unilateral termination of the Contract without just cause by the Player, together with all consequences arising therefrom.”

27. On 1 August 2025 the Player sent a letter to the Club, stating, inter alia as follows:

“Thus, we consider that for the first time, after two months, you have understood to take into account the existence of Mr. Răzvan Oaidă and his right to train, but this finding is late, given that the agreement has already been terminated. This situation only confirms that individual training sessions were imposed, from July the 29th to July the 31st, 2025, the club’s team is in training camp, and the date and time of the player's call-up are different from those of the A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj team.

For all the reasons stated above, considering that the purpose of your messages is to harass or may be due to the direct misinformation of Mr. Flavius Nistor by the club's management regarding the termination of the contract with Mr. Răzvan Oaidă, we hereby inform you once again of the decision of A.S.F.C. Universitatea Cluj to terminate the sports contract no. 1166/18.09.2024 as of July the 17th, 2025.”

28. On 28 August 2025 the Club sent a new letter to the Player, where it requested the Player “to immediately attend the training program and official activities”.

29. On 8 September 2025 the Club sent another letter to the Player, stating, inter alia as follows:

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 7

“the Club informs you that it will proceed, in accordance with the provisions of the Notification no. 1346/05.09.2025, to modify List A, in the sense of replacing you with another player who has constantly participated in the trainings program and is in optimal game parameters, so that the team can ensure the continuity of its sports activities in order to achieve the objectives set for the current competition season.”

30. At an unknown date after 8 September 2025 the Player was removed from the Club’s A List and replaced with another player.

B. Proceedings before the Decision-Making Bodies of the FRF

31. On 30 July 2025, the Player filed a claim before the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FRF (the “FRF NDRC”).

32. In his claim before the FRF NDRC, the Player requested FRF NDRC, inter alia, to order the Club to pay to the Player:

- EUR 1,500 net as rent for the period April to June 2025;

- EUR 10,000 net as signing bonus due on 5 April 2025;

- EUR 2,413 net representing the difference in the qualification bonus in the Play - Off First League season 2024-2025;

- Compensation equal to the value of the financial rights for the period 27 July 2025 until 31 May 2026.

33. The Player further requested FRF NDRC to impose sanctions on the Club.

34. In its reply, the Club rejected the claim and requested that the claim should be dismissed as unfounded. Furthermore, the Club filed a counterclaim, requesting FRF NDRC to, inter alia, find that the Player had unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause.

35. FRF NDRC rendered a decision on 24 September 2025. The operative part of the decision reads as follows:

“To uphold the objection of lack of subject matter of the claimant's claims in the initial application filed by the defendant AF FC Universitatea Cluj as well-founded.

To reject the part of the application concerning the claims in the initial application as lacking subject matter.

Rejects the exception of lack of standing to sue of the player with regard to the part of the claim concerning the sanctioning of the club by prohibiting it from making transfers, invoked by the defendant AF FC Universitatea Cluj, as unfounded.

Rejects the supplementary claim filed by the claimant Oaidă Răzvan Constantin against the defendant AF FC Universitatea Cluj as unfounded.

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 8

Rejects the counterclaim filed by the defendant AF FC Universitatea Cluj as unfounded.”

36. The Player and the Club appealed the decision of FRF NDRC to the FRF Appeals Committee.

37. On 6 November 2025, the FRF Appeals Committee rendered a decision concerning the two appeals (the “Appealed Decision”). The operative part of the Appealed Decision states as follows:

“OAIDĂ RĂZVAN CONSTANTIN V. AS FC UNIVERSITATEA CLUB – Ending of the contract and financial claims;

WITH MAJORITY OPINION: Dismisses the appeals as unfounded. Final and internally enforceable.

WITH MINORITY OPINION: Rejects the appeal filed by AS FC Universitatea Cluj as unfounded. Accept the appeal filed by the player Oaidă Răzvan Constantin.”

38. On 22 December 2025, the FRF Appeals Committee issued the grounds of the Appealed Decision.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

39. On 9 December 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”), pursuant to Article R49 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”), against the decision of the FRF Appeals Committee dated 6 November 2025. In its Statement of Appeal, the Appellant requested that the dispute be referred to a sole arbitrator.

