Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20064
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Domagoj Pavicic
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Domagoj Pavicic, Croatia
Represented by Hrvoje Raic
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Aris FC, Greece
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20064
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2023, the Croatian player Domagoj Pavicic (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent) and the Greek club Aris FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from the date of the signature until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter
alia the following amounts:
“4.
Obligations of the Club 4.1.
It is hereby stipulated that the monthly fees of the Player - which in any case may not be lower
than the monthly salary of an unskilled worker set out in the National Collective Bargaining
Agreement - are set to the amount of € 871 paid out to the Player by the Club the latest at the
end of each month, twelve months per year. Apart from the aforementioned monthly fees,
the Club is obligated to pay out to the Player Christmas bonus (the amount thereof being
equal to the monthly fees of the Player) and Easter bonus (the amount thereof being half of
the monthly fees of the Player), as well as Holiday benefit (the amount thereof being half of
the monthly fees of the Player).
(…)
4.4. The Player shall receive the total amount of 144.000 NET OF TAXES in 12 instalments, as
follows:
1st instalment amount
2rd instalment amount
3rd instalment amount
4th instalment amount
5th instalment amount
6th instalment amount
7th instalment amount
8th instalment amount
9th instalment amount
10th instalment amount
11th instalment amount
12th instalment amount
9.500 €
9.500 €
9.500 €
9.500 €
12.000 €
12.000 €
12.000 €
12.000 €
14.500 €
14.500 €
14.500 €
14.500 €
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
payable on
30.08.2023
30.12.2023
30.03.2024
01.07.2024
30.08.2024
30.12.2024
30.03.2025.
01.07.2025
30.08.2025
30.12.2025
30.03.2026
30.06.2026
(…)“
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20064
3.
Also on 1 July 2023, the parties concluded a document titled “Appendix of the Contract”
(hereinafter: the Annex), which contained the following financial conditions:
“FIRST.- In addition to the amounts provided in the Super League Greece contract, the Club
must:
A. Pay to the Player the net amount of 150.000 € in 4 installments as follows
1st installment 37.500€ net on 30/08/2023
2nd installment 37.500€ net on 30/11/2023
3rd installment 37.500€ net on 01/03/2024
4th installment 37.500€ net on 30/05/2024
B. Rental allowance (10.000€) in accordance and subject to the club’s policy
SECOND.- In addition to the amounts provided in the Super League Greece contract, the Club
must:
A. Pay to the Player the net amount of 290.000 € in 4 installments as follows:
1st installment 72.500€ net on 30/08/2024
2nd installment 72.500€ net on 30/11/2024
3rd installment 72.500€ net on 01/03/2025
4th installment 72.5006 net on 30/05/2025
B. Rental allowance (10.000€) in accordance and subject to the club’s policy
THIRD.- In addition to the amounts provided in the Super League Greece contract, the Club
must:
A) Pay to the Player the net amount of 280.000 € in 4 installments as follows:
1st installment 70.000€ net on 30/08/2025
2nd installment 70.000€ net on 30/11/2025
3rd installment 70.000€ net on 01/03/2026
4th installment 70.000€ net on 30/05/2026
FOURTH.-Bonus for each season (valid for seasons 2023-24,2024-25 and 2025-26 payable at
on October of the next season)
a. 15.000€ net if the players participate in 20 official matches of each season (Super League,
Cup, UEFA)
b. 15.000€ net extra if the players participate in 35 official matches of each season (Super
League, Cup, UEFA)
c. 20.000€ net if the players participate in 10 official matches in UEFA Competitions of each
season.
d. 200€ Bonus per collected point of the Greek Super League Ranking I able if the club qualifies
(after the ratification of the ranking table) in Europa Conference League. For a full bonus per
point in league matches the player must start the match If he enters the match as a
substitution, it will be considered, for this match, as a half bonus (100€) per point.
