Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16776
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Petar
Sliskovic
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Petar Sliskovic, Croatia
Represented by Dusan Lazic
RESPONDENT:
KFG Gostivar AD "KFG" Fudbalski Klub, North Macedonia
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16776
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Croatian player Petar Sliskovic (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
•
the Macedonian club KFG Gostivar AD "KFG" Fudbalski Klub (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent), affiliated with the Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM).
2.
The Player and the Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties.
3.
At the beginning of 2024, the Player was in negotiations with various clubs and agents
regarding a possible new employment.
4.
Between 14 and 24 January 2024, the Player exchanged messages on WhatsApp with a
representative of the Club, Mr Enes Usta (hereinafter: Mr Usta). In particular:
•
On 14 January 2024, Mr Usta requested confirmation of all expenses incurred by
the Player in connection with his trip to North Macedonia.
•
On 16 January 2024, the Player provided a breakdown of his airline tickets and
Mr Usta informed him that he had already made a bank transfer.
•
On 17 January 2024, the Player and Mr Usta discussed a payment of EUR 15,000
and Mr Usta informed him that he could pay the aforementioned sum in 4
instalments, from his personal bank account.
•
On 19 January 2024, Mr Usta informed that he had paid EUR 4,000 plus EUR 3,500
and would send a further EUR 7,500 from his personal bank account. In addition,
Mr Usta informed that the Club was preparing a contract “for the rest” with a
monthly salary of EUR 9,000 (i.e., EUR 1,000 to a Macedonian bank and EUR 8,000
in cash) for 15 months. Mr Usta also confirmed that the Player would need a
Macedonian bank account and a salary in order to “get residency”.
•
On 24 January 2024, Mr Usta asked whether the Player had received the EUR
15,000 in his bank account, to which the Player replied in the affirmative.
5.
In parallel, the Parties entered into a “Professional Football Player Employment Contract”
(hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from 29 January 2024 until 14 June 2025.
6.
Pursuant to Article 13 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly
salary of MKD 61,500 (i.e., approximately EUR 1,000), payable “once a month, no later than
the fifteenth of the current month for the previous month”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16776
7.
Pursuant to Article 14 of the Contract, the Player would also be entitled to (i) food organised
by the Club; (ii) a “reasonable apartment paid”; and (iii) “compensation and incomes
determined with the acts of the [Club] in case of work success […]” and “compensation for
transfer of the [Player] to the club”.
8.
Article 15 of the Employment Contract provided that the Player would be liable to the
payment of any taxes and contributions in accordance with the applicable legal regulations
in North Macedonia.
9.
Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Contract established the hypothesis of the termination of the
Contract by the Parties.
10. Articles 26 and 27 of the Contract provided as follows:
“Article 26 - Amendment/prolongation
The contractual parties can amend and supplement this contract.
Any amendment and supplement to this contract which is not in contrary to the
determined minimum conditions will be made in written form (with annex) and the same
will be valid within the football organization if it is signed in front of a MFU body, if it is
verified in front of a FFM body and announced in Makfudbal.
The contractual parties can prolong the term of this contract, which in such case cannot
have a term longer than 5 years, i.e. 3 years for a minor in accordance with paragraph 2
of this Article.
Article 27 – Competence in case of a dispute
The contractual parties are consent that all possible disputes that might arise from this
contract, will be settled amicably.
In case the possible disputes cannot be settled amicably, competent body to decide upon
the disputes shall be court in the city of Gostivar”.
11. According to the Player, on the same day, the Parties also signed an Annex to the
Professional Football Player Employment Contract (hereinafter: the Annex).
12. Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Annex provided as follows:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16776
“Article 1 - Subject
Subject of this Annex is to amend and supplement the [Contract] concluded between the
Club and the Player on _____ year in Municipal Football Association of Gostivar (MFU
Gostivar) (hereinafter as: "Employment Contract")
The both contracting parties, the Club and the Player, have mutually agreed for the
following.
Article 2 – Other incomes
In the Article 14 of the Employment Contract, following text is added:
For the period of validity of employment contract, as of the date of conclusion until the
14.06.2025, in addition to the monthly salary determined in article 13 of the [Contract]
the Club shall pay to the Player additional remuneration in amount of 120.000 (one
hundred twenty thousand) Euro NET payable in 15 (fifteen) equal monthly installments,
each of which in amount of 8.000 (eight thousand) Euro NET.
