Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19716
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Mateo Sušić
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Alexandra GÓMEZ BRUINEWOUD (Uruguay & The Netherlands), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mateo Sušić, Croatia
Represented by Loizos Hadjidemetriou
RESPONDENT:
APOEL Nicosia, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19716
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 27 February 2024, the Croatian player Mateo Sušić (hereinafter, the Player or the
Claimant) and the Cypriot club APOEL Nicosia (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 27 February
2024 until 30 June 2025, with an automatic extension for the 2025-2026 season “(…) with
the condition that the player participates as for a minimum time of 25 minutes per
championship game, at least in the 50% of the official championship games of [the Club] for
the season 2024-2025”.
2.
In accordance with Clause 1.4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) the following fixed remuneration:
“1.4.1. From 28th February 2024 until 30th June 2025 (17 salaries), a monthly gross salary of
EUR 12,886 (EUR 11,000 net) per month).
1.4.2. In case of automatic extension as mentioned in section 1.1, from 31 st August 2025
until 31st May 2026 (10 salaries), a monthly gross salary of EUR 12,886 (EUR 11,000 net per
month)”.
3.
Pursuant to Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the Contract:
“1.1. The present Contract is regulated by the provisions of the Standard Employment
Contract, as these have been agreed between the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the
Cyprus Footballers’ Union (PASP) and as these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of
the CFA Registration and Transfer of Players Regulations.
1.2. The terms of the Standard Employment Contract constitute an integral part of the
present Contract having dull and direct implementation”.
4.
Also on 27 February 2024, the Parties concluded the so-called Standard Employment
Contract in order for the Player to be registered with the Cyprus Football Association (CFA).
5.
In accordance with Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract:
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.
6.
Also on 27 February 2024, the Parties entered into the so-called “Supplementary Agreement”,
pursuant to which, in addition to the amounts agreed under the Contract, the Club also
undertook to pay the Player EUR 185,300 net, payable in monthly instalments of
EUR 10,900 net from February 2024 to June 2025.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19716
7.
Furthermore, Clause 2 of the Supplementary Agreement provides that, in case the Contract
was automatically extended in accordance with its Clause 1.4, the Club would pay, in
addition to the amounts agreed under Clause 1.4.2 of the Contract, EUR 90,000 net,
payable in 10 instalments of EUR 9,000 net from August 2025 to May 2026.
8.
In accordance with Clause 3 of the Supplementary Agreement, the Player was also entitled
to the following accommodation and traveling expenses, “as long as he maintains a valid
employment agreement with the Club”:
o EUR 1,500 net payable in 4 instalments from February to May 2024;
o EUR 1,500 net payable in 10 instalments from August 2024 to May 2025; and
o In case of automatic extension of the Contract, EUR 1,500 net payable in 10
instalments, from August 2025 to May 2026.
9.
Pursuant to Clause 4.2 of the Supplementary Agreement, the Player was entitled to a bonus
of EUR 30,000 “In case the Player participates in the starting eleven or as a substitute (for at
least 25 minutes per match) in 70% or more of the Cyprus Championship and [the Club] wins
the Cyprus Championship”.
10. Clause 5 of the Supplementary Agreement stipulates the following:
“In case any dispute arises between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial bodies of
the Cyprus Football Association. Breach of any of the clauses of this agreement shall give
the right to the innocent party to claim damages from the other”.
11. Furthermore, Clause 7 of the Supplementary Agreement establishes that:
“The present agreement is an integral part of [the Contract], without which [the Contract]
would not have been signed”.
12. On 2 May 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to pay
EUR 207,600 corresponding to the following amounts and concepts:
o EUR 21,900 as March 2025 salary;
o EUR 21,900 as April 2025 salary;
o EUR 130,800 as salaries under the Supplementary Agreement from January 2024 to
February 2025;
o EUR 3,000 as monthly allowance for March and April 2025; and
o EUR 30,000 as a bonus under Clause 4.2 of the Supplementary Agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19716
13. On 21 May 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
14. On 5 June 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Bosnian club HŠK
Zrinjski, valid as from 5 June 2025 until 31 May 2027.
15. Pursuant to this new contract, the Player is entitled to a monthly remuneration of
BAM 1,000 net, as well as to a monthly accommodation allowance of BAM 700 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 26 June 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
17. In his claim, the Player asserted that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract based on the existence of outstanding salaries, after having put the Club in
default, to no avail.
18. In particular, the Player argued that, at the time of termination, the Club had failed to remit
EUR 207,600 net, corresponding to:
o EUR 130,800 net in salaries under the Supplementary Agreement from January 2024
to February 2025 (i.e., EUR 10,900 each);
o EUR 21,900 net as March 2025 salary;
o EUR 21,900 net as April 2025 salary;
o EUR 3,000 net as monthly allowance for March and April 2025 (i.e., EUR 1,500 each);
and
o EUR 30,000 net as bonus under Clause 4.2 of the Supplementary Agreement.
