Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18059
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Velizar Janketic
BY:
Michele COLUCCI, Italy
CLAIMANT:
Velizar Janketic, Montenegro
Represented by Dupovac Feđa
RESPONDENT:
FK Sloboda Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18059
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 23 July 2024, the Montenegrin player, Velizar Janketic (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Bosnian club FK Sloboda Tuzla (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 29 August
2024 until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with art. 5 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant
inter alia a monthly salary of BAM 700 net, a monthly allocation of BAM 260 for hot meals
and a monthly allocation of BAM 50 for transportation.
3.
Art. 5 of the Contract reads as follows:
‘’Article 5.
(1) For the performance of work as prescribed by this contract, the club undertakes to pay the
player a salary In accordance with the provisions of this contract, the Labor Law and the
Club’s Regulations in the net amount of 700.00 [BAM], which can be increased or decreased
depending on 'the club's operation: and in accordance with the Club's regulations and can be
changed without a written amendment to this contract on the basis of relevant Decisions. The
player is also entitled to compensation for a hot meal in the monetary amount of 13.00 [BAM]
per day, or 260.00 KM per month, as well as compensation for transportation in the amount
of 50.00 [BAM] per month. When paying the salary, the club's finance department is obliged
to hand the player a written income statement (payroll). The payment of the player's salary is
not public. The club is obliged to pay the salary to the player once a month, no later than the
30th of the month for the previous month of work’’.
4.
On 3 December 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of 3 monthly
salaries, setting a time limit expiring on 18 December 2024 in order to remedy the default.
5.
On 31 December 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club terminating the Contract for
overdue remuneration.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 3 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
The Player alleged that the Club has failed to pay him BAM 2,730, which he alleges is more
than 2 months of salary.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18059
8.
The Player raised that the Club did not answer the notice of default sent on 3 December
2024.
9.
In addition, Player mentioned that on 17 December 2024 the Club officials have made
public announcements to the media, mentioning the termination of the employment of all
players of the Club, including himself.
10. The Player stated having terminated his contract on 31 December 2024, because of
overdue salaries in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), and following the comments made by the Club
officials in the media.
11. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
‘’As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine that
he terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just cause on 31 st December
2024 and to order the Club to pay the Player the following amounts:
▪ Overdue payables, plus 5% interest p.a.as from the relevant payment dates until the date of
effective payment, specified as follows:
▪ 2.730,00 [BAM] (including outstanding salaries for the months of September, October,
November 2024)
▪ 5.460,00 [BAM] (for remaining renumeration for season 2024/25) as the amount due as
compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as from 31st December 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
▪ 6 months of additional compensation should the Player find a new contract and his
compensation be mitigated. ‘’
b. Position of the Respondent
12. Despite being provided the opportunity to do so, the Club has not replied to the Player’s
claim within the prescribed delays.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18059
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 3 February 2025 and submitted for
decision on 13 May 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.
14. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 (January 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 Montenegrin player and a Bosnian club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. The Single-Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
17. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
it concerned a claim for breach of contract brought by a player against a club.
19. The Single Judge observed that the Parties entered an employment contract on 29 August
2024 that was set to expire on 31 May 2025, but was prematurely terminated by the Player
due to overdue payables.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18059
20. The Single Judge also noted that the Club did not respond to the claim. Therefore, any
decision must be made solely on the basis of the evidence provided by the Player and
available in the case file (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to first determine if the
termination of contract occurred with just cause, and then to assess the consequences.
A. Termination
22. The Single Judge first turned to the Claimant’s position as to the termination. He noted that
the Claimant claimed that the salaries for the months of September, October, and
December 2024 were overdue, and that the Claimant sent the Respondent a notice of
default on 3 December 2024.
23. As the salaries were paid in arrears for the previous month and started to be overdue as
of October 2024 (i.e., September salary), and the situation continued in November 2024
(i.e., October salary), the Single Judge noted that more than 2 months were outstanding on
the date when the Claimant sent the notice of default.
24. The Single Judge then recalled that in line with the long-standing jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, the Club bore the burden of proving that it had in fact complied with the
financial terms of the Contract within the 15 days granted in the default notice.
25. However, in absence of answer of the Respondent to the notice of default or this claim, the
Single Judge decided that the Claimant had just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations
to terminate the Contract on 31 December 2024.
B. Consequences
26. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
27. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is equivalent to 4 months salaries
under the Contract, amounting to BAM 3,640.
28. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the
aforementioned sum.
29. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18059
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their respective due
dates until the date of effective payment.
30. The Single Judge clarified that, as per art. 5(1) of the Contract, the salaries were due ‘’once
a month, no later than 30th of the month for the previous month of work no later’’. Therefore,
the Single judge awarded interest as from the day following the 30th day of the following
month for the salary of the previous month (i.e., 31 October 2024 for September 2024, 1
December 2024 for October 2024, and 31 December 2024 for November 2024).
31. As the termination of Contract occurred on 31 December 2024 and in keeping in line with
the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Single Judge awarded the full
salary of December 2024 as outstanding remuneration, plus interests as from the date of
termination.
32. Having stated the above, the Single-Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single-Judge
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.
33. In application of the relevant provision, the Single-Judge held that he first 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 the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single-Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
34. As a consequence, the Single-Judge 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.
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date, in taking into
consideration the requests for relief of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of BAM 4,550 (i.e., the salary for remaining 5 months, from
January to May 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
36. In continuation, the Single Judge 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18059
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.
37. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant was registered as an amateur with
the Montenegrin club, Bokelj Sbbet, without consistent salary. As a result, the Single Judge
concluded that the Claimant was not able to mitigate his damages.
38. The Single Judge then referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations, according to which,
in case the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
39. Consequently, the Single-Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of BAM
4,550 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
40. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single-Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
42. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
43. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18059
44. 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.
45. The Single Judge 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
46. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
47. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
48. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18059
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Velizar Janketic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FK Sloboda Tuzla, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- BAM 3,640 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a.as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of BAM 910 as from 31 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of BAM 910 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of BAM 1,820 as from 31 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- BAM 4,550 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18059
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18059
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. 12