Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19046
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Inka Kaivola
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Inka Kaivola, Finland
Represented by Jyri Paasonen
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
FC Dornbirn, Austria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19046
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 June 2024, the Finnish player Inka Kaivola (hereinafter: the Claimant / CounterRespondent or the Player) and the Austrian club FC Dornbirn (hereinafter: the Respondent /
Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from 1 July 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“[…] 2. The player is entitled to a net annual salary of €13,000.00 (in words: thirteen thousand)
including statutory special payments. The salary, including special payments, is paid in 14
instalments. This amounts to 929.60 euros per month. The 13+14 salary is paid twice as a special
payment in addition to the salary. Once in August and once in December of the 2024/2025
season. The flights will be covered by SPG Lustenau/Dornbirn. Outward and return flight for the
first half of the season and outward and return flight for the second half of the season 24/25.
[…]
4. The fixed salary is transferred by the 5th of the following month.
5. There is a points bonus: win 120.00 draw 80.00 euros
6. The return flights are covered by the association (applies to Europe)
7. This means a maximum of 2X return flights […]”
3.
In addition, the Contract stipulated the following (quoted verbatim):
“[…] 1. If the player is prevented from performing his services due to illness or misfortune, he
must inform the club immediately, i.e. generally on the day of the occurrence of the prevention,
in writing or by telephone. The notification must be to the club office. Notification is not required
if the illness or accident has been diagnosed by the club doctor. If there are no health reasons
to the contrary, the player must in any case appear for all the duties ordered, even if he is not
fit to train or play.
2. If an incapacity for work not diagnosed by the club doctor lasts longer than 3 days, the player
must submit a confirmation from a contract doctor of the health insurance provider responsible
for him, the club doctor or a public health officer, which provides information on the expected
duration of the incapacity for work, so that it is received by the club no later than the 4th day of
the incapacity for work. The club may also request the submission of such a confirmation if an
absence from work lasts less than 3 days.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19046
Otherwise, the provisions of the Continued Remuneration Act (EFZG) or the Salaried Employees
Act (AGG) as well as the collective agreement as amended shall apply.
3. If the player violates the above-mentioned reporting and verification obligations, the
entitlement to continued remuneration is forfeited. […]”
4.
Furthermore, the Contract read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“[…] 4. The club is authorised to terminate the contract at any time for good cause. The following
misdemeanours in particular are to be regarded as important reasons that entitle the club to
terminate this player contract immediately and thus to dismiss the player: - Breach of material
contractual obligations; Ingestion of unauthorised doping agents and drugs, and excessive
consumption of alcohol in public; Assaults on persons involved in the match;-any criminal
behaviour; participation, in any form whatsoever, in betting and/or manipulation in connection
with Austrian Bundesliga matches.
5. The player is entitled to terminate the contract prematurely under the following
circumstances, if the player becomes incapable of continuing his service or is unable to continue
it without damage to his health or morals; - if the employer unduly reduces the remuneration
due to the player or violates other essential contractual provisions; if the employer refuses to
fulfil his legal obligations to protect the life, health or morals of the player; if the employer is
guilty of assaults, breaches of morality or serious offences against the player or his relatives or
refuses to protect the player such acts by a fellow employee or a relative of the employer. […]”
5.
Lastly, the Contract stipulated the following (quoted verbatim):
“3. In particular, the player undertakes to submit all disputes arising from the player contract to
the competent senates of the Austrian Football League before recourse to the competent courts,
to exhaust the legal remedies available under the statutes of the Austrian Football League, and
to make use of the association's internal arbitration procedure provided for in the statutes.
[…]
This contract is subject to Austrian law. Subject to X.3. of this contract, all legal disputes arising
from the legal relationship between the parties governed by this contract shall be decided
exclusively by the competent regional court as the labour and social court. […]”
6.
On 6 August 2024, the Club remitted EUR 838.70 to the Player.
7.
On 6 September 2024, the Club remitted EUR 1,283.33 to the Player.
8.
On 7 October 2024, the Club remitted EUR 1,283.33 to the Player.
9.
On 7 November 2024, the Club remitted EUR 1,163.33 to the Player.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19046
10. On 19 November 2024, the president of the Club allegedly threatened the Player with a
gun and pressured her to engage in illegal betting.
11. On 21 November 2024, the Club allegedly held a meeting with its players, the transcript of
which read as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Meeting kicks off by Emely van der Vliet explaining why a meeting was scheduled. Then Inka
takes the word and reads her statement to the team. Inka is in tears trying to tell this message.