19. Accordingly, the Player claimed to be entitled to EUR 207,600 net as outstanding
remuneration and to compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 261,800
net, representing the residual value of the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement.
Furthermore, the Player claimed to be entitled to an additional compensation of
EUR 65,700 net, representing 3 monthly salaries.
20. Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19716
“The Claimant requests the FIFA DRC to order the Respondent to pay the Claimant, the
following amounts:
1. EUR 207,600 net, plus legal interest from the date when each payment became due, until
full settlement.
2. EUR 261,800 net as compensation, plus legal interest from 21/05/2025 until full
settlement.
3. Additional compensation up to EUR 65,700, plus legal interest from 21/05/2025 until full
settlement”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
21. In its reply, the Club first challenged the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal to adjudicate
this matter, arguing that Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract provides the
exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Cyprus Football
Association (hereinafter, the NDRC). The Club further argued that Clause 5 of the
Supplementary Agreement also confirms the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Cyprus.
22. According to the Club, the NDRC of Cyprus is fully impartial and independent, thus
satisfying article 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In
particular, the Club claimed that the NDRC of Cyprus respects the principle of parity, the
principle of a fair hearing, as well as the right to contentious proceedings and to equal
treatment.
23. Regarding the merits of the case, the Club acknowledged being in default with the Player
for the amount requested, i.e., EUR 207,600 net.
24. However, the Club strongly disputed the Player’s entitlement to the sum of EUR 261,800
net requested as compensation. In this respect, the Club contended that the Player is not
entitled to the allowances provided under the Supplementary Agreement for the period
following the termination of the Contract based on its Clause 3, which stipulates that the
allowances would be payable only as long as the Contract was valid.
25. Furthermore, the Club contended that the Player had never put it in default before the
Contract was automatically extended on or around 2 April 2025 despite being fully aware
of the Club’s ongoing financial difficulties. According to the Club, the Player’s actions are
inconsistent when he placed it in default on 2 May 2025, and the unilateral termination of
the Contract took it by surprise. The Club added that the Player “strategically allowed the
automatic renewal to take effect before terminating the contract, in order to find a new team
whilst at the same time being entitled to more money from the Club”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19716
26. Lastly, the Club argued that the Player had signed a new employment contract with the
Bosnian club HŠK Zrinjski. As a result, the compensation payable to the Player must be
mitigated.
c. Replica of the Claimant
27. In his replica, the Player contended that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his
claim, arguing that the NDRC of Cyprus has not been recognised by FIFA.
28. Regarding the merits of the case, the Player argued that the compensation should include
the contractually agreed allowances as part of the residual value, given that they represent
benefits due to him under the Supplementary Agreement.
29. Furthermore, the Player asserted that he was not in a position to know the financial
situation of the Club and that, in any event, the Club should not have employed him if it
was indeed in a difficult financial situation. In this respect, the Player cannot be blamed for
the Club’s failure to comply with its own obligations.
30. The Player confirmed that he signed a new contract with HŠK Zrinjski, in accordance with
which he is entitled to a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,000 net from June 2025 to May
2027.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
31. In its duplica, the Club reiterated that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to
hear the claim of the Player and the submissions raised in its reply to the claim in this
regard.
32. As to the merits, the Club insisted in its position regarding the allowances claimed by the
Player as compensation.
33. The Club also contended that the Player has failed to adequately mitigate his damages
following the termination of the Contract. In this respect, the Club argued that, only after
15 days of terminating the Contract, he signed a new employment contract with HŠK
Zrinjski, pursuant to which he is entitled to EUR 1,000 per month. According to the Club,
this represents a disproportionate and substantial reduction compared to the salary the
Player was earning with the Club.
34. The Club asserted that the Player’s market value was of approximately EUR 275,000, and
that he had been competing at the highest levels of European professional football.
Furthermore, the summer transfer window had not yet opened in Europe when the Player
signed his new employment contract. Accordingly, there was not urgency or obligation
compelling the Player to accept the aforementioned contract. According to the Club, “the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19716
Player’s decision to accept employment under substantially lower terms must be viewed as a
deliberate and a voluntary choice, particularly in view of the duration and conditions of the new
contract. Thus, even if the Player acted in good faith, the decision amounts to a failure to comply
with its legal obligation to adequately mitigate damages”.
35. On account of the above, the Club claimed that it should not bear the consequences of the
Player’s choice to accept worse financial conditions after the termination of the Contract.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 June 2025 and submitted for decision on
10 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.
37. 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 Croatian player
and a Cypriot club.
38. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC observed that the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction
to hear the dispute at stake, arguing that Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract
and Clause 5 of the Supplementary Agreement provide the exclusive jurisdiction of the
NDRC of Cyprus.