With the moment, the day when the [Contract] is terminated between both parties on
whatever ground, the financial obligations and liabilities of the Club towards the Player
under this Article shall be deemed stopped and no payable further. The Club will pay the
Player until the moment of termination of the Contract.
Article 3
The remaining provisions and Articles of the [Contract] remain unchanged and still in
force as determined previously”.
13. On 29 January 2024, the Club issued a letter entitled “Confirmation”, in which it confirmed
that the Parties had entered into the Contract and that the Player would reside in Gostivar
(North Macedonia) during the relevant period.
14. On 15 February 2024, the Player received a payment of EUR 8,000 from Mr Usta’s personal
bank account. The Player also acknowledged receiving EUR 1,000 in cash.
15. On 17 February 2025, the Player played his first official match for the Club against Vardar.
On the same day, the Player received the following message from the Club with the
following content: “Danke for your first goal. But we are a team, if we lose, we lose all together.
I expect from you to show your quality and experiences. If I get disappointed and my dream
destroyed I will also destroy other dreams”.
16. The Player contacted Mr Usta via WhatsApp and said the following (freely translated into
English by the Player and quoted verbatim):
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16776
“President, 10 days ago you blackmailed me into changing my contract! Four days ago,
you changed your promise regarding the rent, and today I got a letter from you with a
threat? What is this? Be respectful towards me and nothing else!! I don't want anything
from you, just what we discussed. Since you are changing our agreement regarding the
rent, I am now looking for a new apartment that only costs 500€. For that, I need a few
days. Who will pay for the accommodation until then? I came to Gostivar because I know
and appreciate the coach. And I wanted us to succeed together. But what is happening
here is not good”.
17. On 25 February, 3 and 6 March 2024, the Player played official matches for the Club.
18. On 10 March 2024, the Player was on the bench for the match against Vardar.
19. On 16 March 2024, the Player played against Bregnalnica Stip.
20. On 26 March 2024, the Player received a second payment of EUR 9,000 from Mr Usta’s
personal bank account.
21. As of 31 March 2024, the Player stopped playing for the Club.
22. On 2 and 9 April 2024, the Player underwent an MRI in Munich (Germany) due to the
increasing pain in his left knee.
23. On 23 April 2024, the Player and Mr Usta exchanged the following messages, quoted
verbatim:
Player:
Can we talk on the phone?
Mr Usta:
Hello, About what? You can write; I’m still at the office.
Player:
Hello, President. Yes, I received some bad news. I need surgery and can’t
play for the rest of the season.
Mr Usta:
Okay, get well soon.
Player:
President, why are you not communicating with me?
Mr Usta:
Why should I communicate with you? After you disappointed or
betrayed us? Aren’t you ashamed, or don’t you want to apologize? Go
to lawyers or FIFA, wherever you’re going”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16776
24. On 2 May 2024, the Player attended a medical appointment with a specialist in
physiotherapy. The Player was diagnosed with Chondromalacia patellae and a lateral
meniscus lesion.
25. On 8 May 2024, the Player sent a message to a person identified as the Club’s secretary,
requesting a copy of the Contract.
26. On 9 May 2024, the Player attended a medical appointment with a psychiatrist in
Kumanovo (North Macedonia).
27. On 6 June 2024, the Player (through his legal representative) put the Club in default for the
first time. The Player acknowledged that he had been forced to amend his contract, and
that he had been excluded from the team following an injury. The Player also claimed that
the Club had failed to pay him his salaries due in April and May and to provide him with the
necessary medical care following his injury.
28. The Player requested that he be reinstated to the team’s group chat, that the Club pay his
outstanding remuneration within 15 days and that the Club confirm that it would cover his
surgery’s costs.
29. On 24 June 2024, the Player sent a second notice of default to the Club. The Player stressed
that his salaries for March and April were still outstanding, as was his salary for May 2024.
The Player added that he did not have a valid visa and that he was still injured and lacked
proper medical care. Consequently, the Player reiterated his request to the Club to remedy
the situation within 15 days, under penalty of terminating the Contract with just cause.
30. On 9 July 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s notice. The Club claimed that the Player’s
permit had been ready for at least two months, but that he had refused the invitations to
collect it. The Club also pointed out that the Player should have been examined by the
Club’s doctor and that the Club was not obliged to pay for external medical expenses.
Similarly, the Club claimed that the Player had failed to attend the new season camp.