e. 400€ Bonus per collected point of the Greek Super League Ranking T able if the club
qualifies (after the ratification of the ranking table) in in Europa League. For a full bonus per
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20064
point in league matches the player must start the match. If he enters the match as a
substitution, it will be considered, for this match, as a half bonus (200€) per point.
f. 1.000€ Bonus per collected point of the Greek Super League Ranking Table if the club
qualifies (after the ratification of the ranking table) in Champions League For a full bonus per
point in league matches the player must start the match. If he enters the match as a
substitution, it will be considered, for this match, as a half bonus (500€) per point.
g. 50000€ net as loyalty fee, if the player is registered in the squad of ARIS FC (valid only for
season 2025-26) payable after the winter transfer market (March 2026)
(…)
SEVENTH.- The parties irrevocably agree that all the amounts determined in this Agreement
and also in the Super League Greece contract are NET amounts, and the obligation of
withholding tax, income tax and stamp tax and any other tax in relation of this Agreement
and Super League Greece contract shall be borne by the CLUB in addition to the amounts
determined in this Agreement and in the Super League Greece contract.”
4.
On 6 September 2024, the Player, the Club and the Bosnian club FK Sarajevo (hereinafter:
Sarajevo) concluded a document titled “Agreement for the temporary transfer of the Player”
(hereinafter: the Loan Agreement), by means of which the Player was transferred on a
temporary basis from the Club to Sarajevo as of the date of the signature until 30 June
2025.
5.
Clause 3.2 of the Loan Agreement established:
“2. [Sarajevo] and the Player should conclude a separate contract for the duration of this
temporary transfer for the purposes of the Player being registered to play for [Sarajevo] in
accordance with national laws and provisions of NS/FS BiH. The contractual obligations
between the Player and [the Club] shall be suspended for the duration of the loan in force.”
6.
Also on 6 September 2024, the parties concluded a document titled “Private agreement –
dated 06/09/2024” (hereinafter: the Agreement), which provided as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“IT IS NOW AGREED and ACCEPT as follows:
1. The parties are taking into account the loan agreement of the PLAYER to FK Saragevo, dated
06/09/2024 with duration from 06/09/2024 to 30/06/2025 and the fact that the PLAYER’s
Employment Contract will be suspended for the said duration and the PLAYER will be paid
during the loan only by FK Sarajevo and shall not be entitled to receive the payments of the
Employment Contract that were payable during the loan period, agree that the Club shall pay
the PLAYER in order to cover the losses he suffers for the period until 30/06/2025 due to the
lower remuneration he will receive from FK Sarajevo during the loan (in comparison to what
he would receive under the Employment Contract), and in addition to the amount of
10.000,00 €net payable on 20/09/2024 specified in PRIVATE AGREEMENT - ADUSTMENT
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20064
AGREEMENT dated 06/09/2024 concluded between the CLUB and the PLAYER, the CLUB shall
also pay to the PLAYER the total net amount of 200,000 €. The Club shall also pay the PLAYER
the amount of 47.000,00 euro net which is due to the PLAYER from the private agreement
dated 16/01/2024 concerning the loan of the PLAYER to FC Dinamo 1948 Bucuresti, that is,
the Club shall pay the PLAYER the total amount of 247.000,00 €
The parties agree that the said net amount of 247.000,00 € will be paid to the PLAYER in six
(6) installments as below:
1) 20.000,00 € net on 20/09/2024
2) 27.000,00 € net on 31/10/2024
3) 50.000,00 € net on 31/03/2025
4) 50.000,00 € net on 30/04/2025
5) 50.000,00 € net on 31/05/2025
6) 50.000,00 € net on 30/06/2025.
The PLAYER expressly acknowledges and confirms that apart from the above total net amount
of 247,000 (i.e., 200,000 € + 47,000 €) euros, i) he has no other claim, demand or entitlement
for the period of the loan (i.e., from today until 30 June 2025) from the Employment Contract
and/or from any other reason whatsoever and ii) he has no other claim, demand or
entitlement from the private agreement of 16 January 2024.
