Acórdão do FIFA, processo FPSD-15911 SADIKOVIC_EN_2025-07-03

Data

03/07/2025

Fonte

inside.fifa.com

Labour Disputes

Texto da decisão

REF. FPSD-15911

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Damir
Sadikovic

COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member

CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Damir Sadikovic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Dupovac Feđa

RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Napredak, Serbia
Represented by Nenad Curkovic

SECOND COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
FK Sloga Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina

pg. 2

REF. FPSD-15911

I. Facts of the case
1.

The parties to this dispute are:
-

The Bosnian player Damir Sadikovic (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant / CounterRespondent);

The Serbian club Napredak (hereinafter: Napredak or the Respondent / Counterclaimant),
affiliated to the Football Association of Serbia (FSS);

The Bosnian club FK Sloga Doboj (hereinafter: Sloga Doboj or the Second CounterRespondent), affiliated to the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Football Association (FFBH).

On 15 September 2023, the Player and Napredak entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 15 September 2023 until 31 May 2025.

In accordance with the Contract, Napredak undertook to pay to the Player a EUR 4,600
monthly salary and a EUR 21,000 sign-on fee, payable as follows:
-

EUR 10,000 on 26 September 2023;
EUR 11,000 on 20 July 2024.

In addition, clause 11 par. 5 of the Contract provided the following:
“In the event of dispute, the contracting parties determine the jurisdiction of the FSS Dispute
Resolution Council. The Club and the Player undertake not to resolve disputes regarding this
Agreement before regular courts”

On 28 June 2024, the Player addressed a letter to Napredak, alleging that he was being
forced to train alone and requesting his immediate reinstatement with the team.

On 1 July 2024, Napredak replied to the Player’s letter, stating that he had not trained with
the team on 24 and 25 June 2024 due to an injury in the Achilles tendon.

On 5 July 2024, the Player sent a new letter to Napredak, claiming that the situation
remained unchanged and placing the club in default with respect to outstanding salaries,
namely half of the salary for March 2024 and the full salary of June 2024. The Player granted
Napredak a deadline of 15 days to remedy the default.

On 19 July 2024, the Player sent a further letter to Napredak, requesting explanations
concerning a statement allegedly made by Napredak’s General Secretary about the club
being a “real Serbian team, a team without foreigners”.

pg. 3

REF. FPSD-15911

On 29 July 2024, the Player sent a new letter to Napredak, again requesting payment of the
outstanding salaries of half March and full June 2024, the amount of EUR 11,000 as sign-on
fee due on 20 July 2024, as well as his reinstatement with the team.

10. On 7 August 2024, the Player notified Napredak of the unilateral termination of the
Contract citing just cause.
11. On 9 August 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with Sloga Doboj, valid as
from the date of signature until 31 May 2025, including a total remuneration of BAM
13,095.69.

pg. 4

REF. FPSD-15911

II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 4 September 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
13. The Player submitted that Napredak failed to comply with its financial obligations and
infringed his personality rights by excluding him from participation and competition with
the team.
14. In particular, the Player argued that Napredak failed to pay him a total amount of EUR
17,900, broken down as follows:
-

EUR 2,300 corresponding to partial salary of June 2024;
EUR 4,600 corresponding to the full salary of July 2024;
EUR 11,000 corresponding to the sign-on fee for the 2024/25 season.

15. The Player further maintained that, as from 28 June 2024 until the termination of the
Contract on 7 August 2024, he was forced to train alone. According to the Player, such
training merely consisted of running laps around the field without a football, coach, or any
structured programme.
16. Moreover, the Player submitted that Napredak showed a complete lack of interest in his
services, as evidenced by its failure to respond to any of his written correspondence.
17. In addition, the Player referred to public statements allegedly made by Napredak’s General
Secretary, which, in his view, demonstrated a discriminatory attitude towards him.
18. As a result, the Player requested that Napredak be held liable for the payment of the
outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding
to the residual value of the Contract.
19. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine that
he terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just cause on 7th August 2024
- and to order the Club to pay the Player the following amounts:
-