31. The Club concluded: “As a result of this, we would like to reiterate that the Player’s work permit
has been ready for 2 months. The Player must urgently come to the Club and participate in
training. If he has an injury that is too big for him to participate in training, he must come to the
Club and be treated by the Club doctor”.
32. On 12 July 2024, the Player indicated that his salaries were still outstanding and that he had
not received any information regarding his work permit. The Player requested that the Club
provided him with a copy of the work permit by email so that he could return to North
Macedonia. He also insisted that the Club was obliged to provide him with the necessary
medical care.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16776
33. On 17 July 2024, the Club stressed that it had applied for the Player’s visa on 20 February
2024 and that it had received a positive answer in April. The Club then stressed that the
“procedure requires that he must be personally present to receive it, and at the same time be
photographed for identity card”.
34. On 20 July 2024, the Player requested a copy of “the positive answer received in April”. The
Player also stated that he would arrive in North Macedonia on 23 July 2024 and that his
fourth consecutive salary had fallen due and was still outstanding.
35. On 2 August 2024, the Player stated that he had been in North Macedonia for 9 days and
had received no information from the Club. The Player pointed out that the Club’s doctor
had already confirmed his need for surgery and stressed that unless he received further
instructions from the Club, he would leave the country and terminate the Contract.
36. On 7 August 2024, the Player confirmed that the Club had not responded to his previous
message. The Player suggested that the “fastest solution” would be to terminate the
Contract and asked for the Club’s position on a proposed mutual termination.
37. On 21 August 2024, the Club sent the Player a termination letter. The Club stated that the
Player had refused to attend the medical examinations and had missed trainings sessions
without permission. In addition, the Club alleged that the Player had failed to go to the
police station to complete the paperwork for his work permit.
38. The Club concluded that it had “no choice but to terminate the contract rightfully” and it
claimed that this termination was for just cause “with many justified reasons”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
39. On 27 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
40. Preliminarily, the Player argued that the Football Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear this case
on the basis of art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations). The Player pointed out that:
•
the Annex was the main basis for the dispute, and it does not contain a dispute
resolution clause, therefore FIFA was “competent by default”;
•
there is no National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) established under the
FFM; and
•
Mr Usta explicitly stated in a WhatsApp message dated 23 April 2024 that the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16776
Player should “go to the lawyers or FIFA”, thereby implying that FIFA would have
jurisdiction over any potential dispute.
41. As to the substance, the Player first argued that at the time he signed with the Club, he had
already received and rejected various offers of employment that were below his
expectations. In addition, he submitted a copy of the messages exchanged with Mr Usta,
which confirmed that they had agreed on a signing fee of EUR 15,000 and a monthly salary
of EUR 9,000.
42. According to the Player, he was never provided with a signed copy of the Annex but was
able to prove its existence on the basis of previous exchanges between the Parties and the
first payments made by the Club. The Player pointed out that the same contractual scheme
had been applied by the Club to other players.
43. The Player further argued that the Club had failed to pay his remuneration as from March
2024. As a result, he claimed that he was owed 5 months’ salary at the time of the
termination.
44. In addition, the Player claimed that the Club had terminated the Contract without just
cause. He emphasised that:
•
The Club owed him a substantial part of his remuneration;
•
The Club was responsible for covering his medical expenses;
•
The Club did not register him for the 2024/2025 season;
•
The Club never obtained a work / residence permit in North Macedonia; and
•
The Club never initiated disciplinary proceedings or imposed more lenient
measures before terminating the Contract.
45. The Player therefore claimed that the termination was invalid in all respects.
46. In light of the above, the Player requested to be awarded:
•
EUR 45,419 net as outstanding remuneration corresponding to 5 monthly
instalments under the Annex and the prorated amount for August 2024 (i.e., EUR
8,000 times 5 plus EUR 5,419); and
•
EUR 58,581 net as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the
residual value of the Annex (i.e., EUR 120,000 minus the EUR 16,000 paid by the
Club and the EUR 45,419 claimed as outstanding remuneration).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16776
47. The Player also stressed that any future tax liability assumed by the Player on behalf of the
Club should be reimbursed accordingly.
48. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“Based on the aforementioned, the Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA DRC to decide
as follows:
1.
[The Club] has to pay to [the Player] EUR 45,419 net as outstanding
remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
on the amount of EUR 8,000 as from 16 April 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
on the amount of EUR 8,000 as from 16 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
on the amount of EUR 8,000 as from 16 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
on the amount of EUR 8,000 as from 16 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
on the amount of EUR 8,000 as from 16 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
on the amount of EUR 5,419 as from 16 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
2.