3. This agreement falls under FIFA regulations and in case of a dispute the Player has the
possibility of appealing to the competent committee of FIFA or the Greek Federation.
(…)”.
7.
On 7 May 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested the payment of EUR
100,000 net along with interest and all relevant taxes, state contributions and surcharges
on top of the amounts, within the following 10 days. The Player referred to the Agreement
and mentioned that, according to said document, the Club had undertaken to pay him EUR
247,000 net in six instalments but had failed to comply with two payments of EUR 50,000
net each, which were due on 31 March and 30 April 2025, respectively. Lastly, the Player
stated that, in the absence of any payment, he would be forced to file a claim before FIFA
requesting the outstanding remuneration.
8.
On 16 May 2025, the Club replied to the Player, stating that it would proceed with the
payments in the coming days. The Club added that it would provide the exact payment
dates “very soon”.
9.
On 1 July 2025, the Player again put the Club in default and requested the payment of EUR
200,000 net along with interest and all relevant taxes, state contributions and surcharges
on top of the amounts, within 15 days. The Player stated that, in the absence of any
payment, he reserved the right to unilaterally terminate the Contract and request both
outstanding remuneration and compensation. The Player specified that the amounts due
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20064
were those established in the Agreement, corresponding to the instalments that were to
be paid on 31 March, 30 April, 31 May and 30 June 2025.
10. On 4 July 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 30,000 as a partial payment of the instalment
due on 31 March 2025.
11. On 17 July 2025, the Player terminated the Contract, arguing that the Club had failed to
remedy the breaches. In this regard, the Player acknowledged receipt of a payment of EUR
30,000 on 4 July 2025 but stated that the Club had failed to pay him the remaining EUR
170,000 net requested. Moreover, the Player noted that the Club had failed to pay him the
8th instalment of remuneration specified in clause 4.4 of the Contract, which fell due on 2
July 2025, making the total amount due EUR 182,000 net. Hence, the Player indicated that
he would lodge a claim before FIFA requesting outstanding remuneration, compensation
and sporting sanctions against the Club.
12. On 17 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter. In this respect, the Club stated that
it had not only paid EUR 30,000 against the total outstanding amount and remained in
contact with the Player regarding the payment of the remaining amount due, but also that,
in any case, the amounts due were based on the Agreement and not the Contract. Thus,
the Club argued that there was no breach of contract that could justify the termination and
that it would take legal action to protect its rights.
13. On 23 July 2025, the Player concluded a new contract with the Croatian club HNK Gorica
(hereinafter: Gorica), valid until 30 June 2027, under which he is entitled to EUR 14,700 gross
per month (hereinafter: “the New Employment Contract”). According to the Player, his
monthly net remuneration amounts to EUR 9,627.81, as he is self-employed and resides in
Zagreb, and the applicable income tax rates are 23% (on the first EUR 5,000) and 33% (on
the remaining EUR 9,700), in addition to mandatory pension and health insurance
contributions totalling EUR 721.19.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 23 July 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
15. In his claim, the Player argued that the parties had concluded the Contract along with the
Annex, under which he was entitled to (i) a monthly salary of EUR 871 net, (ii) remuneration
of EUR 144,000 net in 12 instalments, (iii) additional remuneration and (iv) a loyalty fee. The
Player also stated that, on 6 September 2024, the parties had concluded the Agreement in
connection with (i) outstanding remuneration of EUR 47,000 net arising from a private
agreement dated 16 January 2024, and (ii) the remuneration that the Club was to pay to
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20064
the Player during the loan from the Club to Sarajevo from 6 September 2024 until 30 June
2025. In this regard, the Player argued that, under the Agreement, the Club undertook to
pay him EUR 247,000 net in six instalments.
16. Notwithstanding the above, the Player alleged that the Club had first failed to pay him EUR
100,000 net corresponding to the instalments due in March and April 2025 and, therefore,
he put the Club in default on 7 May 2025, to no avail. Moreover, the Player stated that the
Club also failed to pay the instalments due in May and June 2025 and, thus, he sent a new
notice of default on 1 July 2025, after the loan period expired, requesting EUR 200,000 net.
