The case revolves around a dispute between Serbian football player Nenad Mladenovic and Ukrainian club FC Metallurg Donetsk concerning unpaid salary and bonuses under their employment contract, signed in 2003 for two years with an extension option. Mladenovic claimed unpaid amounts totaling USD 83,500, later increased to USD 208,550, citing salary deductions and unpaid bonuses. He filed complaints with FIFA, which were rejected due to insufficient evidence and a 2005 agreement releasing both parties from further liabilities. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) noted the lack of signed documentation confirming salary and bonus amounts, as well as inconsistencies in payment records. The DRC also questioned the validity of Mladenovic's claims given the agreement he signed, which appeared to waive further claims. Mladenovic appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the DRC's decision. The CAS emphasized the absence of clear documentary evidence supporting Mladenovic's claims and the validity of the agreement discharging mutual liabilities. The CAS also affirmed that contractual provisions allowing salary and bonus reductions for breaches, such as a deterioration in the player's skills, were valid.
The core issue was whether Mladenovic could prove wrongful deductions, but he failed to provide sufficient evidence. The dispute centered on the 2005 agreement, which the CAS interpreted as releasing both parties from all liabilities throughout the contract term, not just after its expiration. Mladenovic argued the agreement only covered future liabilities, but the CAS found this interpretation unlikely, as the contract would have expired the next day. The CAS upheld the DRC's decision, agreeing the agreement discharged all liabilities. Additionally, Mladenovic lacked evidence to substantiate his claims about salary and bonus rates, payment methods, or deductions. The contract allowed for salary reductions if the player's performance declined, and the club provided evidence of such a decline. Mladenovic's counterevidence, including a letter from the Head Coach describing him as professional and loyal, was deemed ambiguous and insufficient.
The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the DRC's decision. The ruling underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and documentary evidence in employment disputes. It also highlighted the binding nature of settlement agreements and the challenges of proving financial claims without robust evidence. The case concluded with the CAS rejecting Mladenovic’s challenge to the salary reduction imposed by FC Metallurg, reinforcing the enforceability of contractual agreements and the necessity of thorough documentation in such disputes.