Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17865
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kristian
Sirum Novak
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kristian Sirum Novak, Norway
Represented by Eirik Monsen
RESPONDENT:
Östersunds FK, Sweden
Represented by Alexander Iliev
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17865
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 December 2022, the Norwegian player Kristian Sirum Novak (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Swedish club Östersunds FK (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the First Employment Contract)
valid as from 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023.
2.
Also on 8 December 2022, the Player and the Club, hereinafter jointly referred to as “the
parties”, concluded an annex to the First Employment Contract (hereinafter: the First Annex).
3.
According to the First Annex, the Club undertook to pay the Player SEK 30,000 on the 27th
of each month, or on the closest working day before that day.
4.
On 5 December 2023, the parties concluded a second employment contract (hereinafter:
the Second Employment Contract), valid from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.
5.
Also on 5 December 2023, the parties concluded an Annex to the Second Employment
Contract (hereinafter: the Second Annex).
6.
According to clause 2.a) of the Second Annex, the Club undertook to pay the Player SEK
30,000 on the 27th of each month, or on the closest working day before that day.
7.
Clause 2.b) of the Second Annex provided:
“b.) Both parties have the possibility of discontinuing this contract during the period 1 July 2024
to 31 July 2024, otherwise the contract continues. If either party gives notice terminating the
contract, the contract cases to apply on 31 July 2024 unless otherwise is agreed.”
8.
The Player provided a draft termination agreement (hereinafter: the Draft Termination
Agreement) dated 25 July 2024, which was only signed by the Club.
9.
On 8 April 2024, the Player received a payment note from the Swedish Insurance Agency,
notifying him that on 10 April 2024, he would receive SEK 57,031 as full sick benefit for the
period between 2 April and 25 June of an unspecified year and between 26 June and 15 July
of an unspecified year, which, according to the Player, was 2024.
10. On 21 August 2024, the Player received a payment note from the Swedish Insurance
Agency, notifying him that on 23 August 2024, he would receive SEK 24,641 as full sick
benefit for the period between 3 August and 18 September of an unspecified year, which,
according to the Player, was 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17865
11. On 20 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
12. According to the Player, the Club was contractually obliged to pay him the outstanding
amount of 298,098 SEK plus 5% interest because it failed to fulfil its obligations throughout
the period of his injury, despite those injuries occurring while he was performing his
contractual duties.
13. According to the Player, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) had
jurisdiction because the dispute had an international dimension: the Player is Norwegian,
and the Club is Swedish. Furthermore, he argued that the arbitration clause in the
standardized Swedish FA player contract did not constitute an explicit, voluntary opt-in to
the Swedish NDRC. The Player stressed that the Contract is standardized and nonnegotiable, meaning he never expressly agreed to arbitration before the Swedish NDRC.
14. According to the Player, the Swedish NDRC did not meet FIFA’s minimum recognition
standards, and therefore cannot block FIFA’s jurisdiction. He submitted that:
•
The NDRC did not ensure equal representation of players and clubs, since the chair
was appointed solely by the Swedish FA’s board, and the players' association had no
representation in that board;
•
The NDRC was not free of charge, which undermined access to justice for players
who generally have less economic resources than clubs; and
•
The NDRC did not publish its decisions, contrary to transparency requirements
under FIFA’s NDRC Recognition Principles.
15. Because of these deficiencies, according to the Player, the Swedish NDRC was not a valid
alternative forum under FIFA Circular 1010, and thus it could not deprive the DRC of
competence.
16. According to the Player, FIFA regulations apply primarily, with Swiss law applying only
subsidiarily. The Player emphasized that the FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) require the DRC to base its analysis chiefly on
FIFA Statutes and Regulations, and that national law need only be “taken into account,” not
necessarily applied.