Overdue payables, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant payment dates until the date
of effective payment, specified as follows:

pg. 5

REF. FPSD-15911

EUR 6.900,00 (including outstanding salaries for the months of June 2024, July 2024);

11.000,00 EUR outstanding amount of signing fee;

EUR 46.000,00 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest
as from 7th August 2024 until the date of effective payment;

In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the stated deadline, the
present matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary
disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.”
b. Position of Napredak and counterclaim
20. In its reply, Napredak requested the claim to be rejected and filed a counterclaim.
21. In particular, Napredak contested the jurisdiction of FIFA based on clause 11 of the Contract
arguing that the parties had agreed to submit any dispute to the Dispute Resolution Council
of the FSS (hereinafter: the Serbian NDRC).
22. Alternatively, as to the substance of the dispute, Napredak maintained that the Player
unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause, since he did not comply with the
requirements established by the regulations of the FSS, namely, the existence of three
overdue monthly salaries and the requirement of granting a 30-day deadline to comply
with financial obligations.
23. Napredak further argued that it had paid the Player’s salaries of March and June 2024,
providing details of the relevant payments and exchange rates.
24. Napredak also submitted that it paid the Player’s salary of July 2024 in two instalments of
RSD 293,750 each, on 30 August and 12 September 2024, which, in its view, corresponded
to EUR 2,500.
25. In addition, Napredak stated that the sign-on fee for the 2024/25 season was paid on 11
September 2024, in the amount of RSD 1,288,100, which, in its view, corresponded to EUR
11,000. Napredak emphasised that such fee had only been due since 20 July 2024 and that,
therefore, the payment was not delayed for more than two months at the time of the
termination of the Contract.
26. As to the July 2024 salary, Napredak argued that it was contractually due on 31 August
2024. Consequently, Napredak submitted that on 7 August 2024 the Player lacked just
cause to terminate the Contract.

pg. 6

REF. FPSD-15911

27. Napredak further argued that it remained fully interested in the Player’s services and, for
this reason, no conditions were met which would have justified the termination of the
Contract based on alleged outstanding remuneration.
28. In addition, Napredak alleged that the Player acted in bad faith, orchestrating a breach of
the Contract, and underlined that he was never forced to train alone but was recovering
from an injury.
29. On this basis, Napredak lodged a counterclaim against the Player, requesting that he be
found to have terminated the Contract without just cause and be ordered, jointly and
severally with Sloga Doboj, to pay compensation of EUR 59,045.16 plus 5% interest p.a.
According to Napredak, such compensation corresponded to the residual value of the
Contract, calculated on the basis of the remaining salaries, bonuses, and the sign-on fee.
30. Furthermore, Napredak claimed EUR 75,000 on account of the loss of a potential transfer
fee, an amount it estimated by reference to the Player’s market value.
31. Napredak also invoked the principle of specificity of sport, arguing that since the Contract
was terminated within the protected period, it was entitled to additional compensation
equivalent to ten monthly salaries, i.e., EUR 59,045.16 net.
32. Finally, Napredak requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Player, and the
joint and several liability of Sloga Doboj.
33. Napredak’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“Taking the aforementioned into account, the Football Club Napredak Krusevac hereby
respectfully requests the Football Tribunal to rule as follows:
The claim of the Claiment/ Counter- Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir, is rejected.
The counter claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Football Club Napredak Krusevac, is
partially accepted:
-

Football Club Sloga is jointly and severally liable in accordance with Article 17 para. 2 FIFA
RSTP for the payment of compensation in the amount of EUR 59.045,16 ( fifty nine
thousand forty five EUR and sixteen cents ) net plus 5% p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until
the date of effective payment and

Football Club Sloga, is banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods in accordance with
Article 17 para. 4 FIFA RSTP

Alternatively that the:

pg. 7

REF. FPSD-15911

The claim of the Claiment/ Counter- Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir, is dismissed.