Next Emely and Fanny collaborate with Inka’s story and explain what is written in their
statement. Emely tells the team that because of what happened our trust in Werner is gone, and
we don’t feel comfortable training and playing for this club. The whole situation is not okay, and
we can’t accept this. It is pressed upon by Emely that every player in the team has to make their
own decision about whether they want to train and/or play, it is by no means held against any
player what they decide. The only person that is at fault in this whole situation is Werner.
Then Klaus and Erwin spoke out about the situation, because they were witnesses of it. Erwin
speaks in German which is later translated by Catha. He collaborates Inka’s story and states
Werner also showed him the gun and the Bullet. Klaus speaks out saying he was also shocked
to see the gun, but he tries to explain further what Werner meant by making the bet. He stated
that Werner told him after Inka and Fanny left the building Werner told him and Erwin that he
actually thinks it was good that Inka did not take the bed because only Turks do that. However,
he does not condone this behavior.
Klaus goes on to say that he completely understands and respects the player’s decisions to play
or not to play, but he as a coach wants to play. He says that it is also an option for the team to
decide not to play and then the future team can step in.
Niki asks Anne about her car ride with Werner, putting word in Anne’s mouth that she did not
say. She said Werner though everyone saw it as a joke. Fanny, Emely, Vidal, and Cat responded
saying: ‘But its not a joke to us’. Emely goes on to say that screaming and intimidating is one
thing, but to bring a gun into a public place and not only show it to people but also put the bullet
and the gun into their faces goes way too far. Emely says, ‘people all have different backgrounds,
and guns and bullets can bring back trauma for people or cause very dangerous situations’.
Niki says Werner wanted to come today to apologize but the players didn’t want him to come so
she told him not to come. Then Emely and Vidal responded to her pointing towards Inka who
was in tears and shaking, saying: ‘Inka is in no shape to talk to Werner, also we have given him
two days to come to us and Inka explaining his side of the incident and making an honest
apology, but he hasn’t even texted her.’ Niki and Klaus understood that.
Then Kiki asked if people should already say whether they want to play on the weekend of not,
but the team decided that we first need to digest this information and then we will make that
decision in the next two days.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19046
12. On 25 November 2024, the Player was provided with a medical certificate proving her
incapacity to work from 22 November 2024 to 15 December 2024 due to a short-term
illness, i.e., an acute stress reaction and other non-life sleep disorder.
13. On 5 December 2024, the Club remitted EUR 980.64 to the Player.
14. On 16 December 2024, the Player was provided with a medical certificate proving her
incapacity to work from 16 December 2024 to 8 January 2025 due to a short-term illness,
i.e., an acute stress reaction and other non-life sleep disorder.
15. On an unspecified date, the Football Players Association of Finland (hereinafter: the FPAF)
informed the Club, on behalf of the Player, that the latter is on sick leave for the rest of the
season and that a doctor's note could be provided if necessary.
16. On an unspecified date, the FPAF sent the following correspondence to the Austrian
Players’ Union (hereinafter: the APU):
“[…] the prosecutor said that the police still wanted to question Inka. The police will organise the
hearing to Norway. Inka now lives in Norway. She signed a contract with a club there.
I spoke to the club's management about Inka's situation. For the transfer we need a document
from the Austrian club terminating the contract. Could you please send it to me? […]”
17. On an unspecified date, the APU answered the latest correspondence from the FPA as
follows (quoted verbatim):
“[…] as you may remember, unfortunately we did not receive any documentation from the Club
as to the termination of Inkas employment contract. I can only forward you the E- Mail I sent out
to the former legal representative of the Club to which we have never received an answer. In this
E-Mail we declare the justified premature termination of the contract in case no mutual
agreement can be found.
Of course, Inka is entitled to the documentation and correct salary statements, however, if the
Club is not prepared to hand it out, we would have to file a claim in court (perhaps together with
the open salary). Did the Club release Inka or is this the issue? […]”
18. On 12 February 2025, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player (quoted
verbatim):
“Your 's claims have been fully liquidated by the time she leaves. Notwithstanding your assertions
in the letter dated 04.12.2024, your client has not ‘matter’ was brought to the attention of the
police and resulted in widespread media coverage.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19046
The ‘matter’ - how you describe your client's fictitious behaviour – has already led to immense
damage to my client's reputation and business. Your client is fully responsible for this. Expressly
for the due date, subject to later modification, a symbolic amount of damages in the lump sum
of EUR 20,000.00
At the same time, I have asked your client to submit a constitutive acknowledgement of liability
with the effects of a declaratory judgement.
For the sake of order, I have taken the following as a basis for entering into the claims settlement
as well as for the transmission of the constitutive acknowledgement of hatred as before
26.02.2025 to make a note of it.