17. According to the Player, the Club breached its contractual duties by failing to pay him the
agreed monthly salary of 30,000 SEK, despite the Player being injured while fulfilling his
obligations. Citing consistent jurisprudence from both the DRC and CAS, the Player
maintains that an injury does not suspend a Club’s salary obligations, and that injuries
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17865
sustained in the performance of professional duties fall squarely within the Club’s sphere
of risk.
18. Finally, according to the Player, the salary payments actually received from both the Club
and the Swedish social insurance system were far below the total contractual entitlement
for the relevant period. Therefore, the Club was responsible for the outstanding balance of
298,098 SEK, plus 5% annual interest from 20 October 2024 until final settlement.
19. On 21 January 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat requested the Player to complete his
claim by 27 January 2025 providing a detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute,
indicating individually: (i) each of its components, (ii) their currency, (iii) their contractual
basis and (iv) to which period of time (day/month/year) they correspond.
20. According to the Player, sickness benefits were received in two lump sum payments:
•
•
First payment: covering 2 April 2023 – 15 July 2023, received 10 April 2024.
Second payment: covering 3 August 2023 – 18 September 2023, received 23 August
2024.
21. These amounts were allocated pro rata across the relevant months, and each month’s
salary is mitigated by the sickness benefits allocated to the following month.
22. Consequently, the Player provided the following breakdown:
2023
May 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 26 May 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 5 145 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 22 185 SEK
Outstanding salary: 2 670 SEK
June 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 27 June 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 2 482 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 23 715 SEK
Outstanding salary: 3 803 SEK
July 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17865
Due date: 27 July 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 2 088 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 22 950 SEK
Outstanding salary: 4 962 SEK
August 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 25 August 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 16 192 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 11 475 SEK
Outstanding salary: 2 333 SEK
September 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 27 September 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 5 145 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 21 420 SEK
Outstanding salary: 3 435 SEK
October 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 27 October 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 3 370 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 13 770 SEK
Outstanding salary: 12 860 SEK
November 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 27 November 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 1 200 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 28 800 SEK
December 2023
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2023 (see Doc. 3A-3B)
Due date: 27 December 2023
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17865
2024
January 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B)
Due date: 26 January 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
February 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B)
Due date: 27 February 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
March 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B)
Due date: 27 March 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
May 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B)
Due date: 27 May 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
June 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B)
Due date: 27 June 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
July 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B)
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17865
Due date: 26 July 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
August 2024
Entitled amount: 30 000 SEK
Contractual basis: Par.2 in the Attached Contract 2024 (see Doc. 5A-5B) and par. 1 in the
Termination Agreement (see Doc. 6A-6B)
Due date: 27 August 2024
Remuneration received by ÖFK: 0 SEK
Sickness benefits received: 0 SEK
Outstanding salary: 30 000 SEK
b. Position of the Club
23. On 4 March 2025, the Club disputed FIFA’s jurisdiction, arguing that the present dispute
shall be resolved by the Swedish NDRC. The Club also requested an extension to submit its
reply by 4 April 2025.
24. On 5 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat granted the Club an extension until 16 March
2025.
25. According to the Club, the dispute should first focus on whether the Swedish NDRC had
jurisdiction before considering any financial claims. The Club argued that the Swedish
NDRC met the minimum standards required by FIFA Circular 1010.
26. The Club sustained that if the Player disagreed with the Swedish NDRC’s compliance, it was
going to request the Swedish NDRC to provide an official statement on its legitimacy and
to identify precedents where it jurisdiction had been questioned.
27. According to the Club, although FIFA has jurisdiction over international disputes, an
exception exists when parties have expressly agreed to submit their dispute to a national
dispute resolution chamber (NDRC). The Club highlighted that since 1 January 2025, only
NDRCs officially recognized by FIFA could adjudicate international disputes, and the
Swedish NDRC lacked such recognition.
28. The Club sustained that the SVFF had already contacted FIFA for clarification on (i) whether
the new regulations applied even when parties explicitly agreed to an NDRC in their
contract, and (ii) whether they applied to contracts concluded before 2025. The Club
therefore proposed to postpone the proceedings until FIFA issues a decision.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17865
29. According to the Club, any signed employment contract containing a clear reference to the
Swedish NDRC—even if part of a standard form—constituted a valid arbitration agreement
under FIFA regulations.
