Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17943
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bojan
Cecaric
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Alexandra Gomez Bruinewoud (Uruguay & the Netherlands), Member
Oleg Zadubrovskiy (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Bojan Cecaric, Serbia
Represented by Rafael Meirelles Gomes de Ávila
RESPONDENT:
Viking FK, Norway
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17943
I. The Parties
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Serbian player, Bojan Cecaric (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
•
the Norwegian club, Viking FK (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated
to the Norwegian Football Federation i.e., Norges Fotballforbund (NFF).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
2.
On 26 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
3.
According to the Player, on 26 June 2024, he received an employment offer (hereinafter:
the Offer) from the Club’s Sport Director, Mr Erik Nevland (hereinafter: Mr Nevland), which
contained, inter alia, the following terms and conditions, quoted verbatim:
“Contract Offer
Dated 26.06.2024
BETWEEN:
(1) Viking Fotballklubb, whose registered office is at Játtãvâvegen 11, 4020 Stavanger,
Norway with registered organizational number 970 179 461 (VFK);
VFK is a professional football club affiliated to the Football Association of Norway (FANO)
and currently playing football in the Norwegian ‘Eliteserien’.
(2) Viking Fotbavllklubb is express our Sincere interest in Bojan Cecaric ! (born October
10, 1993). We believe that he could be a valutabeleid addition to our team and are eager
to explore the possibility of his transfer to our club.
(3) We can propose the following conditions:
1. Employment contract from 01-07-2024 to 30-06-2026 ' (1 Year Club Option)
2. Salary in the amount of 15 000 euro per Month nett;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17943
3. League win bonuses determined by the club for the whole team (approximately 1200
euro nett);
4. Bonus for qualification in euro cup games (min 2 500 euro nett qualification to group
stage 10 000 euro nett);
5. Appartement free from the club.
6. Payment for Economy class air tickets for the family on the route place of residence Stavanger place of residence;
This offer is valid if you succesfully pass the Medical Examination”.
4.
The Player also added that Mr Nevland sent him the Offer by e-mail and that he signed it
“ending all ongoing job negotiations with other clubs and potential employers” and “began
preparations for his move to Norway”.
5.
In addition, the Player submitted a screenshot of an email allegedly received from Mr
Nevland on 25 July 2024, in which he indicated that the Offer was fake and should be
ignored.
6.
On 12 September 2024, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, stating that (i) the
Offer was a valid and binding contract; (ii) the Club withdrew from the Offer; and (iii) the
Club should pay to the Player EUR 360,000 net within 15 days at the risk of issuing a press
release against the Club.
7.
In view of the Club’s failure to act on the above, the Player claimed that it should be held
liable for the breach of contract.
8.
In particular, the Player submitted a copy of his new contract with the Kuwaiti club, AlShabab Sporting Club (hereinafter: Al-Shabab), for the period from 16 July 2024 to 31 May
2025, under which he is entitled to a total remuneration of USD 80,000.
9.
Consequently, the Player requested that he be awarded the sum of EUR 283,200 as
compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the remuneration set out in the
Offer (EUR 360,000) minus the calculated mitigation of EUR 76,800, taking into account the
exchange rate of 0,96 from USD to EUR.
10. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“A In view of all the above, the CLAIMANT respectfully requests that this FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber, upon analyzing the facts and legal grounds presented herein, fully
uphold the present claim, to:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17943
1. Condemn the RESPONDENT, Viking Fotballklubb, to pay compensation to the
CLAIMANT, Bojan Cecaric, in the amount of EUR 283,200 (two hundred and eighty-three
thousand, two hundred euros), corresponding to the difference between the values of the
formalized offer and the currently valid contract, with the addition of annual interest of
5%, due to the unilateral and unjustified termination of the employment relationship by
the RESPONDENT”.
b. Position of the Club
11. The Club did not respond to the claim, despite being invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 13 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
13. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Serbian player and a Norwegian club.
14. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 and art. 29 of the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of said regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17943
c. Merits of the dispute
16. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by the Player against the Club on the basis of the Offer.
18. In particular, the DRC noted that the Player claimed that he had entered into a valid and
binding contract with the Club (i.e., the Offer), but that the Club had subsequently
terminated it, thereby entitling him to the mitigated compensation.
19. As the Club did not respond to the claim, the Chamber decided that its analysis must be
made solely on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Player (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
20. In light of the above, the DRC decided that its task was to determine whether the Parties
had in fact entered into a valid and binding agreement, the fairness of the termination, if
any, and the consequences thereof.
21. As a starting point, the DRC turned to the Offer and noted that it did indeed contain most
of the essentialia negotii required by the jurisprudence to establish the validity of a contract:
(i) it set out the name of the parties; (ii) the remuneration to be paid by the Club to the
Player; and (iii) the duration of that contract.
22. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC also noted that, although the Offer appeared to
have been signed by the Player at the bottom of the page, it did not contain any reference
to his name or the date of his signature.
23. The Chamber also considered it crucial that the origin of the Offer seemed dubious.
According to the DRC: whilst the Player claimed to have received the document by e-mail
from Mr Nevland; the only evidence provided in this respect was a screenshot of an e-mail
with an unknown source and no date.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17943
24. The DRC was also observant that, although the Player claimed to have signed the Offer and
returned it to the Club on or around the same date, he failed to provide any email exchange
to support his acceptance. Indeed, the only evidence the Chamber found in the case file
was the signed version of the Offer, with the exact same electronic signature that has been
used in all documents submitted with this claim (e.g., the Power of Attorney and the Bank
Account Registration Form), with the exception of the new contract.
25. Next, the Chamber emphasised that, although the Player claimed to have done so, he also
failed to provide any evidence that he had taken any action to join the Club. In fact, the
Chamber noted that the Player provided another screenshot suggesting that the Club
informed “him” that the Offer was fake on 25 July 2024. The DRC also noted that this
message was addressed to the email address ([email protected]), the origin of
which the Player also failed explain.
26. The DRC found it to be equally unknown whether the abovementioned e-mail, allegedly
received by the Player from the Club, was sent before or after his alleged signature of the
Offer.
27. In addition to the above, the Chamber stated that the documents on file showed that the
Player did not contact the Club until 12 September 2024, when he was already employed
by Al-Shabab and claimed that the Club owed him the mitigated compensation. The
Chamber was therefore not satisfied that he had ever (and legitimately) expected that he
would provide services to the Club.
28. In light of the foregoing, and although unimpressed by the Club’s lack of response, the DRC
was not convinced that a proper employment contract was ever entered into, nor that it
was formally (or tacitly) terminated by either party.
29. Contrario sensu, the DRC considered that the Player had contradicted himself in his claim
and had therefore failed to prove that (i) the Offer was made by the Club, (ii) even if it was,
that he had formally accepted the terms proposed; and (iii) that the Offer was subsequently
terminated so as to trigger the consequences of the employment relationship.
30. Consequently, the DRC dismissed the Player’s claim on its entirety.
d. Costs
31. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17943
32. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
33. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17943
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bojan Cecaric, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17943
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 10