Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18366
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mario
Ilievski
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kisvarda, Hungary
Represented by Danyi Szilard
RESPONDENT:
Mario Ilievski, North Macedonia
Represented by Hrvoje Raic
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18366
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 July 2022, the Hungarian club, Kisvarda FC (hereinafter the Club or Claimant) and the
North Macedonian player, Mario Ilievski (hereinafter the Player or Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter the Contract) valid as from 6 July 2022 until 30 June
2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the parties agreed on the following remuneration (quoted
verbatim):
“Sum and currency of the Football Player’s salary (gross/ net): 1.500.000, -Ft/month net
(equivalent to 3.750 euro by the time of the signing of the contract) from 06thJuly 2022
until 30thJune 2023, then 1.700.000.-Ft/month net (equivalent to 4.250 euro by the time
of the signing of the contract) from 01stJuly 2023 until 30thJune 2024. From 01stJuly 2024
the player’s salary will rise to 2.100.000, -Ft/ month net (equivalent to 5.250 euro by the
time of the signing of the contract) if player played at least 60% of championship games
in the starting eleven in the previous season. If the contract extension option will take
effect, the player’s salary will rise to 2.500.000, -Ft/month net (equivalent to 6.250 euro by
the time of the signing of the contract) from 01stJuly 2025 until 30thJune 2026.”
3.
In addition, clause XII of the Contract stipulated the following (quoted verbatim):
“Parties agree, that if the Club loses the appearance of the National First League during
the term of this contract, in this case the contract brakes by the Parties initiation and
Client has the freedom of his Player Eligibility.”
4.
On 13 June 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated his Contract invoking clause XII of the
Contract. His termination letter stated the following (quoted verbatim):
“Pursuant to the documentation I received from the Player, I can confirm the following:
a) That on 4 July 2022 the Player signed with the Kisvarda FC (Varda Labdarugo
Szolgatato Kft.) from Hungary (hereinafter: the Club) Employment contract with
professional football player valid from 6/7/2022 until 30/6/2025 (hereinafter: the
Employment contract), according to which the Player and the Club, inter alia, agreed
in article XII. On the following provision: “if the Club loses the appearance of the
National First League during the term of this contract, in this case the contract
brakes by the Parties initiation and Client has the freedom of his Player Eligibility”,
meaning that each party is entitled to terminate subject contract in the event the Club
is relegated from Hungarian first league (“Namzeti Bajnoksag”), in which case the
Player shall be considered as a free agent, and
b) That following the last championship match in the Hungarian first league, the Club
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18366
has been relegated from the league in question to the lower division.
In this context and since the Club has been relegated from the Hungarian first league
(“Namzeti Bajnoksag”), it is evident that based on the afore-cited provision, the Player
is entitled to unilaterally terminate the Employment contract with immediate effect
and without any consequences.
In view of the foregoing, the Player, through his legal counsel, exercises his right arising
from article XII, of the Employment contract and sends to the Club this letter as a notice
of termination of the Employment contract.”
5.
On 14 June 2024, the Club replied to the above correspondence disputing the Player’s
termination. In particular, the Club stated the following:
“Of course, we do not accept the termination, as it does not comply with the terms of the
contract. According to our expectations, the player must return to the club and join the
team at 24.06.2024 for the start of the preparation.
Should he does not appear, we will initiate the necessary procedure against him in front
of FIFA, e.g. on the one hand, our club enforces its claim for compensation against the
player, with whom the new club is jointly and severally liable; and on the other hand, we
also request sporting sanction against both the player and the new club, as a result of
which – if sporting sanction imposed – the player can expect serious suspension of up to
several months, while the new club – in addition to the joint responsibility for
compensation – a fine, or even a more severe sporting sanction (FIFA RSTP Art. 1-4)”.
6.
On 5 July 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club reiterating that the termination of the
Contract was based on clause XII of the Contract.
7.
On 3 September 2024, the Player lodged a claim against the Club before FIFA (hereinafter:
the First Claim) requesting overdue salaries (ref. FPSD-15882). In the First Claim, the Player
requested payment of his outstanding salaries until the date of the unilateral termination.
Specifically, the Claimant requested the following relief:
“13. In view of the foregoing and given that the Respondent still challenges the Claimant’s
unilateral termination of the Employment contract and that the Respondent still has not paid
the requested amount to the Claimant, the honorable chamber is respectfully requested:
I.
to ascertain that the Claimant terminated the Employment contract signed with the
Respondent with just cause; and
II.
to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant outstanding remuneration
of net EUR 1,841.66 (one thousand eight hundred and forty-one euros and sixty-six
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18366
cents), which matured on 13/6/2024, within 45 days as from the date of notification
of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
III.
to condemn the Respondent to pay all relevant taxes, state contributions and
surcharges, on top of the above-mentioned net amounts, within 45 days as from the
date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent;
or alternatively
to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax
certificates concerning the payment of all the above specified net amounts alongside
all the net amounts already paid to the Claimant during the term of the Employment
contract, within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter
of the reference to the Respondent; and
IV.
to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of 5% per
year on the aforementioned amount starting from the respective date of maturity
stipulated in the point II. above until the effective date of the payment, within 45 days
as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the
Respondent; and
V.
to impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, all in the light of FIFA RSTP.”
8.
On 11 November 2024, the relevant decision of the DRC was notified to the parties. The
Club was condemned to pay EUR 1,625 to the Player as outstanding remuneration plus 5%
interest as from the date of the unilateral termination.
9.
The Club did not reply to the claim but only submitted proof of payments after the
notification of the relevant decision, showing that it complied with the decision.
