The case involves a legal dispute between Ukrainian football club FC Zorya and Slovenian player Almir Sulejmanovic regarding the unilateral termination of an employment contract and unpaid financial claims. The player and club had signed a contract from July 2006 to July 2008, which included lump-sum payments, salaries, and rental contributions. The player terminated the contract unilaterally in December 2006 and joined another club, FC Vetra. In March 2007, the player filed a claim with FIFA for unpaid amounts totaling USD 28,100. The club failed to respond, leading FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to rule in favor of the player in March 2008, ordering the club to pay USD 27,700 plus interest. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the player had waived his financial rights through a termination agreement. The CAS proceedings were conducted by a sole arbitrator, with both parties agreeing to this arrangement. The club requested a hearing but later informed CAS it could not attend. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and the CAS Code, applying FIFA regulations supplemented by Swiss law where necessary. The arbitrator dismissed the club’s late submission of evidence, citing lack of exceptional circumstances, and rejected claims of procedural unfairness at the DRC stage, noting the club had failed to participate in those proceedings. The CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, emphasizing the club had not proven the player’s waiver of financial rights. The termination agreement was scrutinized, with an independent translation confirming the player retained claims for salary, bonuses, and benefits up to January 1, 2007. The arbitrator found no justification for the club’s late evidence submission and rejected their procedural rights violation claim, affirming CAS's authority to review facts and law independently. The decision ordered FC Zorya to pay the player USD 27,700 plus 5% interest from December 11, 2008, and dismissed all other motions. The arbitrator concluded the player did not waive his financial claims for the period before January 1, 2007, and found no legal obstacles to the DRC's award. The appeal was rejected, and the FIFA decision was confirmed, reinforcing that unilateral termination does not automatically negate contractual obligations without clear evidence of waiver. The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance and explicit evidence in employment disputes.