The Player remarked that the Club only paid EUR 30,000 but failed to comply with the
payment of the remaining amounts. In addition, the Player pointed out that EUR 12,000 net
under the Contract fell due on 2 July 2025.
17. In light of the above, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract on 17 July 2025.
The Player acknowledged that the Club had replied, arguing that the outstanding
remuneration concerned only the Agreement and not the Contract and, therefore, there
was no breach of contract. The Player, however, asserted that he had just cause to
terminate the Contract under the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations). In any event, the Player stated that, during the loan period,
the Club undertook to pay him remuneration and that, therefore, not all contractual
obligations were suspended, pursuant to art. 10 par. 1 lit. c) of the Regulations. Moreover,
the Player affirmed that he had granted the Club 15 days to comply with the payments.
18. Based on the above, the Player made the following requests for relief:
“23. In view of the foregoing, 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.
a. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant outstanding remuneration of
net EUR 182,000.00 (one hundred and eighty-two thousand euros), which matured as follows:
• net EUR 20,000.00 on 31/3/2025, and
• net EUR 50,000.00 on 30/4/2025, and
• net EUR 50,000.00 on 31/05/2025, and
• net EUR 50,000.00 on 30/06/2025, and
• net EUR 12,000.00 on 02/07/2025; and
b. 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; and
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20064
c. 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
III.
a. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant compensation of net EUR
398,452.00 (three hundred and ninety-eight thousand, four hundred and fifty-two euros)
which matured on 18/7/2025, while at the same time taking into account provisions of Article
17. of FIFA RSTP, within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in the present
matter to the Respondent; and
b. to condemn the Respondent to pay all relevant taxes, state contributions and surcharges,
on top of the above-mentioned net compensation, within 45 days as from the date of
notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
c. to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax certificates
concerning the payment of all the above specified net compensation, within 45 days as from
the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
I. in any event, to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of
5% per year on the aforementioned amounts starting from the respective date of maturity
specified in points II. and III. 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
II. to impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, all in the light of FIFA RSTP”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
19. In its reply, the Club acknowledged that the parties had first concluded the Contract and
then, when the Player was temporarily transferred to Sarajevo, the Loan Agreement, which
established that the contractual obligations between the Player and the Club were
suspended for the duration of the loan. The Club further stated that the parties had
concluded the Agreement, confirming the suspension of the Contract and agreeing that
the Respondent would pay the Player certain amounts to cover the financial loss that the
Player would suffer as a result of his temporary transfer to Sarajevo.
20. The Club further acknowledged that the Player had put it in default twice and that, on 4 July
2025, it paid EUR 30,000. The Club pointed out that on 17 July 2025, the Player sent a
termination letter arguing that the Club had failed to pay him the requested EUR 200,000
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20064
in addition to EUR 12,000 under the Contract. However, the Club alleged that the Player did
not have just cause to terminate the Contract.
21. On this basis, the Club first alleged that the parties had explicitly acknowledged in writing,
by means of the Agreement, that the Contract would be suspended during the loan period,
which was also clearly stated in the Loan Agreement. The Club asserted that the fact that,
regardless of the suspension of the Contract, the Club would pay the Player several
amounts beyond what he would have received from Sarajevo did not in any way imply that
the Contract remained in force or that the Club continued to pay the salaries specified
therein. In fact, the Club remarked that the Loan Agreement did not specify that the Club
was responsible for paying any part of the salary that the Player would receive from
Sarajevo.
22. According to the Club, the Contract and the Agreement were two separate documents and,
therefore, the Player had no basis to terminate the Contract based on an alleged failure to
comply with the Agreement.
