Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16076
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player András
Mészáros
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
András Mészáros, Slovakia and Hungary
Represented by Zsolt Fabinyi
RESPONDENT:
BVSC Labdarúgó Nonprofit KFT, Hungary
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16076
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 July 2023, the Slovak and Hungarian player, András Mészáros (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Hungarian club, BVSC Labdarugo Nonprofit KFT (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2024.
2.
In the Contract the Claimant was registered with the ID number: “5[…]”.
3.
Section XII of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
“[…] Other provisions regarding the duration of the contract (if there is no such
agreement, the empty part should be crossed): If the team of BVSC-Zugló will be
entitled to play in NBII championship of the Hungarian Football Association in
the 2024/2025 sporting season, then this contract prolongs automatically until
30 June 2025. Should this happen, the Parties might renegotiate the terms of
this contract.
The Parties agree that the [Player] shall work in time framework and in unequal
working time. The [Player] acknowledges that the [Club] determines his/her
working time in a 6 (six) months’ time frame, based on the 8 (eight) hours daily
working time. Within the working time framework the professional
management of the [Club] has the right to distribute the work.
Sum and currency of the Football Player’s salary (gross / net): HUF 750,000, that
is seven-hundred and fifty thousand Hungarian Forints
Date of salary payment: 10th day of every month
Other provisions regarding the salary with exact payment deadline (in
consideration of Section 16, Chapter IV and Section 47, Chapter XI herein; if
there is no such agreement, the empty part should be crossed) […]”
4.
According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter:
TMS), the Claimant had a profile with the Slovak nationality, however, when entering to the
Player’s latest transfer to a Hungarian club (i.e. BVSC-ZUGLÓ FC FUTBALL CLUB KFT), the
passport stored is the Player’s Hungarian passport with the ID number “5[…]”.
5.
On 29 February 2024, the Respondent informed the Claimant that from 15 March 2024
onwards, the Claimant's salary would be reduced by 50%, based on the decision of the
Respondent's professional management. In the same letter, the Respondent instructed the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16076
Claimant to train and play with the U19 team instead of the senior team for an indefinite
period of time.
6.
On 13 May 2024, the Claimant communicated to the Respondent that the deduction of his
salary was unlawful and therefore, he requested the payment of 100% of his salary in the
amount of HUF 5,052,632 net i.e., the balance of his salary between May and October plus
interest, within 15 days.
7.
On 23 May 2024, the Respondent provided its position as to the Claimant’s letter.
8.
On 12 July 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of HUF 1,302,632
corresponding to HUF 177,632 for March 2024 and HUF 375,000 for April, HUF 375,000 for
May 2024 and HUF 375,000 for June 2024; setting a time limit of 15 days.
9.
On 31 July 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant the following letter:
“Please note that [the Respondent] maintains its previous position, but adds that
according to[the Respondent]’s view, the employment relation between the club
and Mr András Mészáros has expired by 30 June 2024.
In order to close the legal dispute amicably, however, [the Respondent] is ready
to pay HUF 2,052,632.00 if the parties simultaneously make a declaration that they
waive all their rights and claims against
one another.
Please note that this does not mean that we would have acknowledged your legal
position or waived our rights, and we do not consent to use this o�er in any
litigation procedures.”
10. According to the “certificate of employment”, the Contract was terminated on 3 June 2024.
11. On 30 August 2024, the Claimant informed the Respondent that the latter unlawfully
terminated the Contract and requested payment of HUF 1,302,632 as salaries and HUF
9,000,000 as compensation.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 17 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
13. The Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract. The Claimant mentioned that he has
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16076
the Slovak nationality, and that FIFA is competent to hear the present case.
14. The Claimant then mentioned that the Respondent unlawfully deducted his salaries and
indicated that “even if the parties would have agreed to such potential salary reduction, both
FIFA’s and CAS’ jurisprudence is clear that potestative clauses (i.e., clauses dependent on an event
which can only be triggered by the club, if they limit the rights of the contractual counterparty
in an excessive manner and lead to an unjustified disadvantage of the latter) are null and void.
The straightforward consensus is (see e.g., FIFA FPSD-6599/2022, CAS 2020/A/7581, CAS
2018/A/6064) that clauses reducing the player’s salary upon the club’s unilateral decision, are
clearly falling into this category, especially, if the club is unilaterally entitled to decide upon
which circumstances the said salary reduction is applied. In the concrete case, the Respondent
clearly stated in its own letter that the reason for the salary reduction was that the Respondent
did not provide sufficient playing opportunities to my Client, consequently, the Respondent (by
its unilateral decision) decided to remove the Claimant to the underage team. In our view,
Section XI.47 of the employment agreement is clearly potestative, hence it should be considered
as null and void.”
15. Moreover, the Claimant mentioned that “as far as the Claimant’s removal to the underage
U19 team was concerned, we further elaborated that the Respondent was in a continuous
breach of Section 9.f) of the employment agreement, which stipulates that the employer must
provide regular and active competition opportunities to the employee, beyond the trainings.