30. According to the Club, it was undisputed that the Club terminated the Player’s contract,
which expired on 31 July 2024, and that the parties did not challenge the occurrence or
extent of the Player’s injury.
31. The Club sustained that the contract termination was not due to the injury. The Claimant‘s
First Employment Contract had already expired on 31 December 2023, and the Second
Employment Contract was concluded after he was injured. If the Club had concerns about
contracting an injured player, it would simply not have offered him a new agreement.
32. According to the Club, at the time of signing the Second Employment Contract, the Club did
not yet know what the squad for the autumn 2024 season would look like. The new contract
was meant to give the Player an opportunity to prove himself, but both sides understood
that his chances of remaining with the team were limited.
33. The Club sustained that the continuation of the contract did not depend on the Player being
injured or not; instead, the decision was based solely on the sporting evaluation of whether
he fit into the squad, assuming he was fully fit. The Club intends to support this with witness
testimony from its sporting director and the former head coach.
34. On 15 March 2025, the Club submitted a corrected reply.
35. In this corrected reply, the Club argued that the parties must first assess whether the
Swedish NDRC had jurisdiction before discussing any potential salary or benefit obligations.
36. The Club argued that the Swedish NDRC met the minimum standards required under FIFA
Circular No.1010 and, therefore, should be considered competent to handle the dispute. If
the Player disagreed, the Club intended to request an official statement from the SVFF
confirming its legitimacy and referencing previous cases where its jurisdiction was
evaluated.
37. The Club argued that although FIFA generally has jurisdiction over international disputes,
this does not apply where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to a national
dispute resolution body (NDRC). Since 1 January 2025, NDRCs require official FIFA
recognition to handle international disputes, and the SVFF currently lacks such recognition.
38. The Club argued that the SVFF has already sought clarification from FIFA on whether the
new rules apply to (i) disputes where the employment contract expressly designates an
NDRC, and (ii) contracts concluded before 2025. Therefore, the Club proposes postponing
the proceedings until FIFA responds.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17865
39. The Club argued that the explicit reference to the Swedish NDRC in the signed employment
contract—even when included in a standard contract—constituted a valid arbitration
agreement under FIFA regulations.
40. The Club argued that although the contract was terminated and expired on 17 August 2024,
and although both parties agree on the nature and extent of the injury, the termination
was not related to the injury.
41. The Club argued that the Player’s previous contract expired on 31 December 2023, and the
new contract was signed after the injury occurred. If the Club had been unwilling to employ
an injured player, it simply would not have offered a new contract.
42. The Club argued that at the time of signing, the squad composition for autumn 2024 was
uncertain. The new agreement was intended to give the Player an opportunity to earn a
place, although both parties understood that the chance was limited. The decision to
terminate was therefore based on a sporting assessment of the player’s suitability for the
squad assuming he was fully fit.
43. The Club argued that the Player had accepted the early termination. In this sense, the Club
provided a signed termination agreement included as Appendix A.
44. The Club argued that it is prepared to support its position with witness testimony from the
sporting director and former head coach.
c. Replica of the Player
45. On 10 April 2025, the Player submitted his replica to the Club’s reply.
46. In his replica, the Player maintained his position that the DRC had jurisdiction to hear the
present dispute, as argued in his initial claim. He therefore opposes the Club’s request to
postpone the proceedings before the DRC.
47. The Player argued that obtaining a statement from the SVFF was irrelevant to determining
jurisdiction, because such a statement would not alter the factual or legal basis on which
the jurisdictional assessment must be made.