23. While the Club acknowledged that it had not fully paid the amount established in the
Agreement nor the eighth instalment of the Contract, it alleged that this did not justify
termination based on art. 14bis or art. 14 of the Regulations. Subsidiarily, the Club argued
that mitigation should apply and that any claim regarding taxes was vague and must be
rejected, noting that, provided the amounts were ordered to be paid net, the Club would
pay the relevant tax amounts to the authorities, and the Player could request the
corresponding tax certificates from the tax authorities.
24. Considering all the above, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player, arguing that
he had terminated the Contract without just cause and, a few days later, had concluded a
contract with a Serbian club. The Club stated that the value of the Player’s services until the
end of the Contract was estimated at EUR 398,452 net, and that it should be compensated
with this amount. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that it had been deprived of the Player’s
market value, which it estimated at EUR 200,000 according to Transfermarkt.
25. Based on the above, the Club made the following requests for relief:
“On the basis of all the aforementioned and of the submitted evidence, we hereby respectfully
request your committee:
i. to rule that on 17 July 2025, the Claimant terminated his contract without just cause.
ii. reject the claim as groundless and in any case as abusive;
iii. to accept Aris FC counterclaim and to rule that the Counterclaimant shall be compensated
by the player Domagoj Pavicic of the amount of 398,452 euros or subsidiarily the amount of
200,000 euros, or otherwise any amount of compensation considered appropriate given the
circumstances of the case, due to the fact the Respondent of the Counterclaim terminated his
Employment Contract without just cause ;
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20064
iv. Determine that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall apply over the payable
compensation;
v. to rule that the Claimant shall bear any and all costs of the proceedings. Subsidiarily
i. to rule that the Respondent did not breach the Employment Contract of 1.7.2023, but only
the Private Agreement of 6.9.2024
ii. to rule that no compensation is payable to the Claimant due to the termination of his
employment contract dated 1.7.2023.
iii. To reject any other claim of the Claimant.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
26. In its reply to the counterclaim, the Player first alleged that, by signing the Agreement, the
parties decided to deviate from the general assumption contained in art. 10 par. 1 lit. c) of
the Regulations and to define in writing their contractual obligations during the loan period,
expressly mentioning that the Club was obliged to pay the difference between his
contractual remuneration under the Contract and the lower remuneration he received
from Sarajevo. In this context, the Player argued that, even if certain obligations under the
Contract were suspended during the loan period, the Agreement established an ongoing
financial obligation towards the Player of EUR 247,000 net, out of which EUR 200,000 net
corresponded to the remuneration for the loan period.
27. The Player further remarked that the Agreement was concluded after the Loan Agreement
and that, therefore, the legal principle lex posterior derogat legi priori shall apply. In this
respect, the Player noted that the Agreement expressly established that the amount
stipulated therein served to fill the “gap” between the remuneration payable pursuant to
the Contract and the Loan Agreement. In any event, the Player alleged that the legal
principle in dubio contra stipulatorem shall apply and that it was irrelevant how the sum was
titled.
28. The Player also asserted that the Club’s allegation that the Agreement and the Contract are
two separate contracts is groundless and inaccurate, as the purpose of the Agreement was
to define the Player’s contractual relationship during the loan period. However, the Player
remarked that, even if the Contract was suspended, the parties were still under contract
and that the Club acknowledged on 16 May 2025 that it had to pay the amounts. According
to the Player, it was only on 17 July 2025, after the termination, that the Club raised the
argument that the outstanding remuneration concerned only the Agreement.
29. The Player argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract based on both art. 14bis
and art. 14 of the Regulations.
30. Based on the above, the Player reiterated his requests for relief and requested that the
counterclaim be rejected.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20064
d. Club’s final comments
31. In its final comments, the Club remarked that the Agreement did not mention that it was a
continuation, annex or appendix to the Contract or to the Loan Agreement, and only stated
that the Club would pay a certain amount as compensation for the loss the Player would
suffer during the loan period. The Club reiterated that the Contract was suspended and
that the parties did not stipulate that the Club would pay the Player’s salary or any part of
his salary.