39. The members of the Chamber equally took note that, for its part, the Player insisted on the
jurisdiction of FIFA based on the fact that the NDRC of Cyprus has not been officially
recognized by FIFA.
40. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that, in January 2025, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for NDRCs in order to provide clarity and the necessary legal
certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible
formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19716
41. Most importantly, the DRC noted that the aforementioned rules have been incorporated
into art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases brought before
FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 lit. c) of the Regulations).
42. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 26 June 2025, the Chamber
determined that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the
following provision:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension;
the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be
decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution
body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in
accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such
jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a
collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties”.
43. Having confirmed that the present dispute has an international dimension (i.e., Croatian
player against Cypriot club) and is employment-related (i.e., claim for breach of an
employment contract), the Chamber considered that this case in principle fell within FIFA’s
jurisdiction, and therefore would only be prevented in case of:
1. A clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Contract in favour of the civil courts; or
2. A clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause included in the Contract or in an applicable
collective bargaining agreement in favour of an NDRC “that has been officially recognised
by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition
Principles”.
44. In order for FIFA to decline jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested party
challenging the Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction should demonstrate that the parties had
validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such
body is recognised by FIFA. These conditions are cumulative and should all be met at the
time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
45. With the above in mind, the DRC went on to analyse the jurisdiction clauses on which the
Club challenges the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, namely, Clause 13 of the Standard
Employment Contract and Clause 5 of the Supplementary Agreement, both entered into
on 27 February 2024.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19716
46. The Chamber noted that, pursuant to Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract —
which is an integral part of the Contract concluded between the Parties (cf. Clauses 1.1 and
1.2 of the Contract):
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.
47. The Chamber also noted that, in accordance with Clause 5 of the Supplementary
Agreement — which is also an integral part of the Contract, “without which the Contract
would not have been signed” (cf. Clause 7 of the Supplementary Agreement):
“In case any dispute arises between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial bodies of
the Cyprus Football Association (…)”.
48. After having carefully analysed the foregoing provisions, the members of the Chamber
unanimously concluded that that the jurisdiction clauses contained in the Standard
Employment Contract and the Supplementary Agreement, considered in conjunction, were
not clear and exclusive in line with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations. Whereby the
Standard Employment Contract did indeed provide the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC
of Cyprus, the Supplementary Agreement ambiguously refers to the “judicial bodies of the
[CFA]”, without specifying the competent body.
49. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned jurisdiction clauses,
when read together, lack the clarity and exclusivity required under art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of
the Regulations. Consequently, the DRC found that the Parties had not explicitly and clearly
agreed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Cyprus.
50. In any event, the Chamber confirmed that there was no NDRC recognised by FIFA in Cyprus
at the time of the relevant events. Therefore, even if these clauses were to be considered
as clear and exclusive, the Football Tribunal would still have jurisdiction.
51. On account of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber determined that the Football
Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear the present claim.
52. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19716
b. Burden of proof
53. 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
54. 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
55. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that the present
dispute concerns a claim for breach of contract based on the non-payment of certain
financial obligations by the Club as per the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement, in
accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations, as well as its legal consequences.
56. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
57. The Chamber first referred to the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations, in accordance
with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their
due dates, the player will be deemed to have just cause to terminate his contract, provided
that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of 15 days
for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligations.
58. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed not having received his
remuneration corresponding to the following amounts and concepts, totalling
EUR 207,600 net:
o EUR 130,800 net in salaries under the Supplementary Agreement for the period
January 2024 to February 2025;
o EUR 21,900 net for the March 2025 salary, comprising EUR 11,000 net as fixed
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19716
remuneration under the Contract and EUR 10,900 net as additional salary under the
Supplementary Agreement;
o EUR 21,900 net for the April 2025 salary, comprising EUR 11,000 net as fixed
remuneration under the Contract and EUR 10,900 net as additional salary under the
Supplementary Agreement;
o EUR 3,000 net in monthly allowances for March and April 2025; and
o EUR 30,000 net as a bonus under Clause 4.2 of the Supplementary Agreement.
59. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Player provided written evidence of having put the
Club in default on 2 May 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the
Contract on 21 May 2025.
60. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract and the Supplementary
Agreement concluded between the Parties.
61. Nonetheless, the members of the Chamber noted that the Club expressly acknowledged
its default with respect to the amounts claimed by the Player.
62. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and the Club is therefore
liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
63. Having stated the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the legal consequences of the
breach of contract committed by the Club.