10. On 27 November 2024, the Club paid the outstanding amount to the Player and uploaded
the proof of payment in the Legal Portal.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 25 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18366
a. Claim of the Claimant
12. The Club disputed the termination of the Contract by the Player alleging the following:
“Accordingly, the above provision does not mean what Respondent claims, i.e. that
either party can terminate the Employment Contract with immediate effect, but only
and exclusively that in the event that the team of Claimant should be relegated from
the first league, the Employment Contract can only be terminated if such termination
is initiated by the Parties (i.e. both parties) and not only by one of them. Consequently,
the Employment Contract concluded with Respondent could only and exclusively have
been terminated if the Parties had negotiated about this subject matter with each
other and, as a result of such negotiation, had come to the conclusion that they would
terminate the Employment Contract upon mutual consent, in which case the Player
would have been free to dispose of his playing and economic rights, i.e. he would have
become a free agent.”
13. In its request for relief, the Club requested the following:
“We hereby seek the following remedies:
a) To uphold that the contractual relationship between the Parties was unilaterally breached
without just cause by Respondent, by means of Respondent declaring the unilateral
termination of the contract with immediate effect on 13 June 2024, in accordance with
the provisions of FIFA RSTP, Chapter IV. Art. 14. & Art. 14bis);
b) To state the fact that Respondent shall be liable to compensate the damages caused by
Respondent to Claimant, the sum of which is EUR 131,741.67, as Respondent breached
the contracted employment relationship established between the Parties, therefore
Respondent, and Respondent’s new club in joint and several liability are liable to settle
the compensation (according to FIFA RSTP, Chapter IV, Articles 14 and 17) to Claimant,
and Claimant should also be entitled to receive 5% default interest rate p.a. applicable as
of 13 June 2024 until the day of effective payment.
c) To impose disciplinary sanctions on Respondent, according to FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Player did not reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18366
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 25 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 25 September 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.
16. 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between an North Macedonian player and
a Hungarian club.
b. Admissibility of the claim
17. The Chamber first recalled that on 3 September 2024, the Player lodged the First Claim
against the Club before the FIFA DRC and therefore, although the admissibility of the claim
was not contested, the DRC is nonetheless required to assess it ex officio.
18. In particular, the Chamber must establish whether, considering the general principle of res
judicata, it can enter the substance of the matter and pass a decision. Accordingly, the
Chamber deemed it appropriate to briefly recall that, on the basis of the principle of res
judicata, a decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case in
the event that another competent- deciding body has already dealt with the same matter
by passing a final and binding decision.
19. Having established the above, the Chamber analysed the evidence on file regarding the
First Claim. In this respect, the Chamber observed that indeed a decision has been passed
by a competent deciding body, i.e. the DRC, on 8 November 2024 and is by now final and
binding.
20. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to underline that the principle of res judicata is
applicable if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the
matter in dispute are identical.
21. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that that the criterion of the identity of the parties is
given if the parties to the disputes are the same. The Chamber noted that both the Claimant
and the Respondent were the parties in the proceedings leading to the decision previously
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18366
rendered as well as in the dispute at stake. As a consequence, considering that the parties
to both disputes are the same, the Chamber concluded that the condition of the identity
of parties was fulfilled.
22. Regarding the object of the matter in dispute, the Chamber acknowledged that the identity
of the subject matter is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant requests of the two
claims are similar. When comparing the First Claim and the one at hand, the DRC noted
that both of them derived from the Contract, however the previous claim dealt with
overdue payables whereas the claim at hand with the alleged breach of contract. In other
words, in the First Claim it was not being decided whether the termination was valid or not
and therefore it could not have been decided at that time.
23. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the two legal actions were based on a
different violation (i.e. overdue payables and breach of contract) and contained different
requests for relief. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the condition of object of the matter
in dispute was not fulfilled and therefore, there was no res judicata.
24. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber considered that the procedural behaviour of the
Club cannot be overlooked. In this regard, it was clear from the evidence on file and the
parties’ submissions (both in the present case and the First Claim) that when the First Claim
was lodged before FIFA, the Club already knew and was aware that the Player had
terminated his Contract. In addition, in the First Claim, the Player had requested the DRC
to “ascertain that the [Player] terminated the [Contract] signed with the Respondent with just
cause”. However, as the Player only requested overdue salaries, the Single Judge of the First
Claim did not address this specific request.
25. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Club not only could but should have lodged
a counterclaim requesting compensation for breach of contract in the context of the First
Claim. However, as the Club did not request compensation in the context of the First Claim,
the Chamber considered that the Club is consequently precluded from starting a new
proceeding for that concept.
26. In addition, the Chamber recalled the principle of preclusion, which as a general principle
of law, denote that the parties must (procedurally) act in good faith and file the entirety of
their requests in the appropriate time, under penalty of being prohibited from doing so at
a later stage.
27. The Chamber also underlined that if the parties would be able to file independent claims
as they please, this would contravene not only the principles of good procedural order and
procedural economy, but also the due process and, ultimately, legal certainty within the
FIFA dispute resolution system (see, inter alia, DRC Decision of 29 June 2023, Schenk (FPSD10000), DRC Decision of 23 June 2023, Rayhi (FPSD- 10001), DRC Decision of 27 June 2023,
Aganovic (FPSD-10364)).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18366
28. By the same token, the Chamber deemed that the Club could have disputed the
termination of the Contract in the context of the First Claim. Not disputing the termination
of the Contract in the context of the First Claim, generated the legitimate expectation of
the Player that this was not in dispute, which is also reprehensible in line with the doctrine
of the venire contra factum propium.
29. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Club is inadmissible.
c. Costs
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18366
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kisvarda, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18366
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. 11