32. The Club asserted that the Agreement had been freely negotiated between the parties and
that it was not intended to fill a “gap”, as the Player claimed, but rather to constitute
compensation similar to cases of early termination of a contract by mutual consent,
whereby a club often agrees to pay a sum to a player who is about to sign with a new club
offering lower wages.
33. In light of the above, the Club reiterated its requests for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. 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 23 July 2025 and submitted for decision on
19 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
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.
35. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Croatian player and a Greek club.
36. 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. 12
REF. FPSD-20064
b. Burden of proof
37. 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
38. 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
39. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract, and a counterclaim filed by a club against a player for compensation
for breach of contract.
40. In particular, the Chamber observed that, according to the Player, he terminated the
Contract with just cause based on both art. 14 and art. 14bis of the Regulations, as the Club
failed to pay him part of his remuneration as stipulated in the Contract and the Agreement.
41. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club, while acknowledging a debt, argued that the
Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract, as almost all the amounts owed
arose from the Agreement, and the debt based on the Contract was not sufficient to
constitute just cause.
42. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause and the ensuing consequences. The
Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
A. Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
43. First, the Chamber observed that the Player alleged that he had just cause to terminate the
Contract, as the Club failed to pay him several amounts established in the Agreement,
which had been agreed upon as a consequence of the remuneration stipulated in the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20064
Contract. The Club, however, argued that the Agreement and the Contract were two
separate documents and that, although it failed to comply with several payments under
the Agreement, this did not amount to a breach of the Contract, as the latter was
suspended during the loan period.
44. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it must analyse whether the non-payment of
the amounts established in the Agreement constituted just cause.
45. In this sense, the Chamber first acknowledged that the parties concluded the Loan
Agreement, by means of which they established that the obligations stipulated in the
Contract were suspended. Moreover, the Chamber noted that, following the Loan
Agreement, the parties concluded the Agreement, which specifically provided:
“1. The parties are taking into account the loan agreement of the PLAYER to FK Saragevo,
dated 06/09/2024 with duration from 06/09/2024 to 30/06/2025 and the fact that the PLAYER
’s Employment Contract will be suspended for the said duration and the PLAYER will be paid
during the loan only by FK Sarajevo and shall not be entitled to receive the payments of the
Employment Contract that were payable during the loan period, agree that the Club shall pay
the PLAYER in order to cover the losses he suffers for the period until 30/06/2025 due to the
lower remuneration he will receive from FK Sarajevo during the loan (in comparison to what
he would receive under the Employment Contract). (…)”
46. In the Chamber’s opinion, while it is true that - in principle - the parties decided to suspend
all their obligations arising from the Contract during the period the Player was loaned to
Sarajevo, the Club then undertook payment obligations to “cover the losses” the Player
suffered from the lower remuneration he would receive from Sarajevo during the loan, in
comparison with the Contract. While the Club asserted that this payment was not
remuneration but compensation unrelated to the Contract, the Chamber considered that
the nature of the payments was clearly and directly linked to the remuneration established
under the Contract, as expressly acknowledged in the wording of the Agreement. In
summary, the Chamber considered that, based on art. 10 par. 1 lit. c) of the Regulations,
which establishes that “during the agreed duration of the loan, the contractual obligations
between the professional and the former club shall be suspended unless otherwise agreed in
writing”, the parties did agree otherwise in writing, and the remaining obligations were
related to the Contract, which governed the relationship between the parties.
47. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player was supposed to receive a determined
amount under the Contract, and, as a consequence of his loan, he would receive a lower
salary than what he was entitled to according to the Contract. Hence, the parties concluded
the Agreement, under which the Club essentially undertook to pay the Player the difference
- either in full or in part - between the amounts established in the Contract and those in
the new employment contract the Player signed with Sarajevo.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20064
48. The Chamber further acknowledged that the Club undertook to pay the Player a substantial
amount of EUR 200,000, which was likely decisive for the Player to agree to the Loan
Agreement, as otherwise he would have forfeited at least EUR 200,000 - a considerable
amount. In this context, the Chamber considered that the non-payment of the amounts
established in the Agreement was clearly related to obligations under the Contract, as the
origin of these amounts did not arise independently but derived from the Contract. The
Chamber also pointed out that, after the loan period, the parties still had one year of the
Contract remaining, and although the Contract was suspended during the loan, this
particular payment obligation was not.