40. On 12 December 2025, the Appellant filed its First Request for Provisional Measures.

41. On 16 December 2025, the First Respondent raised an objection to the admissibility of the appeal.

42. On 22 December 2025, the grounds of the Appealed Decision were communicated to the Parties.

43. On 23 December 2025, the Second Respondent filed its response to the Appellant’s First Request for Provisional Measures.

44. On 29 December 2025, the CAS Court Office, inter alia, acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s response to the objection raised by the First Respondent and noted that the Second Respondent had failed to submit its position within the prescribed time limit.

45. On 31 December 2025, the First Respondent filed its response to the Appellant’s First Request for Provisional Measures.

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 9

46. On 5 January 2026, the Player submitted to CAS an English translation of the Appealed Decision with grounds.

47. On 9 January 2026, the CAS Court Office, pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code and on behalf of the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, informed the Parties that the Arbitral Tribunal appointed to decide the present case would be constituted as follows:

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Espen Auberg, Attorney-at-law in Oslo, Norway

48. On 14 January 2026, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to submit English translations of all exhibits they intended to rely on by 16 January 2026.

49. On 16 January 2026, the Appellant and the First Respondent provided CAS with English translations of documents annexed to their respective written submissions.

50. On 26 January 2026 CAS rendered the Order on the Appellant’s First Request for Provisional Measures. The operative part of the Order on the Appellant’s First Request reads as follows:

“1. The application for provisional and conservatory measures filed on 12 December 2025 by Răzvan Constantin Oaidă, in the matter CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF, is dismissed.

2. The costs of the present order shall be determined in the final award or in any other final disposition of this arbitration.”

51. On 3 February 2026 after having been granted extensions to the time limit further to Article R32 of the CAS Code, in accordance with Article R51 of the CAS Code, the Appellant filed his Appeal Brief.

52. On 4 February 2026, the Appellant filed a Second Request for Provisional Measures. On the same date, the CAS Court Office invited the Respondents to submit their respective positions on the Appellant’s Second Request for Provisional Measures by 5 February 2026, at 6 p.m. (Swiss Time).

53. On 5 February 2026 the First Respondent filed its response to the Appellant’s Second Request for Provisional Measures.

54. The Second Respondent failed to submit a response to the Appellant’s Second Request for Provisional Measures within the time limit granted by the CAS Court Office.

55. On 8 February 2026 CAS rendered the Order on the Appellant’s Second Request for Provisional Measures. The operative part of the Order on the Appellant’s Second Request reads as follows:

“1. The application for provisional and conservatory measures filed on 4 February 2026 by Răzvan Constantin Oaidă, in the matter CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF, is dismissed.

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 10

2. The costs of the present order shall be determined in the final award or in any other final disposition of this arbitration.”

56. On 25 February 2026, after having been granted extensions further to Article R32 of the CAS Code, the First Respondent filed its Answer, in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code. In its Answer the First Respondent requested that the Appellant’s request to hear the witnesses listed in the Appeal Brief should be dismissed, as the Appellant had failed to include a brief summary of the listed witnesses’ expected testimonies, as required in Article 51(2) CAS Code.

57. On 18 March 2026, the Appellant submitted a letter where it addressed the First Respondent’s Answer regarding the request to hear witnesses called by the Appellant. The Appellant included a brief summary of the listed witnesses’ expected testimonies.

58. On 23 March 2026, the CAS Court Office noted that the Second Respondent had failed to submit its position in this regard within the prescribed time limit.

59. On 27 March 2026, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that witness testimonies specified by the Appellant were admitted.

60. The Second Respondent failed to submit an Answer within the time limits set by the CAS Court Office. On 9 April 2026 the Second Respondent submitted a letter where it, inter alia, stated that it would refrain from submitting a defence on the merits of the case except for the one provided on the provisional measures, or from participating during the hearing or in other procedural acts.

61. On 9 April 2026, following consultation with the Parties, on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, the CAS Court Office confirmed that a hearing would be held on 12 May 2026, at 9:30 a.m. (Swiss Time), by video-conference, pursuant to Article R44.2 of the CAS Code.

62. On 14 April 2026 the CAS Court Office sent the Parties the grounds on the Order on the Appellant’s Second Request for Provisional Measures.

63. On the same day the CAS Court Office issued an Order of Procedure, which was duly signed and returned by the Appellant on 30 April 2026 and by the First Respondent on 15 April 2026.