Given that the Respondent cast-out the Claimant to train with the underage U19 team, since
March 2024 onwards, the Claimant was unable to participate in any competitions, or to play
any official games in any form whatsoever. Please note that according to Sections 16A and B of
the regulation on the male U19 championship (issued by the Hungarian Football Association for
the sporting season 2023/24), any playing opportunity in the U19 championship is reserved for
players born between 2005 and 2007. The Claimant was born in 1996.”
16. The Claimant further mentioned that since the Respondent reached the thirteenth position
in the NBII championship at the end of the 2023/2024 sporting season, and consequently
retained its membership in the NBII championship, the Contract was automatically
prolonged to 30 June 2025.
17. The Claimant also argued that the Respondent failed to respect the Contract and infringed
art. 13 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations)
as it failed to provide the full salary from 15 March 2024 until 30 June 2024 and that the
Respondent terminated the Contract without just cause on 30 June 2024.
18. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“We hereby kindly request FIFA DRC to order the payment of HUF 10,302,632.00 as
compensation by the Respondent to the Claimant in accordance with articles 13 and
17, para 1i) of RSTP.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16076
In addition, we hereby request FIFA DRC to order the Respondent to pay to the
Claimant a late payment interest equals to 5% per annum from 1 July 2024 until
completion, by virtue of para 1, Article 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
If the Respondent fails to adhere to FIFA DRC’s decision (insofar as such decision is
binding and it orders the Respondent to pay certain amounts to Claimant), please
impose on the Respondent a ban from registering any new players nationally and
internationally for three entire and consecutive registration periods, by virtue of article
24, para 1 and 2 of RSTP.”
b. Position of the Respondent
19. In its reply, the Respondent argued that FIFA does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim
for the following reasons:
-
The Contract was concluded by the rules adopted by the Hungarian Football
association and that the wording complies with FIFA regulations, therefore, it is
outside the Jurisdiction of FIFA.
-
The case involves a labour dispute which falls within the jurisdiction of the Hungarian
administrative labour courts according to section XI/49 of the Contract.
-
The Claimant is a Hungarian citizen, and he has been identified with the Hungarian
ID number “5[…]”
20. The Respondent further provided its position as to the salary’s deduction and the
assignation of the Player to other teams, indicating that this was in accordance with
Hungarian law and section XI/47 of the Contract.
21. Moreover, the Respondent mentioned that the exclusion of the Claimant from the senior
team was justified from a sporting point of view.
22. Additionally, it mentioned that the length of the contract was until 30 June 2024, as the
extension was subject to conditions and therefore, the Respondent did not terminate the
Contract.
23. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“In view of the detailed reasons set out in this submission, the Respondent requests
that the DRC dismiss the Respondent's application in its entirety. The Respondent also
requests that the DRC award the costs of the proceedings to the Claimant, taking into
account that the Claimant has not engaged in any unlawful conduct and has therefore
not given rise to the proceedings.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16076
c. Information provided by the Hungarian Football Federation (HFF)
24. On 11 November 2024, the FIFA general requested the HFF to provide the following
information:
“The nationality under which [the Player] was registered with your affiliated club,
BVSC Labdarúgó Nonprofit KFT.
the Player’s historic of transfers within the [HFF] (i.e. the player’s official passport);”
25. On 12 November 2024, the HFF informed the FIFA general secretariat that the Claimant
was registered with the Hungarian nationality and provided the Player’s transfers “the
Player’s passport” within the Federation.
26.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as the Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 17
September 2024 and submitted for decision on 17 December 2024. Taking into account the
wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
28. Before analysing the arguments of the parties and determining whether the present
dispute has or not an international dimension, the Single Judge deemed it appropriate to
recall the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (March 2023 edition), according to which a party that
asserts a fact has the burden of proving it. Likewise, the Single Judge stressed the wording
of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider and rely on
any evidence not presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within TMS.
29. Subsequently, the Single Judge recalled that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) in
conjunction with art. 23 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension, unless an
independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings exists at national level. The
wording of the article in question clearly implies that the first condition that needs to be
compulsorily fulfilled in order for FIFA to be competent to hear an employment-related
dispute between a club and a player is that said dispute has an international dimension.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16076
This means that FIFA is only competent to hear an employment-related dispute of such
kind when the parties have different nationalities.
30. Entering the analysis of the present dispute, the Single Judge noted from the
documentation on file (i) the Player has dual nationality, Slovak and Hungarian; (ii) as per
the confirmation by the HFF, the Player was registered with the Hungarian nationality; and
(iii) the identification number mentioned in the Contract (i.e., [5…]) is the same as the one
found in in the Player’s Hungarian passport retrieved in TMS.
31. The jurisprudence of the Chamber shows that in cases where a player has dual citizenship,
his registration is a determining factor when assessing if the international dimension of the
dispute is given, considering that clubs may enjoy benefits in registering a player with a
certain nationality, inter alia, due to the specific limitations in the number of foreign players.
32. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge took due note of the information above in
particular the information provided by the HFF, according to which the Player was
registered with the Club under the Hungarian nationality. In view of the aforementioned,
the Single Judge concluded that the Player was registered under the same nationality as
the Club and therefore the present claim lacks international dimension and the Football
Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant.
b. Costs
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16076
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Andras
Meszaros.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16076
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 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. 10