49. In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the non-payment of these amounts
was directly related to the Contract - having consequences thereon - and, therefore, the
Club’s argument could not succeed.
50. Having established the above, the Chamber observed that the Player placed the Club in
default on 7 May 2025 and requested payment of EUR 100,000, corresponding to two
instalments due on 31 March and 30 April 2025. The Club, despite expressly acknowledging
its obligation to settle this amount, failed to effect payment. Subsequently, on 1 July 2025
the Player again placed the Club in default, this time requesting EUR 200,000 corresponding
to four instalments and granting it 15 days to comply with the payment - explicitly stating
that failure to do so would constitute just cause for unilateral termination. The Club,
however, only paid the Player EUR 30,000 and failed to provide any response. In fact, the
Club only argued that the amounts under the Agreement were independent from those of
the Contract once the Player terminated the Contract.
51. In this sense, the Chamber considered relevant to point out that, during the loan period,
the Club undertook to pay the Player EUR 247,000, of which EUR 47,000 corresponded to
a private agreement between the parties and EUR 200,000 to the amount the Club
undertook to pay during the loan period. The Club, however, failed to pay EUR 200,000,
meaning that it failed to perform all the payments it had expressly undertaken to pay to
compensate the difference between the amounts under the Contract and the Player’s new
contract with Sarajevo, demonstrating the severity and magnitude of the breach.
52. Moreover, the Chamber noted that (i) the Player waited until the end of the loan period to
again claim the outstanding amounts, some of which had been due two or three months
earlier, and (ii) the Club also failed to comply with the payment of the eighth instalment of
the Contract - which, although not requested in the first notice of default because it was
not yet due, fell due 15 days before the termination.
53. Based on the above, and considering that the Club failed to comply with the payment of a
considerable amount that arose from and was related to the Contract, and that the Player
granted the Club two opportunities to remedy the default - one explicitly granting 15 days
under the threat of termination – the Chamber considered that the Player could no longer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20064
reasonably be expected to maintain a contractual relationship, making the termination an
act of ultima ratio.
54. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations.
B. Consequences
55. Having stated that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract, the Chamber first
decided that the Club’s counterclaim against the Player must be rejected in its entirety.
56. Then, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the Player’s requests and noted that he
requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
1) Outstanding remuneration
57. The Chamber first observed that it was undisputed that the Club failed to pay the Player
EUR 170,000 net under the Agreement, as well as EUR 12,000 net corresponding to the
eighth instalment of the Contract.
58. Hence, the Chamber decided to award the amount of EUR 182,000 net as outstanding
remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the day following each due date.
59. In addition, since the termination took place on 17 July 2025, and based on the standard
practice of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to
the monthly salary of EUR 871 corresponding to July 2025, and decided to award this salary
to the Player with 5% interest p.a. as from the date of termination.
60. The Chamber also recalled that the Player requested that the Club be ordered to pay all
relevant taxes or to provide him with the corresponding tax certificates related to the
payment of all obligations. However, the Chamber considered that there was no
contractual basis for such requests and, therefore, decided to reject this part of the claim.
2) Compensation for breach of contract
61. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club 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.
62. 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20064
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
63. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
64. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
65. First, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed the amount of EUR 398,452 net as
compensation. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Contract would have been
valid until 30 June 2026 had the Player not terminated it, and that the Player was entitled
to a monthly salary and to several amounts forming part of his remuneration that were not
paid monthly. In this sense, the Chamber highlighted that, based on the monthly salary,
the Player would have received EUR 9,581 until 30 June 2026. Additionally, the Chamber
noted that the Player would have received four instalments of EUR 14,500 each (totalling
EUR 58,000) under the Contract, as well as EUR 280,000 pursuant to the Annex.