64. On 6 May 2026, after consultation with the Parties, the CAS Court Office sent the Parties a tentative hearing schedule, proposed by the Sole Arbitrator and noted the Second Respondent’s unwillingness to participate in the hearing and its refusal to sign the Order of Procedure.

65. On 12 May 2026, a hearing was held by videoconference. In addition to the Sole Arbitrator and CAS Counsel Ms. Shanaize H. Yahiaoui, the following persons attended the hearing:

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 11

For the Appellant:

- Ms Anca Mituică, Counsel;

- Mr Răzvan Constantin Oaidă, Party;

- Mr Adel Betaieb, Witness;

- Ms Camelia Grotto, Interpreter.

For the First Respondent:

- Mr Vlad Hosu, Counsel.

66. The Second Respondent did not attend the hearing despite being invited to do so.

67. The interpreter and the witness were invited by the Sole Arbitrator to tell the truth subject to the sanction of perjury under Swiss law. The Parties and the Sole Arbitrator had a full opportunity to examine and cross-examine the Player and the witnesses.

68. During the hearing, the Parties were given a full opportunity to present their cases, to submit their arguments in closing statements and to answer the questions posed by the Sole Arbitrator.

69. Before the hearing was concluded, the Appellant and the First Respondent expressly stated that they had no objection to the procedure adopted by the Sole Arbitrator, and that their right to be heard had been respected. In addition, the Parties made no objections to the constitution of the Panel.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

70. This section of the Award does not contain an exhaustive list of the Parties’ contentions. Its aim is to provide a summary of the substance of the Parties’ main arguments. In considering and deciding upon the Parties’ claims in this Award, the Sole Arbitrator has accounted for and carefully considered all of the submissions made and evidence adduced by the Parties, including allegations and arguments not mentioned in this section of the Award or in the discussion of the claims below.

A. The Player’s Submissions

71. The Player’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

- At the beginning of the 2025–2026 season the Club’s Head Coach and the Club’s Sporting Director both informed the Player that he was no longer counted on by the Head Coach. The Club’s subsequent legal acts confirmed its intention to terminate the Contract.

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 12

- The Player refused to accept the termination and requested to be given the opportunity to earn his place in the team. As from 12 June 2025, the Player conducted individual training sessions imposed by the Club, without any interaction between the Player and his teammates or between the Player and the head or assistant coaches.

- The Player’s intention not to terminate the contractual relationship is illustrated by the fact that the Player sent four written notices to the Club, all with the aim of continuing the contractual relationship and securing his reintegration into the first team squad.

- The Club has a single team of professional players, competing in the Romanian top division. The Player has not been entered on the match sheet in the current season for any game, and he has not travelled with the team to any of the official matches. The exclusion of the Player from the team squad leads to a violation of his right to play in any official competition.

- In accordance with CAS jurisprudence, a football player has the right and obligation not only to participate in collective football training but also to be provided with the necessary access and facilities to train and compete with his teammates.

- Article 19 paragraph 10 letter (a) of FRF’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players (“FRF RSTFP”), constitutes the primary legal basis for the Player’s request to establish that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause.

- The Club has showed an abusive conduct and terminated the Contract without just cause by stating that it intended not to reinstate the player to the Club’s first team and by showing its intention to terminate the Contract by imposing individual training sessions without a contractual or regulatory basis, by refusing the Player access to training with the team or to training sessions with a head coach or assistant coach, by refusing to select the Player for any official match of the 2025–2026 season, by not including the Player in the collective communication of training sessions with the other players, and by excluding the player from the A List.

72. On this basis, the Player made the following request for relief:

“- To uphold the present Appeal and partially set aside Decision no. 14 dated 6 November 2025, issued by the FRF Appeal Committee, as well as Decision no. 124 dated 24 September 2025, issued by the FRF National Dispute Resolution Chamber;

- As a consequence, pursuant to Article 18 para. 10 letter (a), first thesis, to declare that Sports Activity Contract no. 1166/18.09.2024 was terminated without just cause by the Respondent club Universitatea Cluj;

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 13

- As a consequence, pursuant to Article 18 para. 9.1 letter (a) of the FRF Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players (RSTFP), to order the Respondent club to pay the Player compensation equal to the financial entitlements provided under Article IV para. (ii) of the Contract, calculated from 27 July 2025 until 31 May 2026, in the net amount of EUR 108,000;

- pursuant to Article 36.10 of the FRF RSTFP, to order the First Respondent to reimburse the Appellant the arbitration costs incurred in cases no. 79/CNSL/2025 and 12/CR/2025, amounting to EUR 5,000 in attorney’s fees and RON 2,955 as procedural fees.