[The Club] has to pay to [the Player] EUR 58,581 net as damage compensation
remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any taxes and public payables related to the Claimant’s remuneration from the
Respondent shall be borne by the Respondent”.
b. Reply of the Club
49. On 27 November 2024, the Club submitted its response to the Player’s claim.
50. The Club confirmed that it had signed the Contract with the Player but denied that it had
breached their agreement in any way. In fact, the Club accused the Player of deliberately
omitting the copy of the Contract and instead submitting solely an unsigned copy of the
Annex.
51. In addition, the Club sustained that the copy of the Annex submitted by the Player was
invalid and unsigned and that, in any event, the Annex would be an integral part of the
Contract – and a not a stand-alone document that could support the entire claim.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16776
52. The Club pointed out that the Contract contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause
in favour of the local courts in Gostivar and therefore claimed that the Football Tribunal
did not have jurisdiction in this case. In support of its position, the Club referred to
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss
Federal Tribunal (SFT).
53. The Club requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“In view of all the foregoing, on behalf of [the Club], we shall herein respectfully request
the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to issue a decision in the
following terms:
1. Primarily, to declare the Statement of Claim of the Player inadmissible due to the lack
of competence of the DRC;
2. Subsidiarily (only in case the primary request was not upheld), to reject the Statement
of Claim of the Player;
3. To order the Player to assume the entirety of the FIFA DRC administration and
procedural fees, if any”.
c. Rejoinder of the Player
54. On 6 January 2025, the Player submitted his rejoinder in this matter.
55. As a starting point, the Player insisted that the Football Tribunal had jurisdiction in this
case.
56. The Player explained that the Contract was signed solely for the purpose of registration
with the local federation “rather than reflecting the genuine intentions and agreement between
the Parties”. As a result, he claimed that the primary document setting out the Parties’
obligations was in fact the Annex, which did not contain a jurisdiction clause.
57. The Player submitted that the terms agreed by the Player and Mr Usta via WhatsApp were
consolidated in the Annex and that it was therefore not intended to be a supplementary
agreement. He also emphasised that the Club did not deny that it had failed to return a
signed copy of the Annex to the Player.
58. The Player then reiterated that Mr Usta had expressly acknowledged FIFA’s jurisdiction in
the WhatsApp. In the Player’s view, this written confirmation satisfied the requirements for
establishing FIFA’s jurisdiction, as supported by CAS 2021/A/8022.
59. On the merits, the Player also defended the validity of the Annex. In addition to the
evidence already submitted with his claim, the Player provided photographs of himself
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16776
signing the Contract and the Annex, which were also consistent with the Club’s official
announcement on social media.
60. The Player insisted that he was entitled to the full remuneration under the Annex and
claimed that his position was supported by CAS jurisprudence. In the alternative, the Player
claimed that even if the Annex had not been properly executed, he would still be entitled
to compensation based on the principle of culpa in contrahendo.
61. Finally, the Player reiterated his arguments regarding the lack of just cause on the part of
the Club, echoing his requests for relief.
d. Final comments of the Club
62. On 13 January 2025, the Club submitted its final comments on the matter.
63. The Club emphasised that the Contract was the only document validly concluded between
the Parties and insisted that it contained a clear and exclusive clause giving jurisdiction to
the national courts.
64. The Club concluded that the Football Tribunal should either dismiss the case on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction or on the grounds that the Player’s claim was based on an
unsigned and invalid contract. The Club also reiterated its main arguments on the merits,
insisting that the Player’s termination was without just cause.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
65. 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 27 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 13 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
66. 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 (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would be 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 Macedonian club.
67. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber noted that the Club contested its jurisdiction
on the basis of the jurisdiction clause contained in the Contract. In particular, the Club
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16776
claimed that any dispute relating to the Parties’ employment relationship should be
submitted to the civil courts in Gostivar.
68. The Player, on the other hand, insisted that FIFA had jurisdiction to hear the case for the
following reasons:
•
The Contract was signed only for the purpose of registration with the FFM, but
the Annex was in fact the agreement governing their relationship;
•
Despite not being in possession of the signed version of the Annex, the Player
provided other supporting evidence of its execution and claimed that, by not
including a jurisdiction clause in the Annex itself, the Parties had not opted out
of FIFA’s jurisdiction;
•
The FFM does not have a proper and fully functioning NDRC; and
•
In any event, Mr Usta consented to FIFA’s jurisdiction by means of a text message
sent to the Player via WhatsApp.