66. The Chamber also acknowledged that the Player included the loyalty fee as part of the
compensation (and the salary for July 2025 already awarded as outstanding remuneration).
The relevant clause provided as follows:
“g. 50000€ net as loyalty fee, if the player is registered in the squad of ARIS FC (valid only for
season 2025-26) payable after the winter transfer market (March 2026)”
67. At this point, the Chamber considered that the wording of the abovementioned clause was
unclear, as the condition to trigger this bonus was insufficiently defined. For example, it
was not clarified whether the Player needed to be registered during the entire season, or
whether the registration referred to TMS or to the league list. In addition, although the
clause specified that the payment date was March 2026, it did not expressly require that
the Player remain registered with the Club until that time.
68. In this context, and in the absence of clarity, the Chamber stressed that the principle in
dubio contra stipulatorem should apply. In this sense, the Chamber noted that, on 1 July
2025 – the day the 2025-2026 season started – the Player returned from his loan and was
registered in TMS with the Club; therefore, the Chamber remarked that the Player was
technically registered with the Club during that season. More importantly, the Chamber
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20064
noted that the Club did not dispute the Player’s entitlement to this loyalty fee – which may
be understood as a tacit acknowledgement – and, in fact, in its counterclaim it relied on the
very same figure when estimating the value of the Player’s services, thereby expressly
acknowledging the Player’s entitlement:
“The player's services from the date of the breach and for the remainder of the term of the
contract, which undoubtedly Aris was deprived of after the unlawful termination, were
estimated at 398,452 euros net, as stated by the player himself in his claim”
69. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 397,581 net serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
70. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
71. Indeed, the Chamber noted that, on 23 July 2025, the Player concluded a new contract with
Gorica under which he was entitled to EUR 14,700 gross per month. Although the Player
alleged that his net monthly salary was EUR 9,627.81 and provided evidence regarding the
applicable taxes, the Chamber remarked that it failed to provide proper salary receipts,
invoices or evidence of the amounts effectively received from the new club. Moreover, as
several payments had not yet been made to him, the Chamber found that it was not
possible to determine whether the deductions would remain consistent throughout the
entire overlapping period.
72. In this context, and notwithstanding the evidence submitted, the Chamber held that it
could not be established with sufficient certainty that the Player was entitled to a net
amount of EUR 9,627.81. Instead, the Chamber deemed the gross amount of EUR 14,700
to be the appropriate figure for mitigation purposes. In this regard, the Chamber observed
that the Player mitigated his damages in the amount of EUR 161,700 (EUR 14,700 times
eleven) during the overlapping period.
73. 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 Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-20064
74. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
90,112.98 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player. For the sake of
clarity, in order to determine the monthly salary of the Player, the Chamber considered the
average of all guaranteed amounts the Player would have received during the 2025-2026
season, i.e., from July 2025 to June 2026, which totals EUR 360,452 net (excluding the loyalty
bonus, which was a proper bonus, and including the instalment and the salary for July
2025), amounting to EUR 30,037.66 net per month.
75. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR
325,993.98 net to the Player (i.e., EUR 397,581 net minus EUR 161,700 plus EUR 90,112.98
net), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
76. Lastly, 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 on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 18 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
In addition, regarding the tax certificates, the Chamber referred to its conclusions under
the outstanding remuneration section.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-20064
81. 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
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-20064
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Domagoj Pavicic, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Aris FC, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- EUR 182,871 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 20,000 net as from 1 April 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 1 May 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 1 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 1 July 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 12,000 net as from 2 July 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 871 net as from 18 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment
- EUR 325,993.98 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 18 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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 / 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
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-20064
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 / CounterRespondent 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. 22
REF. FPSD-20064
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 23