Should your client still fail to within the set deadline, I am instructed to seek legal assistance.”
19. On 28 February 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Norwegian
club Hamarkameratene Fotball Elite, valid as from 10 February 2025 until 31 December
2025. Accordingly, the Player is entitled to a monthly salary of NOK 10,500.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 27 April 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
21. In her claim, the Player argued that the Club breached the Contract. In particular, the Player
stated that the president of the Club threatened her with a gun on 19 November 2024 and
pressured her to engage in illegal betting, which severely affected her psychological and
physical health.
22. In this context, the Player argued that she could not reasonably be expected to continue
her employment relationship with the Club, thus she returned to her country of origin.
23. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. To declare that the Player terminated the employment relationship with the club with just
cause on 20 March 2025, due to the club’s serious contractual breaches, including the armed
threat by the club’s president, failure to provide a safe working environment, and failure to fulfill
[sic] contractual obligations.
2. To order the club to pay the following amounts to the Player:
• EUR 8,130.67 NET as outstanding salaries, plus 5% interest per annum from the respective due
dates (i.e., the last day of each month) until the date of effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19046
• EUR 1,460.72 NET as reimbursement of medical, psychological, and travel expenses, plus 5%
interest per annum from the date of each payment made by the Player until the date of effective
reimbursement.
• EUR 20,000 NET as moral damages due to the exceptional psychological harm suffered by the
Player as a result of the club’s actions.
3. Total amount requested: EUR 29,591.39 NET, plus applicable interest as outlined above.
4. Alternative or Additional Relief (if applicable): Should the FIFA DRC consider it appropriate, the
Player reserves the right to request compensation for breach of contract pursuant to Article 17
of the FIFA RSTP, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, including any applicable
mitigation or additional compensation.”
24. For the sake of completeness of her requests for relief, the Player provided the following
breakdown of the amount in dispute:
“• Outstanding Salaries and Bonuses (enclosure11)
o In accordance with the employment contract signed between the Player and the Club, the
Player was entitled to a total gross salary of EUR 13,000 and bonuses amounting to EUR 680 for
the relevant period. The Club has paid EUR 5,549.33 of this amount, leaving an outstanding
balance of EUR 8,130.67 as unpaid salaries.
o The Player respectfully requests the FIFA DRC to award the outstanding salaries plus 5%
interest per annum, calculated from the respective due dates (i.e., the last day of each month),
until the date of effective payment.
• Reimbursement of Medical, Psychological, and Travel Expenses Bonuses (enclosure 12)
o Due to the Club’s serious breach of contract—including armed threats by the Club president
and pressure to engage in illegal betting—the Player was forced to return to Finland, seek
medical and psychological treatment, and cover related expenses personally. The Player hereby
requests reimbursement for the following costs:
- Flight to Finland: EUR 484.46
- Doctor’s appointment (25.11.2024): EUR 238.30
- Prescription medication (25.11.2024): EUR 22.04
- Psychologist appointment (28.11.2024): EUR 150.00
- Prescription medication (11.12.2024): EUR 9.62
- Doctor’s appointment (16.12.2024): EUR 106.30
- Psychologist appointments (02.12., 04.12., 18.12.2024): EUR 450.00
o Total reimbursement request: EUR 1,460.72
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19046
o The Player respectfully requests the FIFA DRC to award this amount in full, plus 5% interest per
annum from the date of each payment until the date of effective reimbursement.
• Moral Damages
o In light of the exceptional circumstances—including the armed threat by the club president
and the psychological trauma inflicted—the Player respectfully requests EUR 20,000 in moral
damages.
o This claim is based on established jurisprudence from both FIFA DRC and CAS (Court of
Arbitration for Sport), where moral damages have been awarded in cases involving: Severe
breaches of duty of care by the employer (e.g., Sebastián Ariosa v. Club Olimpia, CAS
2015/A/4237). Psychological harm caused by the club’s actions, leading to medical treatment,
as in cases where players were pressured or mistreated in violation of their dignity and health.
o The Player was subjected to an armed threat and pressure to engage in illegal activities (matchfixing), causing prolonged psychological distress, requiring medical attention, therapy, and
medication. The club’s failure to address the incident and its continued negligence (ignoring
communication from legal representatives) further aggravated the Player’s mental suffering.
o Considering these aggravating factors and consistent with the principle of fairness and
proportionality applied in FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, the Player respectfully submits that EUR
20,000is a reasonable and justified amount for moral damages in this case.