The counter claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Football Club Napredak
Krusevac, is accepted:

The Claimant/ Counter -Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir is ordered to pay Football Club
Napredak Krusevac compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 59.045,16
( fifty nine thousand forty five EUR and sixteen cents ) net plus 5% p.a. as from 8 August
2023 until the date of effective payment.

The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir is restricted on playing in
official matches for 6 (six) months in accordance with Article 17 para. 3 FIFA RSTP.

The Counter-Respondent II, Football Club SLoga, is jointly and severally liable for the
payment of compensation in accordance with Article 17 para. 2 FIFA RSTP.

The Counter-Respondent II, Football Club SLoga, is banned from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration
periods in accordance with Article 17 para. 4 FIFA RSTP.

In another alternative that the:
-

The claim of the Claimant /Counter -Respondent I, Mr Sadikovic Damir, is partially
accepted:

The Respondent/ Counter - Claimant, Football Club Napredak is ordered to pay Damir
Sadikovic compensation for breach of contract in the amount to be nominally determined
by the Dispute Resolution Chamber but equal to the difference between residual value of
the contract with FC Napredak (46.000,00 – 323,00 EUR) and value of new contract with
FC Sloga for the so called overlapping period.”
c. Additional comments of Napredak regarding the Interim Regulatory
Framework

34. On 7 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited Napredak to amend its claim, if it so
wished, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the new
interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council on 23 December
2024 (hereinafter: the Interim Regulatory Framework).
35. In this regard, Napredak submitted that it hired the Serbian player Andrija Dragan Lukovic
to replace the Player, emphasising that both players occupy the same position on the pitch,
perform a similar role, and are of comparable height.

pg. 8

REF. FPSD-15911

36. The Claimant further maintained that the replacement cost amounted to EUR 40,800,
calculated as follows: EUR 4,500 corresponding to salary (9 months x EUR 500) plus EUR
36,300 as a sign-on fee for the 2024/25 season, covering the overlapping period of the
Contract with the Player, i.e., from September 2024 until 31 May 2025.
37. Finally, the Claimant reiterated its allegation that Sloga Doboj had induced the Player to
terminate the Contract.
38. In light of the above, Napredak made the following amended requests for relief (quoted
verbatim):
“Prayers for relief as follow:
-

The claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir, is rejected.

The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Football Club Napredak
Krusevac, is accepted.

The Claimant/ Counter- Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir has to pay to the Respondent
/Counter-Claimant, Football Club Napredak amount of 233.890,32 EUR as compensation
for breach of contract net plus 5% p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until the date of effective
payment.

The Counter- Respondent II, Football Club Sloga, is jointly and severally liable in
accordance with Article 17 para. 2 FIFA RSTP for payment of compensation the Claimant/
Counter- Respondent I has to pay to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant in the amount of
EUR 233.890,32 ( fifty nine thousand forty five EUR and sixteen cents ) net plus 5% p.a. as
from 8 August 2023 until the date of effective payment

The Counter- Respondent I, the Player Damir Sadikovic, is restricted on playing in official
matches for 6 (six) months in accordance with Article 17 para. 3 FIFA RSTP

The Counter- Respondent II, Football Club Sloga, is banned from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration
periods in accordance with Article 17 para. 4 FIFA RSTP.

Alternatively,
-

The claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent I, Mr. Sadiković Damir, is dismissed.

The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Football Club Napredak
Krusevac, is accepted.

pg. 9

REF. FPSD-15911

The Counter- Respondent I, the Player Damir Sadikovic, is restricted on playing in official
matches for 6 (six) months in accordance with Article 17 para. 3 FIFA RSTP

In even further alternative,
-

The claim of the Claimant /Counter -Respondent I, Mr Sadikovic Damir, is partially
accepted.