69. In this context, the DRC first recalled that, pursuant to art. 22 caput of the Regulations, FIFA
has jurisdiction over employment-related disputes between a player and a club with an
international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player […] or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
70. The Chamber then emphasized that art. 22, caput of the Regulations provides for a clear
hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy, which has been consistently confirmed by the
Football Tribunal and CAS (cf., Commentary on the Regulations, p. 446 et seq.).
71. Consequently, the DRC determined that its task was to establish whether the Parties had
indeed agreed on a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the civil courts in
Gostivar (North Macedonia) and, if so, whether any of the grounds put forward by the
Player could undermine this agreement.
The contract(s) governing the relationship between the Parties
72. The Chamber first noted that the Parties had different views on the legal nature / status of
the contracts available on file.
73. While the Club defended that the Contract was the main agreement between the Parties,
the Player claimed that it was only a formal requirement of the FFM and therefore not
relevant to the jurisdictional analysis.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16776
74. The Player further submitted that the Annex was indeed the principal agreement between
the Parties, with which the Club disagreed on the basis that this document was unsigned
and, in any event, ancillary to the Contract.
75. After a careful analysis of the documents on file, the DRC was of the opinion that, although
the Player had sufficiently demonstrated that the Annex was duly concluded between the
Parties, this conclusion did not undermine the validity of the Contract, which the Chamber
also considered to be the main agreement defining the basis of the Parties’ employment
relationship.
76. The Chamber explained its conclusion as follows.
77. In the first place, the Player did not deny having signed the Contract, a copy of which was
also submitted by the Club with its reply and was not disputed in the rejoinder. Indeed,
although the Player claimed to have never received his version of the signed Contract, he
confirmed that, on 8 May 2024, he asked the Club’s administration for “[his] contract, the
one for [EUR] 1,000”.
78. The Chamber was therefore satisfied that the Player was (or at least should have been)
aware of the existence of the Contract and, more importantly, that it served as the main
agreement underlying the Parties’ rights and obligations towards each other.
79. In the second place, although the Parties had not submitted a fully executed version of the
Annex, (i) the Club did not deny that this document actually existed; and (ii) the Player
submitted other persuasive evidence which, in the Chamber’s view, could support his
position.
80. According to the DRC, the copy of the WhatsApp conversation with Mr Usta – which was
not challenged by the Club and was therefore tacitly accepted – already showed that the
Parties had agreed on a sign-on fee of EUR 15,000 and a salary of EUR 9,000. Furthermore,
Mr Usta had already anticipated that the Player’s remuneration would be split into two
forms of payment: EUR 1,000 as a formal salary and EUR 8,000 in cash.
81. The Chamber found that the above terms were not only mathematically consistent with
those added to the Contract + Annex, but also with the other evidence available on file. For
example, the DRC found that it could not reasonably be expected that the Player would
reject previous offers for higher amounts and then accept a salary of only EUR 1,000.
Similarly, the Parties did not dispute the payment of the EUR 15,000 signing fee, which was
agreed and arranged within the same conversation in which the Parties determined the
future remuneration. Furthermore, the Club did not contest in any way the photographs
submitted by the Player with his rejoinder.
82. While the Chamber considered that the above was already an indication that the Parties’
agreement exceeded the terms of the Contract, the Chamber considered it even more
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16776
decisive that the Player was able to prove that, during the short period of time in which he
was employed by the Club, the Club actually paid him a monthly remuneration of EUR 9,000
(i.e., EUR 1,000 according to the Contract plus EUR 8,000 according to the Annex). On the
other hand, the Club did not explain why it would make such a payment if it did not comply
with the Annex.
83. Consequently, the DRC was satisfied that the Annex was also valid and binding on the
Parties.
84. In the third place, notwithstanding its finding that the Annex was valid, the Chamber saw
no reason to conclude that it replaced or superseded the Contract. On the contrary, the DRC
agreed with the Club that the Annex was indeed ancillary to the Contract.
85. From a formal point of view: (i) its own title indicated that it was an appendix to the Contract
(i.e., an Annex); (ii) the subject matter in Article 1 stated that its purpose was to “amend and
supplement” the Contract; (iii) Article 2 referred directly to the Contract and provided that
the remuneration set out therein was in addition to the monthly salary set out in Article 12
of the Contract; (iv) the same Article 2 stated that the termination of the Contract precluded
the payments under the Annex, again suggesting that they were related but not exclusive;
and (v) Article 3 provided that “the remaining provisions and articles of [Contract] remain
unchanged and still in force as determined previously”.