•Summary of Compensation Requested
o Outstanding salaries: EUR 8,130.67
o Reimbursement of medical and travel expenses: EUR 1,460.72
o Moral damages: EUR 20,000.00
o Total amount requested: EUR 29,591.39, plus applicable 5% interest per annum on
outstanding salaries and expenses.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
25. In its reply, the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction in favour of the Regional Court of
Feldkirch, as stipulated in the Contract.
26. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the Player’s allegations were fictitious and incorrect.
Accordingly, the Club stated that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract.
27. Consequently, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player for moral damages in the
amount of EUR 30,000. In this respect, the Club stated that the amount of compensation
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19046
was based on the fact that the Club suffered a loss of revenue due to a significant drop in
attendance at its matches following the Player’s public incorrect allegations.
c. Player’s reply to the Club’s counterclaim
28. In her reply to the Club’s counterclaim, the Player argued that FIFA’s Dispute Resolution
Chamber has jurisdiction on the present matter and reiterated her initial position and
requests for relief, noting that she had just cause to terminate the Contract. In this regard,
the Player added that the seriousness of the present matter is reflected in the ongoing
investigation and criminal proceedings by the Austrian authorities.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 27 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
11 December 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.
30. 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, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Finnish player and
an Austrian club.
31. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the Regional Court of Feldkirch, Austria.
In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 of the
Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a player and
a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player […] or club
to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
32. In this context, the Chamber noted that it should first analyse whether the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in favour of the Regional Court of Feldkirch.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19046
33. After analysing the wording of the Contract, the Chamber concluded that it did not clearly
establish the competence of a civil court. In fact, the Chamber considered that the Contract
referred primarily to the “competent senates of the Austrian Football League” and then to the
“the competent regional court as the labour and social court”. The Chamber further
considered that this reference was not sufficiently clear, as well as that the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) within the “Austrian Football League” was not recognised by
FIFA.
34. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Club’s objection towards the competence of FIFA
and concluded that it is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
to consider the present matter as to the substance.
35. 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
36. 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
37. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
38. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
Player and the Club strongly dispute the circumstances and the justice of the early
termination of their employment relationship.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19046
39. On one hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, she could not have
reasonably been expected to continue her employment relationship with the Club given
the behaviour of its president.
40. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Club, the Player’s allegations
were fictitious and incorrect, thus she did not have just cause to terminate the Contract.
41. In this context, the Chamber first acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the
Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate her employment relationship with the Club
and to determine the consequences thereof.
42. The Chamber then recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only a
breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment
of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
43. In addition, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Regulations, in general, just cause
to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can
no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship
(cf. art. 14 of the Regulations). The foregoing is in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of this Chamber and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
44. In continuation, the Chamber deemed important to recall that contractual stability is the
backbone of the entire football season, and employers and employees in the football world
are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship without
a valid reason. In this regard, the early termination of an employment contract without just
cause has consequences – both financial and sporting. The rules allow for the parties to
modulate the effects of such a premature termination, but the jurisprudence also sets
certain boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty and the
legitimate expectation of the contractual stability.
45. Lastly, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according
to which a party claiming a right based on an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof. On this note, the Chamber considered that it was up to the Player to prove the
termination of her employment relationship with the Club with just cause, on which she
claims outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the Contract.
46. With the above principles in mind, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber
established the following:
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19046
•
There is no evidence on file to support the Player’s assertion that, on 19 November
2024, the president of the Club threatened her with a gun and pressured her to
engage in illegal betting. In fact, the Chamber noted that the Player’s claim is based
solely on her teammates’ witness statements and on the transcript of an alleged
Club meeting held on 21 November 2024, during which the alleged behaviour of the
president of the Club on 19 November 2024 was discussed.
•
The medical certificates of the Player dated 25 November 2024 and 16 December
2024 do not establish a causal link between the alleged event of 19 November 2024,
namely that the president of the Club threatened her with a gun and pressured her
to engage in illegal betting, and the Player’s incapacity to work In fact, the Chamber
pointed out that the said medical certificates refer to a short-term illness of the
Player, i.e., an acute stress reaction and other non-life sleep disorder.
•
There is no evidence on file concerning a notice of termination of the Contract or
the date on which the Player left Austria to return to her country of origin. Thus, the
Chamber considered that the Player terminated the Contract on 10 February 2025,
i.e., the day on which she started fulfilling her obligations under her new
employment contract with the Norwegian club Hamarkameratene Fotball Elite.
47. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber considered that the Player failed to
provide sufficient evidence, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, to
demonstrate the termination of the Contract with just cause. While the Chamber did not
disregard the seriousness of the allegations against the Club, it underlined that those
allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence for the Player to terminate the
Contract with just cause in line with art. 14 of the Regulations.