The Respondent/ Counter - Claimant, Football Club Napredak is ordered to pay the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent I, the Player Damir Sadikovic, compensation for breach of
contract in the amount to be nominally determined by the Dispute Resolution Chamber
but equal to the difference between residual value of the contract with FC Napredak
(46.000,00 – 323,00 EUR) and value of new contract with FC Sloga for the so called
overlapping period.”
d. Player’s response to the Counterclaim

39. In his reply, the Player insisted on the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal asserting that
Napredak failed to demonstrate that the Serbian NDRC fulfils the standards required by
FIFA for a valid national dispute resolution chamber.
40. The Player further argued that the parties to the Contract did not expressly agree on the
exclusive application of Serbian law or internal regulations. Accordingly, the Player
maintained that the FIFA Regulations are applicable.
41. As to the merits, the Player submitted that a severe, repeated and continuous breach of
essential obligations of an employment contract constitutes just cause to terminate it
unilaterally. He argued that the combination of serious and repeated breaches by

pg. 10

REF. FPSD-15911

Napredak irreparably destroyed the bond of trust required to maintain the employment
relationship, thereby justifying termination of the Contract without consequences.
42. The Player further rejected Napredak’s reliance on art. 14bis of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), stressing that his termination
letter and related correspondence were expressly based on art. 14.
43. Moreover, the Player argued that Napredak’s own documentation, including the payment
records submitted, confirmed a pattern of delayed and incomplete payments and included
improper salary deductions without contractual basis or supporting evidence. He therefore
maintained that Napredak’s conduct amounted to a serious and prolonged breach of
essential contractual obligations, entitling him to terminate the Contract with just cause.
44. The Player added that, even if the Dispute Resolution Chamber were to conclude that he
did not terminate the Contract with just cause, Napredak would not be entitled to any
compensation.
45. Finally, the Player argued that Napredak lacked standing to request sporting sanctions
against him or against Sloga Doboj.
46. In light of the above, the Player requested to reject the counterclaim in its entirety.
e. Sloga Doboj’s response to the Counterclaim
47. Despite of being invited to do so, Sloga Doboj failed to reply to the counterclaim lodged by
Napredak.

pg. 11

REF. FPSD-15911

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
48. 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 4 September 2024 and submitted for decision
on 3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 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.
49. 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 (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Bosnian player and a Serbian club with the involvement
of a Bosnian club.
50. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that Napredak contested the
jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, invoking clause 11 of the Contract, which, in its view,
grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Serbian NDRC. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the
Player maintained that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present
claim, arguing that Napredak failed to demonstrate the Serbian NDRC meets the standards
required by FIFA.
51. The Chamber then referred to art. 26 par. 1 lit. c) of the Regulations (February, June and
October 2024, and January and July 2025 editions), which establishes that “Article 22
paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January 2025. Any
other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”. As a result, the Chamber
decided that it had to assess this part of the claim using the May 2023 edition of the
Regulations, as this claim was brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
52. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the
Regulations (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employment
related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension. Nevertheless,
the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an independent
arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement, and which must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Any
such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable on the parties.

pg. 12

REF. FPSD-15911

53. Additionally, the Chamber referred to Circular no. 1010, which establishes the minimum
principles that decision-making bodies must adhere to.
54. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether
the provision contained in clause 11 of the Contract constituted a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the Serbian NDRC. The Chamber hereby recalled the wording
thereof, which stipulated:
“In the event of dispute, the contracting parties determine the jurisdiction of the FSS Dispute
Resolution Council. The Club and the Player undertake not to resolve disputes regarding this
Agreement before regular courts”
55. Having analysed the wording of the abovementioned clause, the Chamber noted that clear
reference was made to the FSS Dispute Resolution Council, i.e. the Serbian NDRC, and no
reference was made to any other tribunal. Furthermore, the Chamber underscored that
the clarity and exclusivity of the clause was not disputed by the Player.
56. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the jurisdiction clause under the Contract was clear and
exclusive in its wording.
57. The Chamber then proceeded to examine whether the Serbian NDRC fulfils the minimum
requirements set out in Circular no. 1010.
58. In this respect, the Chamber recalled its established jurisprudence according to which,
pursuant to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the party invoking the jurisdiction of a
national dispute resolution chamber bears the burden of proving that such body complies
with the FIFA standards. In the present case, the Chamber highlighted that this burden lies
with Napredak.
59. Based on the above, the Chamber took note of the evidence submitted by Napredak in this
regard. However, the Chamber observed that Napredak did not provide sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that the Serbian NDRC meets the standards required under art. 22 par. 1
lit. b) of the Regulations, as further detailed in Circular no. 1010. Specifically, the Chamber
pointed out that Napredak failed to submit the relevant regulations of the Serbian NDRC,
preventing the Chamber from verifying their conformity with the principles laid down in
the aforementioned Circular.
60. In light of the foregoing, and applying the principle of burden of proof set out in art. 13 par.
5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber concluded that Napredak’s objection to the
jurisdiction of FIFA must be rejected.
61. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the Football Tribunal is competent to
adjudicate the present dispute.

