The case revolves around a dispute between Slovenian football player Sasa Gajser and Cypriot club Olimpiakos Nikosia FC over unpaid salaries and alleged breach of contract. Gajser signed a contract with the club in June 2002, which was set to expire in May 2004. He claimed the club failed to pay his salaries for the 2002-2003 season, leading to the termination of his contract in May 2003, and that he was excluded from training sessions for the 2003-2004 season. In 2005, he filed a complaint with FIFA, seeking unpaid salaries for the latter season and compensation for legal fees, arguing the club’s actions caused him financial loss by preventing him from securing employment elsewhere. The club countered that the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) had already resolved the matter in 2003 by ordering payment for the 2002-2003 season and claimed FIFA lacked jurisdiction since the player had initially pursued the matter through the CFA.
FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in 2006 that it could not consider the claim, as the player had already opted for proceedings before the CFA. The DRC noted the CFA decision had been executed and that the player had reserved the right to pursue civil action, making the FIFA claim a continuation of the national procedure. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the DRC’s decision amounted to a denial of justice. He requested CAS to either rule that the DRC should have considered his claim or decide the merits of the case itself, including late interest and legal costs. The case highlighted jurisdictional complexities in football disputes, particularly FIFA’s exclusive authority to impose sports sanctions and the interplay between national and international dispute resolution mechanisms.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction over the dispute, based on FIFA Statutes and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. The appeal was deemed admissible as it was filed within the required timeframe, and no further recourse was available within FIFA. The applicable law was determined to be FIFA’s regulations, primarily the 2001 edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP 2001), with Swiss law applying subsidiarily. The core issue was whether the DRC had jurisdiction to hear the player’s claims. The player argued that FIFA’s competence was not precluded by prior CFA proceedings, as those only addressed unpaid salaries for a specific season, while he had reserved the right to seek broader damages. The RSTP 2001 established a dispute resolution system for employment-related disputes but preserved the right to seek redress in civil courts.
The Sole Arbitrator found the DRC failed to properly apply the rules, as it did not examine whether the CFA Committee qualified as a national sports arbitration tribunal under the RSTP 2001. Even if the CFA Committee had jurisdiction over the breach, the DRC still had authority to rule on the financial consequences. The DRC incorrectly held it lacked competence to resolve the player’s claim for financial compensation. The Sole Arbitrator concluded the DRC should have heard the case unless it determined the breach issue was still pending before the CFA Committee, which would require written agreement and confirmation the CFA Committee met RSTP criteria.
As a result, the CAS upheld the player’s appeal, set aside the DRC’s decision, and referred the case back to FIFA for reconsideration. The ruling emphasized the DRC’s mandatory role in adjudicating financial consequences of contract breaches, even when alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are involved. The case underscores the procedural complexities in international sports arbitration and the balance between specialized sporting tribunals and traditional legal recourse.