48. The Player further submitted that the recognition of a National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC) is a matter that falls exclusively within the competence of FIFA, not the
Swedish NDRC. Consequently, the opinion or interpretation of the SVFF should not be
considered relevant for determining the DRC’s jurisdiction in this individual case.
d. Duplica of the Club
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17865
49. On 2 May 2025, the Club submitted its duplica to the Player’s replica.
50. In its duplica, the Club withdrew it objection to FIFA’s jurisdiction.
51. In this sense, the Club stated:
“This withdrawal concerns solely the procedural issue above. Ostersunds FK fully maintains every
factual and legal argument already submitted on 4 March and 15 March 2025, in particular that
- the employment contract was lawfully terminated,
- the termination was unrelated to Mr Novak's injury, and
- no compensation is due.”
52. The Club argued that the Player bears the burden of proving that his knee injury was the
decisive cause of the contract termination, referring to the Procedural Rules, art. 13 par. 5.
53. The Club acknowledged the injury of the Player; however, it argued that no medical
evidence or contemporaneous communications establishing such a causal nexus have
been submitted by the Player.
54. The Club argued that the mutual termination agreement, signed by both parties, expressly
refers only to “sporting reasons”, thereby contradicting the Player’s allegation that the
termination was injury‑related.
55. For these reasons, the Club argued that the Player’s financial claim remained
unsubstantiated.
56. The Club argued that, only if the Player would have managed to produce prima facie
evidence suggesting the injury triggered the termination, the Club was prepared to rebut
such allegations.
57. The Club argued that the Player has neither demonstrated nor even specifically alleged
how the termination agreement violates Article 12bis of the Regulations.
58. The Club argued that, under art. 13 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber may draw
an adverse inference against the Player due to this lack of substantiation.
59. The Club argued that, because the Player failed to discharge the burden of proof, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber should dismiss the claim in its entirety.
60. The Club argued that the player has no contractual entitlement to receive salary beyond
the statutory sickpay period established under Swedish law. According to the Club, the
employment contracts specify only a gross monthly salary and contain no clause obligating
the Club to “top up” the sickness benefits paid by the Swedish Social Security Agency. The
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17865
Club therefore maintained that the Player bears the burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5
of the Procedural Rules, which he has not fulfilled.
61. The Club asserted that the claim was, in reality, not an overdue salary claim but an attempt
to obtain a full salary topup. It noted that the Player himself deducted SEK 115,515 of state
sickness benefits from the salary calculation and then claimed the residual SEK 328,863,
which, in the Club’s view, demonstrates that the request concerns compensation beyond
what the contract or applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provides.
62. The Club sustained that the Player’s allegation of receiving “zero” sickness benefits from
November 2023 to August 2024 is unproven. The Club highlighted that once the statutory
transition occurs after the first 14 sick days, only the state authority is competent to pay
benefits. If benefits ceased, the Player must show medical certificates and the Social
Security Agency decisions explaining the lapse, which he had not done. Furthermore, the
Club emphasized that no contractual clause makes the Club responsible for compensating
denied state benefits.
63. The Club maintained that the supplementary TryggPlan Total insurance does not create a
salary obligation for the Club. The insurance is designed to complement—never replace—
state benefits, calculating its coverage on the assumption that the insured already receives
full statutory sickness compensation. If the social security stops paying, the insurance may
also reduce or cancel its payments under over-insurance rules, meaning any gap cannot
be transferred to the employer.
64. The Club further asserted that it made voluntary payments exceeding its statutory
obligations, as shown even by the Player’s own figures. It also stressed procedural
non-compliance: the Player never served the mandatory 10-day written notice required by
the Regulations.
65. The Club concluded by requesting full dismissal of the financial claim for lack of legal and
contractual basis. Alternatively, it asked the Chamber to confirm that no top-up obligation
exists, to compel the Player to produce the missing medical and administrative documents
under art. 13 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules, and to draw adverse inferences should he fail
to do so.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17865
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
66. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) 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 20 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 12 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January
2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules
was applicable to the matter at hand.
67. 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) (July 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
a Norwegian player and a Swedish club.