pg. 13

REF. FPSD-15911

62. The Chamber next observed that Napredak argued for the application of the Regulations
of the FSS and, on a subsidiary basis, Serbian law to the present dispute.
63. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which provides that
“in their application and adjudication of law, the chambers shall apply the FIFA Statutes and FIFA
regulations, whilst taking into account all relevant arrangements, laws, and/or collective
bargaining agreements that exist at national level, as well as the specificity of sport”.
64. The Chamber stressed that, while national law and any relevant arrangements or collective
bargaining agreements may be taken into account when resolving a dispute before the
Football Tribunal, the FIFA Regulations prevail over any national law that the parties may
have chosen. The Chamber underlined that the primary objective of the FIFA Regulations is
to establish a uniform set of rules to which all actors within the football community are
subject and on which they can rely.
65. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the FIFA Regulations are applicable
to the present matter.
66. 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 of the Regulations (July 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
67. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
68. 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.

pg. 14

REF. FPSD-15911

i. Main legal discussion and considerations
69. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract, and a counterclaim of said club
against the player and his new club.
70. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player maintained that he terminated the
Contract with just cause due to a combination of serious and repeated contractual
breaches allegedly committed by Napredak. Conversely, Napredak asserted that the Player
did not have just cause to terminate the Contract.
71. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was terminated with just cause and the consequences thereof, if any.
72. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations and longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS),
just cause to terminate an employment contract exists whenever a party can no longer
reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue the contractual relationship.
73. The Chamber observed that the Player claimed repeated and significant breaches of the
Contract by Napredak throughout the employment relationship, i.e., (i) outstanding
salaries, (ii) being forced to train alone and, (iii) receiving discriminatory comments.
74. Consequently, the Chamber went to analyse each of the above-mentioned claimed
breaches:
i. Outstanding salaries
75. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the evidence on file demonstrates that, out of
a total of fourteen salary-related payments that fell due during the term of the Contract,
only four were made on or before their respective due dates. The majority of the
instalments were therefore paid late, a fact which Napredak did not dispute.
76. The Chamber further noted that, at the time the Player issued his first notice of default on
5 July 2024, no more than two monthly salaries were outstanding.
77. The Chamber also observed that, when the Player sent his second notice of default on 29
July 2024, the situation remained similar in respect of monthly salaries—no more than two
were outstanding. However, the Chamber took note that, at that time, the sign-on fee for
the 2024/25 season, amounting to EUR 11,000 and representing the equivalent of more
than two monthly salaries, had not yet been paid. The Chamber equally observed that, in
this second notice, the Player granted Napredak a deadline of only ten days to comply with
its financial obligations, rather than the fifteen days foreseen under art. 14bis of the
Regulations.