- to order the Respondents to contribute to the Appellant’s legal and other costs incurred in the present proceedings, namely translation costs in the amount of RON 5,000, attorney’s fees in the amount of CHF 8,000, and the arbitration costs paid to CAS.”

B. The Club’s Submissions

73. The Club’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

- The contractual relationship between the Club and the Player is not disputed. The Player has constructed a narrative in which it suggests that the Club allegedly ended the contractual relationship in July 2025. This assertion is unfounded.

- The burden of proof lies with the Player. No objective evidence has been produced to support his claim.

- Between 24 June and 28 July 2025, the Player participated in official team preparations, collective team training sessions, was fully integrated in the team’s sporting activities and played in a friendly match on 4 July 2025. He was also registered both on the UEFA Conference League qualifiers list and the 2025–2026 A List for the Romanian First Division. On 28 July 2025 the Player decided to leave the Club and ceased attending the Club’s activities. The Club’s conduct shows that it accepted that the contractual relationship between the Club and the Player should remain in force and to be performed under normal professional conditions, and that termination of a contract shall constitute an ultima ratio measure, not a managerial preference. The Club’s conduct is irreconcilable with the Player’s theory of marginalisation or constructive termination.

- Until the Player unilaterally decided to leave the Club on 28 July 2025, the contractual relationship was being performed in good faith, within the framework of a valid and effective Contract that both parties continued to regard as binding.

- Communication from the Club’s Head Coach and Sporting Director must be understood as internal dialogue regarding squad planning and possible future solutions, not as an operative act of termination.

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 14

- The notifications sent by the Player on 19 June, 26 June and 26 July 2025 lacked factual foundation. The content of the notifications, suggesting exclusion, lack of training opportunities or an alleged intention to terminate, stood in stark contradiction with the ongoing sporting reality and with the reciprocal performance of contractual obligations by both parties.

- When the Player ceased reporting to the Club on 28 July 2025 and stopped attending Club activities, the Club duly issued its first formal written notification to the Player on 30 July 2025 where it requested the Player to immediately resume his participation in the team’s sporting activities. The request was reiterated on 28 August and 8 September 2025, and the Player was warned that he would be removed from the A List if he did not return to attend club trainings and activities.

- Any adjustment made to the A List does not affect the Player’s contractual status. The Player remains contractually bound to the Club and is therefore obliged to resume sporting activities within the squad. The A List merely reflects the group of players fit for competition purposes and must necessarily remain aligned with the sporting reality of those who are effectively present, training, and available to the Club. The Player was repeatedly warned that his persistent absence would lead to such a modification, as he had ceased all sporting activity with the Club as of 28 July 2025. The amendment of the A List therefore constitutes the direct and foreseeable consequence of the Player’s own refusal to perform his contractual obligations.

- With regard to the Player’s alleged entitlement to continued remuneration, the obligation to pay salary subsists only insofar as the sporting services are effectively rendered. In this respect, the fundamental principle consistently recognized in sports doctrine and jurisprudence, “no work, no pay”, finds full application in the present case.

74. On this basis, the Club made the following request for relief:

“1. To dismiss the Appeal in its entirety;

2. To confirm Decision no. 124/24.09.2025 issued by the Romanian NDRC and Decision no. 14/06.11.2025 rendered by the RFF Appeal Committee;

3. To dismiss all other prayers for relief advanced by the Appellant; and

4. To order the Appellant to bear the costs of the arbitration and to contribute to the First Respondent’s expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings, in accordance with Article R64 of the CAS Code.”

CAS 2025/A/12005 Răzvan Constantin Oaidă v. Universitatea Cluj & RFF – Page 15

C. FRF’s Submissions

75. FRF expressed that it would refrain from submitting a defence on the merits of the case and did not submit an Answer within the time limits set by the CAS Court Office to do so. Furthermore, FRF did not attend the hearing.