68. The Chamber noted that the competence of FIFA was initially disputed by the Club.
According to its challenge, the Swedish NDRC had competence to hear this claim. However,
the Chamber also noted that this objection was later withdrawn by the Club, and therefore,
considering that this is a dispute with an international dimension, the Chamber decided to
retain its jurisdiction.
69. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
70. 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
71. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17865
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
72. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties disputed outstanding remuneration.
73. According to the Player, the Club was contractually obliged to pay him the outstanding
amount of 328,863 SEK plus 5% interest, because the Club failed to fulfil his salary
obligations throughout the period of his injury, despite those injuries having occurred while
he was performing his contractual duties.
74. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club mainly argued that the Player failed to
comply with his burden of proving his entitlement of the outstanding remuneration.
75. In this regard, the Club explained that the claim is, in reality, not an overdue salary claim
but an attempt to obtain a full-salary top-up. It noted that the Player himself deducted SEK
115,515 of state sickness benefits from the salary calculation and then claimed the residual
SEK 328,863, which, in the Club’s view, demonstrates that the request concerns
compensation beyond what the contract or applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) provides.
76. In this context, the Chamber deemed that its task was to determine who was responsible
for paying the Player’s salary and what the consequences were.
77. The Chamber noted that the Player also argued, inter alia, that the Club breached its
contractual duties by failing to pay him the agreed monthly salary of SEK 30,000, despite
the Player being injured while fulfilling his obligations. Citing consistent jurisprudence from
both the DRC and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Player maintained that an
injury does not suspend a club’s salary obligations, and that injuries sustained in the
performance of professional duties fall squarely within the Club’s sphere of risk.
78. Finally, according to the Player, the salary payments actually received (from both the Club
and the Swedish social insurance system) were far below the total contractual entitlement
for the relevant period.
79. The Chamber noted that the Player provided evidence of having received the following
sickness benefits in two lump sum payments:
-
First payment: covering 2 April 2023 – 15 July 2023, received 10 April 2024.
Second payment: covering 4 August 2023 – 18 September 2023, received 23 August
2024.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17865
80. Furthermore, these amounts were allocated pro rata across the relevant months, and each
month’s salary is mitigated by the sickness benefits allocated to the following month.
81. In its submissions, the Club sustained that the Player’s allegation of receiving “zero” sickness
benefits from November 2023 to August 2024 is unproven. The Club highlighted that once
the statutory transition occurred after the first 14 sick days, only the state authority was
competent to pay benefits. If benefits ceased, the Player should have shown medical
certificates and the Social Security Agency decisions explaining the lapse, which he has not
done. Furthermore, the Club emphasized that no contractual clause makes the Club
responsible for compensating denied state benefits.
82. In light of the above, the Chamber recalled that none of the contracts specify anything
regarding sickness leave. However, both did establish that the obligation of the Club to
report any injury of the Player to the Social Security Agency.
83. In addition, while the Club acknowledged the injury of the Player in its submission, it failed
to provide any evidence regarding the 14 days of sickness leave payable by the Social
Security Agency.
84. The Chamber observed that the parties acknowledged that the date of the termination was
in August 2024. In this line, the Chamber recalled that the Player requested partial salaries
that had been overdue since May 2023 through August 2024, a period during which the
Club had the obligation to pay the Player’s salaries.
85. In particular, the Club failed to provide any evidence of the collective bargaining agreement
or any stipulation that could demonstrate that it only had to pay 14 days of salary in case
of injury of the Player.
86. Consequently, and reiterating the Club’s lack of proof of its allegations, the Chamber
considered that the Club was liable to pay the Player for the requested outstanding
remuneration amounting to SEK 328,863.
87. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 20 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
88. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17865
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
89. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
90. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Club 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 the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
91. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
92. The Chamber 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
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17865
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kristian Sirum Novak, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Östersunds FK, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- SEK 328,863 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 October 2024
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17865
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. 18