pg. 15

REF. FPSD-15911

78. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that, although Napredak consistently failed
to meet the agreed payment deadlines, the strict cumulative requirements of art. 14bis of
the Regulations—namely, at least two monthly salaries overdue and a fifteen-day deadline
to remedy the default—were not formally fulfilled in the present matter.
79. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the contractual clause requiring payment at the
end of the subsequent month effectively prolonged the period before two full salaries could
be deemed outstanding. Such a mechanism operated to the clear detriment of the Player,
as it extended the time necessary to trigger the protections of art. 14bis and further
aggravated the impact of the Napredak’s repeated delays.
80. In addition, the Chamber wished to underline, in the clearest possible terms, that the
absence of a formal art. 14bis scenario does not diminish the seriousness of Napredak’s
conduct. The pattern of delayed payments was persistent and systemic, extending over
almost the entire duration of the Contract. Each delay, even if ultimately remedied,
undermined the Player’s financial security and the trust that must exist in an employment
relationship. The Chamber emphasised that punctual salary payment is one of the most
fundamental obligations of an employer; repeated breaches of this obligation erode the
very foundation of contractual stability that FIFA Regulations are designed to safeguard.
The Chamber remarked that Napredak’s behaviour therefore weighs heavily in the overall
assessment of whether the Player could reasonably be expected to continue the
employment relationship in good faith, regardless of the formal non-application of art.
14bis.
ii. Abusive conduct: forced to train alone
81. The Chamber went to analyse the Player’s allegation that he was forced to train alone from
28 June 2024 until the termination of the Contract on 7 August 2024.
82. In doing so, the Chamber highlighted the following key questions to consider when
assessing whether separating a player from the first team constitutes abusive conduct:
-

Was the player training alone or with the team?

83. The Chamber analysed the evidence on file and noted that it was the decision of head coach
Mr. Goran Stevanović to exclude the Player from the list of players travelling to Slovenia for
pre-season between 27 June and 8 July 2024, without any mention of injury.
84. Regarding the video footage submitted by Napredak, the Chamber noted that the footage
shows three individuals wearing red—one of whom is undisputedly the Player—running
around the field. However, the videos do not allow the Chamber to conclusively determine
whether the other individuals are fellow players, technical staff, physiotherapists, medical
staff, or other club personnel.

pg. 16

REF. FPSD-15911

85. With respect to the written statement submitted by the player Dorde Kotlajic, in which he
claims that, while recovering from an injury, he trained alongside the Player during the
2024/25 pre-season, the Chamber considered that such statement has limited probative
value since (i) Mr. Kotlajic remains under contract with Napredak and (ii) his statement does
not exclude the possibility that the Player was excluded from the team’s pre-season
activities despite not suffering from any injury. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art.
13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which it “has ultimate discretion as to the
weight it gives to evidence”.
86. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player was indeed training alone
while the rest of the team was in Slovenia for pre-season preparations.
-

Why was the player sent to train alone?

87. The Chamber observed that Napredak asserted the Player trained separately because he
was recovering from an injury to his left Achilles tendon and submitted a medical report
dated 19 July 2024 in support of this claim.
88. The Chamber, however, noted an evident inconsistency between that medical report and
Napredak’s own letter of 1 July 2024, in which Napredak stated that the Player trained alone
only on 24 and 25 June 2024. In addition, the Chamber took into account the evidence
provided by the Player indicating that Napredak’s head coach had decided to exclude him
from the list of players travelling to Slovenia for pre-season preparations between 27 June
and 8 July 2024, with no reference to any injury.
89. In light of these elements, the Chamber concluded that Napredak failed to provide a valid
and credible reason for excluding the Player from training with the rest of the team.
-

Was the player still being paid their full salary and remuneration?

90. The Chamber recalled its earlier findings that Napredak consistently failed to comply with
the agreed salary due dates. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the outstanding
amounts were eventually paid, albeit late.
-

Was it a permanent or temporary measure?