64. The DRC observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amount to EUR 252,800 net. The Chamber
clarified that this sum is comprised of the following amounts and concepts:
o The bonus for the 2023/2024 season, payable at the end of the 2023/2024 season in
accordance with Clause 4 of the Supplementary Agreement, in the amount of
EUR 30,000 net;
o The March, April and May 2025 salaries under the Contract, i.e., EUR 11,000 net each,
totalling EUR 33,000 net;
o The additional salary under the Supplementary Agreement for the period between
January 2024 to May 2025, i.e., EUR 10,900 each, totalling EUR 185,300 net; and
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19716
o The March, April and May 2025 allowances under the Supplementary Agreement, i.e.,
EUR 1,500 net each, totalling EUR 4,500 net.
65. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the DRC decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement at the moment of
termination, i.e., EUR 252,800 net as detailed ut supra.
66. 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% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 February 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 March 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 April 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 May 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 June 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 40,900 net as from 1 July 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 August 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 September 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 November 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 December 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 January 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19716
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 February 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 March 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,400 net as from 1 April 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,400 net as from 1 May 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,400 net as from 21 May 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
67. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
68. 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 them 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.
69. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber 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)).
70. 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
and the Supplementary Agreement from the date of its unilateral termination until its end
date.
71. The Chamber first observed that, according to the Club, the allowances under the
Supplementary Agreement should not be included in the compensation, citing Clause 3 of
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19716
said agreement, which stipulates that such allowances are only payable while the Contract
remains valid. The Club further alleged that the Player deliberately allowed the automatic
renewal of the Contract in or around 2 April 2025, in order to be entitled to more money
from the Club.
72. The members of the DRC therefore acknowledged that, prior to the calculation of the
compensation payable to the Player, it had to address the Club’s aforementioned
objections.
73. Regarding the allowances the Chamber emphasised that they were agreed as a fixed
amount payable in instalments throughout the validity of the Contract. By terminating the
Contract without just cause, the Club prevented the Player from receiving these
entitlements that he otherwise would have received. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the allowances form part of the residual value of the Supplementary Agreement and
must be included in the compensation, in line with the positive interest principle enshrined
in the Regulations.
74. As to the extension of the Contract, the DRC noted that Clause 1.1 of the Contract clearly
provides an automatic renewal upon the Player meeting a predefined participation
threshold. The members of the Chamber stressed that the Player had no discretionary
power over this extension, as match participation is determined by the Club. Accordingly,
the Chamber found that the Club cannot attribute the consequences of its own breach to
the Player, and the compensation must therefore cover the full contractual period until 31
May 2026, as this would have been the natural expiry date had the Contract not been
unlawfully terminated.
75. Having established the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 236,900 net
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract. The DRC further clarified that the aforementioned sum corresponds to the
following amounts and concepts:
o The June 2025 salary under the Contract, i.e., EUR 11,000 net;
o The salary under the Contract from August 2025 to May 2026, i.e., EUR 11,000 net
each, totalling EUR 110,000 net;
o The June 2025 additional salary under the Supplementary Agreement, i.e., EUR
10,900 net;
o The additional salary under the Supplementary Agreement from August 2025 to May
2025, i.e., EUR 9,000 net each, totalling EUR 90,000 net; and
o The allowances under the Supplementary Agreement from August 2025 to May
2026, i.e., EUR 1,500 net each, totalling EUR 15,000 net.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19716
76. 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
Football Tribunal 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.
77. Indeed, the Player found employment with HŠK Zrinjski. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player is entitled to a monthly remuneration of BAM 1,000 net,
as well as a monthly accommodation allowance of BAM 700 which, according to the Player
— and not disputed by the Club — corresponds to EUR 1,000 net.
78. Accordingly, the DRC concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount
of EUR 12,000 net (i.e., EUR 1,000 net per month from June 2025 to May 2026).
79. At this point, the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s argument that the Player failed to
adequately mitigate his damages, noting that the Club provided no evidence to support
this claim. The Chamber further reiterated that the Player cannot be blamed for the
consequences of the Club’s breach.
80. 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 termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
81. In this respect, the DRC noted that, according to the Player — and again not disputed by
the Club — 3 monthly salaries amount to EUR 65,700 net. As a result, the Chamber decided
to award the Player EUR 65,700 net as additional compensation.
82. The Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, the
overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated
contract.
83. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 236,900 net to the Claimant (i.e., EUR 236,900 net minus EUR 12,000 net plus
EUR 65,700 net, limited to a maximum of EUR 236,900 net), which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19716
84. 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 Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of 21 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
88. The Respondent 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.
89. 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
90. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19716
91. 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.
92. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19716
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Mateo Sušić.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, APOEL Nicosia, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 252,800 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as
follows:
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 February 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 April 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 May 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 June 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 40,900 net as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 November 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 February 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-19716
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,900 net as from 1 March 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,400 net as from 1 April 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,400 net as from 1 May 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,400 net as from 21 May 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
o EUR 236,900 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per
annum as from 21 May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-19716
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. 21