Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18060
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Ante Zivkovic
BY:
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Ante Zivkovic, Croatia
Represented by Dupovac Feđa
RESPONDENT:
Chindia Targoviste, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18060
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 September 2023, the Croatian player Ante Zivkovic (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player) and the Romanian club Chindia Targoviste (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its date of
signature until 30 June 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly
salary of RON 22,500 net on the 25th of the month following the month for which the
payment is made.
3.
On 10 May 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an amendment to the
Contract (hereinafter: the Amendment), which extended their employment relationship until
15 June 2026.
4.
The Amendment read as follows:
“Art. 2: Starting with 01.07.2024, art. 4 of Sports Activity Contract no. 89/06.09.2023 modify and
will provide as follows:
a) For 2024-2025 season, starting with 01.07.2024, the monthly net remuneration (22.500 lei net
as per salary + 1.500 lei net compensation of renting expenses) will be 24.000 lei.
b) For 2025-2026 season, in case the team will evolve in the 1st League, starting with 01.07.2025,
the monthly remuneration (27.500 lei net as per salary+1.500 lei net compensation of renting
expenses) will be of 29.000 lei net. If the team will evolve also in the 2nd League in 2025-2026
season, the monthly remuneration will be renegociated [sic] by the parties starting with
01.06.2025.
[…]
g) The remuneration provided by the present contract will be paid up until 25th of the month
following the one for which the sports activity was performed, and any financial rights arising
from bonuses will be paid as established in the Award System approved by the Board of
Directors.
h) The Club will assure to the player 2 round trip plane tickets per season for Bucharest-Zagreb
[…]”
5.
On 26 December 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of the following outstanding remuneration:
•
RON 14,000 as the balance of the monthly salary for August 2024;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18060
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for September 2024;
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for October 2024; and
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for November 2024.
6.
On 11 January 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract with the Respondent.
7.
Based on the information on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 27 January 2025, the
Player signed an employment contract with the Bosnian club HŠK POSUŠJE, valid as from
its date of signature until 1 June 2025.
8.
According to the employment contract with HŠK POSUŠJE, the Player is entitled to a
monthly salary of BAM 1,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 3 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
10. In his claim, the Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause on 11
January 2025 due to outstanding remuneration.
11. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“▪ Overdue payables, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant payment dates until the date of
effective payment, specified as follows:
▪ 86.000,00 LEI (including outstanding salaries for the months of August, September, October
and November 2024)
▪ 432.00,00 LEI (for remaining renumeration for season 2024/25 and season 2025/26) as the
amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as from 11th January 2025
until the date of effective payment.
▪ 6 months of additional compensation should the Player find a new contract and his
compensation be mitigated.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18060
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that due to financial difficulties
encountered, it could not honour its payments towards the Player, but that it acted in good
faith with him to solve the situation amicably.
13. In addition, the Club noted that it remitted the Player RON 48,000 on 6 February 2025, thus
his total outstanding remuneration is RON 69,984.
c. Replica of the Claimant
14. In his replica, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the payments made by the Club on 6
February 2025 in the amount of RON 48,000, but reiterated his initial position, noting that
he terminated the Contract with just cause on 11 January 2025.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
15. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its initial position and argued that the Claimant
was aware of its financial difficulties when it signed the Amendment.
e. Additional payment from the Respondent
16. The Respondent provided a proof of payment dated 17 March 2025 for an additional
amount of RON 24,000 paid to the Claimant.
f. Claimant’s comments to the alleged payment from the Respondent
17. The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the payment made by the Respondent on 17 March
2025 in the amount of RON 24,000.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 3 February 2025 and submitted for
decision on 18 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18060
19. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), he 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 Romanian club.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the Claimant,
based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent as
per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
24. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18060
25. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
26. In the present matter, the Single Judge noted that the Player claims that, on 26 December
2024, the Club owed him the following remuneration:
•
RON 14,000 as the balance of the monthly salary for August 2024;
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for September 2024;
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for October 2024; and
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for November 2024.
27. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of
having put the Respondent in default for the aforementioned amounts on 26 December
2024, prior to unilaterally terminating the Contract on 11 January 2025.
28. Considering the foregoing, the Single Judge considered that the Player terminated the
Contract on the 15th day after the default notice was issued, i.e. one day early. Therefore,
the Single Judge concluded that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations were not
met in the present matter.
29. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge recalled the recalled the long-standing
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, according to which only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning.
In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to
expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract
may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be
taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties,
such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio.
30. In particular, the Single Judge emphasized that according to the Regulations, in general,
just cause to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a
party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual
relationship (cf. art. 14 of the Regulations). In this regard, the Single Judge underlined that
the foregoing is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18060
31. Accordingly, the Single Judge observed that the Club had repeatedly and for a significant
period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Player despite
having been put in default accordingly. In particular, the Single Judge pointed out, based
on the evidence on file, that on 11 January 2025, i.e. the date of the termination of the
Contract, the Claimant had outstanding remuneration amounting to RON 86,000, which
corresponds to more than 3 monthly salaries, as detailed below:
•
RON 14,000 as the balance of the monthly salary for August 2024;
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for September 2024;
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for October 2024; and
•
RON 24,000 as the monthly salary for November 2024.
32. In continuation, the Single Judge emphasized that, in the case at hand, the Respondent
bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract
concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge concluded that the evidence
provided by the Respondent only partially proves the payment of the amounts claimed as
outstanding by the Claimant.
33. Thus, based on the evidence on file, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a
just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 11 January 2025, based on art. 14 of
the Regulations and the general principle ultima ratio.
ii. Consequences
34. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of the Contract committed by the Respondent.
35. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination
of the Contract, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player and the payments
made by the Club, is equivalent to RON 14,000 as the balance of the monthly salary for
November 2024.
36. 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 to the Claimant RON 14,000
as the amount which was outstanding under the Contract at the moment of its termination.
37. 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
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of RON 14,000 as from 26
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18060
38. In continuation, taking into consideration the amounts paid late by the Respondent, the
Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. over the said
amounts, as detailed below:
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 September 2024 until 6
February 2025;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 24,000 as from 26 October 2024 until 6
February 2025;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 November 2024 until 6
February 2025;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 November 2024 until 17
March 2025; and
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 December 2024 until 17
March 2025.
39. 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.
40. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by 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.
41. 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. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall be equal to the
residual value of the Contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the Player signed a
new contract following the termination of his previous Contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
42. 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. Consequently,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18060
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of RON 420,000 (i.e. the monthly salaries from
1 January 2025 until 15 June 2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of the Contract.
43. 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
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
44. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Bosnian club HŠK POSUŠJE. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately BAM
1,000 per month. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his
damages in the total amount of BAM 4,194.62, which corresponds to RON 10,656.50 on the
date of the termination of the Contract.
45. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the Contract
was terminated due to said reason, i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent, and therefore
decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
46. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the Player the amount of additional
compensation of RON 72,000, i.e. 3 times RON 24,000 as his monthly remuneration.
47. The Single Judge then recalled that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely
terminated contract.
48. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
RON 420,000 to the Claimant (i.e. RON 420,000 minus RON 10,656.50 plus RON 72,000,
limited to a maximum of RON 10,656.50), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
49. 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 from 11 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18060
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
50. 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 his decision, he 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18060
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ante Zivkovic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Chindia Targoviste, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- RON 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- RON 420,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11
January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 September 2024 until 6
February 2025;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 24,000 as from 26 October 2024 until 6
February 2025;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 November 2024 until 6
February 2025;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 November 2024 until 17
March 2025; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 12,000 as from 26 December 2024 until 17
March 2025.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-18060
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. 13
REF. FPSD-18060
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. 14