91. Based on the evidence on file, the Chamber observed that it cannot be established that the
measure was of a temporary nature. The Chamber stressed that the burden of proof to
demonstrate the temporary character of such a measure rests with Napredak, which failed
to discharge this burden.
-

Were there adequate training facilities for the player to use when training?

pg. 17

REF. FPSD-15911

92. The Chamber noted that, according to the evidence, the Player trained at Napredak’s own
training facilities, which the Chamber considered to be adequate for professional training.
-

Interim conclusion

93. Having analysed the above, the Chamber recalled its consistent jurisprudence that an
employer is obliged to respect and protect the personality rights of the employee.
110. In the present case, the Chamber found that the evidence indicates the Player was
deliberately excluded from the team without a consistent or credible justification.
Napredak’s explanation based on injury is undermined by contradictory statements and a
medical report issued weeks after the alleged injury, while the head coach’s decision to
omit the Player from the pre-season trip made no mention of any medical reason. In view
of these circumstances, and given the lack of clarity regarding both the duration and the
purpose of the measure, the Chamber concluded that the Player was isolated without valid
grounds.
iii. Abusive conduct: discriminatory comments
94. The Chamber also took note of statements made on 18 July 2024 by Napredak’s General
Secretary celebrating the formation of a “Serbian team” without foreigners and explicitly
confirming that only Serbian nationals had been selected for the pre-season in Slovenia.
95. Considering that these remarks were made while the Player, a Bosnian national, was
training alone, the Chamber held that such comments conveyed a clear message of
exclusion and reasonably led the Player to feel discriminated against on the basis of
nationality.
iv. Conclusions of the Chamber on just cause
96. At this point, the Chamber remarked that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
established on numerous occasions that a premature contractual termination may only
arise where there has been a substantial or repeated breach of contract by the relevant
counterparty, and if there are more lenient measures for the parties to remedy their
contractual relationship, those measures should be turned to prior to unilaterally
terminating the Contract. A premature unilateral termination of the Contract may only be
an ultima ratio measure.
97. In the present case, the Chamber was satisfied that the Player faced persistent delays in
salary payments, was instructed to train separately and excluded from the pre-season
camp without valid reason, and was subjected to discriminatory public remarks by a senior
Napredak official.

pg. 18

REF. FPSD-15911

98. The Chamber further observed that the Player consistently sought to resolve the matter in
good faith by repeatedly contacting the Napredak and requesting reinstatement and
payment of outstanding amounts.
99. In view of all the circumstances, the Chamber concluded that the Player could no longer
reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship and therefore had just
cause to terminate the Contract pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
100. The Chamber highlighted that, since the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract,
this necessary leads to the conclusion that Napredak’s counterclaim must be rejected in its
entirety. In this regard, the Chamber decided that the Player shall not be required to pay
compensation to Napredak, as there was no breach of contract. Furthermore, and as a
consequence thereof, the Chamber concluded that it is not necessary to analyse the facts
and circumstances to determine whether it could be established if Sloga Doboj induced the
Player.
101. Having stated this, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences
of such unjustified breach of contract committed by Napredak.
102. The Chamber observed that, in his second round of submissions, the Player did not dispute
Napredak’s assertion that all outstanding amounts under the Contract had been paid.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that no outstanding amounts remained in the
present matter.
103. In continuation, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable by Napredak in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall
be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis
of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to the “positive interest”
principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of each case, and with
due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
104. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
105. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Napredak to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber

pg. 19

REF. FPSD-15911

recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
106. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 46,000 (i.e., 10 times EUR 4,600) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
107. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
108. Indeed, the Player found employment with Bosnian club Sloga Doboj. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to a total remuneration of BAM
13,095.69, equivalent to EUR 6,695.72. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player
mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 6,695.72.
109. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation, should the early termination of the employment contract at
stake be due to overdue payables. Here, after considering the particular circumstances of
the present case, the Chamber concluded no such additional compensation should be
awarded.
110. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Napredak must pay the amount of EUR
39,304.28 to the Player (i.e., EUR 46,000 minus EUR 6,695.72), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
111. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 7 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions

pg. 20

REF. FPSD-15911

112. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
113. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
114. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Napredak must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on Napredak in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
115. Napredak shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
116. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.

pg. 21

REF. FPSD-15911

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.

The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Damir Sadikovic.

The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Damir Sadikovic, is partially accepted.

The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Napredak, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 39,304.28 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7
August 2024 until the date of effective payment.

Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Napredak, is rejected.

Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal:

Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

pg. 22

REF. FPSD-15911

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 23