86. Further, from a logical point of view: even if the Player indicated that he was only claiming
the amounts provided for in the Contract, it was clear that those sums constituted his
remuneration and that the total of his remuneration under the Contract and the Annex
added up to the monthly amount of EUR 9,000 agreed by the Parties and paid by the Club
(through Mr Usta) for the first two months.
87. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Contract and the Annex were intertwined and
should be entertained together.
The jurisdiction clause
88. The DRC then stressed that the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing
was that (i) the Contract contained a jurisdiction clause; and (ii) that jurisdiction clause,
which was in no way cancelled or modified by the Annex, remained in force and governed
the analysis sub judice.
89. In other words, and contrary to what the Player sought to argue, the Chamber decided that
the jurisdiction clause added to the Contract also applied to the Annex, whether or not the
Player had claimed the portion of his remuneration specified therein.
90. For ease of reference, the Chamber also recalled that the said jurisdiction clause (i.e., Article
27 of the Contract) provided that:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16776
“The contractual parties are consent that all possible disputes that might arise from this
contract will be settled amicably.
In case the possible disputes cannot be settled amicably, [the] competent body to decide
upon the disputes shall be [the] court in the city of Gostivar”.
91. In addition, the Chamber emphasised that this provision was a clear and exclusive clause
in favour of the courts of a particular city, namely Gostivar.
The Player’s alternative arguments
92. In addition to questioning the validity and the relevance of the Contract vis-à-vis the Annex
and the scope of his claim, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player had also claimed
that: (i) the FFM does not have a proper and fully functioning NDRC; and (ii) Mr Usta
consented to FIFA’s jurisdiction by means of a text message sent to the Player via
WhatsApp.
93. With regard to (i), the Chamber noted that the jurisdiction clause does not refer to an NDRC
but to the “court in the city of Gostivar” and therefore to the civil / ordinary courts.
94. As noted above, the DRC recalled that parties are free to confer jurisdiction on a civil court.
In fact, the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS recognises that, even if the
Contract does not specify the competent courts and makes a general reference to the civil
courts of a region/city, FIFA does not have jurisdiction.
95. The Chamber therefore decided that the existence or non-existence of a NDRC within the
FFM had no bearing on this case.
96. With regard to (ii), the Chamber could not accept the Player’s argument that a text message
could legally alter a contractual choice of forum. Even if it is accepted that Mr Usta referred
to FIFA in the context of the Parties’ conversation on WhatsApp (“Go to the lawyers or FIFA,
wherever you're going“), the DRC considered that this reference did not in itself constitute
an express agreement to override the clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause added to the
Contract.
97. In addition to the minimum degree of formality required for such a substantial
amendment, Article 26 of the Contract also stipulated that “Any amendment and
supplement to this contract which is not contrary to the determined minimum condition
will be made in written form (with annex) and the same will be valid within the football
organization if it is signed in front of a MFU body, if it is verified in front of a FFM body and
announced in Makfudbal“ (emphasis added by the DRC).
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16776
98. Although the Parties entered into the Annex, the Chamber found that no change was made
to the jurisdiction clause and the WhatsApp message did not meet the threshold required
by the Contract in itself or by the general principles of law to alter a legal document.
Therefore, the DRC concluded that the Player’s argument was flawed.
99. For the sake of completeness, the DRC also wished to point out that the circumstances
found in case CAS 2021/A/8022, relied upon by the Player, were significantly different from
those in the present this case.
100. The Chamber stressed that the fact that the WhatsApp conversations and similar text
messages could be considered as evidence of facts / events, such as evidence of knowledge
or consent to an employment relationship or termination, had indeed been accepted in
the jurisprudence of CAS and the Football Tribunal. However, the DRC also noted that this
line of jurisprudence was significantly different and did not in any way imply that parties
could implicitly / tacitly modify essential elements of a contract (such as a jurisdiction
clause) by responding to a text message.
101. In conclusion, and taking into account all of the above considerations, the DRC decided that
the Player’s position could not succeed and that the Football Tribunal did not have
jurisdiction to hear this case.
b. Costs
102. 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.
103. 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.
104. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16776
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Petar
Sliskovic.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16776
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. 19