48. For the sake of completeness of its conclusion, the Chamber held that the witness
statements and the unverified meeting transcript provided by the Player were insufficient
proof without corroborating evidence, such as police reports, news articles, recordings, or
official disciplinary findings.
49. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract
without just cause on 10 February 2025, i.e., the day on which she started fulfilling her
obligations under her new employment contract with the Norwegian club
Hamarkameratene Fotball Elite.
50. With respect to the counterclaim lodged by the Club against the Player, the Chamber
rejected it, noting that it is not supported with the necessary documentary evidence in line
with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Club
did not provide any evidence regarding its assertion that it suffered a loss of revenue due
to a significant drop in attendance at its matches following the Player’s public incorrect
allegations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19046
51. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber considered that the Player remained entitled to
her remuneration under the Contract in relation to her obligations already performed,
namely from 1 July 2024 until 9 February 2025, i.e., the last day before the Player started
fulfilling her obligations under her new employment contract with the Norwegian club
Hamarkameratene Fotball Elite.
52. In this respect, the Chamber affirmed that the wording of the Contract below is
unenforceable, regardless of the evidence on file, as its application would
disproportionately deprive the Player of her remuneration and would be contrary to the
principle of contractual stability.
“[…] 2. If an incapacity for work not diagnosed by the club doctor lasts longer than 3 days, the
player must submit a confirmation from a contract doctor of the health insurance provider
responsible for him, the club doctor or a public health officer, which provides information on
the expected duration of the incapacity for work, so that it is received by the club no later than
the 4th day of the incapacity for work. The club may also request the submission of such a
confirmation if an absence from work lasts less than 3 days.
Otherwise, the provisions of the Continued Remuneration Act (EFZG) or the Salaried Employees
Act (AGG) as well as the collective agreement as amended shall apply.
3. If the player violates the above-mentioned reporting and verification obligations, the
entitlement to continued remuneration is forfeited. […]”
53. Having stated the above, the Chamber recalled the following wording of the Contract:
“[…] The player is entitled to a net annual salary of € 13,000.00 (in words: thirteen thousand)
including statutory special payments. The salary, including special payments, is paid in 14
instalments. This amounts to 929.60 euros per month. The 13+14 salary is paid twice as a special
payment in addition to the salary. Once in August and once in December of the 2024/2025
season. […]”
54. Accordingly, the Chamber pointed out that the Player was entitled to EUR 8,865.20 from 1
July 2024 until 9 February 2025, broken down as follows:
•
Monthly salaries from July 2024 to January 2025 (EUR 929.60 x 7 = EUR 6,507.20).
•
Additional monthly salary for August 2024 (EUR 929.60).
•
Additional monthly salary for December 2024 (EUR 929.60).
•
Pro rata monthly salary for February 2025 (EUR 929.60 / 28 x 9 = EUR 298.80).
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19046
55. In continuation, the Chamber took note that, according to the Player’s statement of claim
and the evidence on file, the Club remitted her EUR 5,549.33 under the Contract. Thus, the
Chamber concluded that the Player’s outstanding remuneration under the Contract on 9
February 2025 amounted to EUR 3,115.87, i.e., EUR 8,865.20 - EUR 5,549.33.
56. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, in the case at hand, the Club bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the evidence provided by the Club
does not prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Player.
57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player EUR 3,115.87 as the
outstanding remuneration under the Contract for the period from 1 July 2024 until 9
February 2025.
58. 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 her outstanding remuneration under the Contract as follows:
•
On the amount of EUR 327.07, as from 6 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
•
On the amount of EUR 929.60, as from 6 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
•
On the amount of EUR 929.60, as from 6 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
On the amount of EUR 929.60, as from 6 February 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
59. In relation to the Player’s claims for reimbursement of travel and medical expenses, the
Chamber determined that such requests must be rejected in accordance with art. 13 par.
5 of the Procedural Rules. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player did not
provide any evidence to substantiate her alleged flight ticket from Austria to Finland.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Player’s claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses is unsupported by a contractual basis and by the necessary documentary
evidence.
60. Lastly, with respect to the respective claims of the Club and the Player for moral damages,
the Chamber decided to reject both requests, in line with the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that neither the Player nor the Club
provided any supporting evidence or justification regarding the alleged moral damages
suffered, or their quantification.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19046
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
64. 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.
65. 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
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19046
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Inka Kaivola.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, FC Dornbirn, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amount:
- EUR 3,115.87 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 327.07 as from 6 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 929.60 as from 6 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 929.60 as from 6 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 929.60 as from 6 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19046
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19046
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. 19