The case revolves around a dispute between FC Metallurg, a Ukrainian football club, and Marko Grubelic, a Serbian football player, concerning the termination of their employment contract. The conflict began when the club placed Grubelic on the transfer list and reduced his salary by 50%, citing a decline in his sporting performance. Grubelic left the club and filed a complaint with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), alleging breach of contract. The DRC ruled in his favor, awarding him compensation. FC Metallurg appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the DRC's decision.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Rui Botica Santos, addressed procedural and substantive issues. Procedurally, the panel declared the club's counterclaim inadmissible due to a one-day late filing, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines under the CAS Code. On the merits, the panel found that the club's actions—excluding Grubelic from training, reducing his salary without notice, and failing to demand his return—demonstrated it no longer considered the contract valid. The panel concluded the club had effectively terminated the contract by creating an untenable working environment, making Grubelic's departure a consequence of the club's conduct rather than a unilateral breach.
The panel rejected the club's argument that Grubelic's refusal to accept a transfer justified termination, upholding FIFA's principle that players cannot be forced to transfer without consent. It also noted that poor performance does not constitute just cause for termination, as contractual stability is a cornerstone of FIFA regulations. Regarding compensation, the panel upheld the DRC's award of USD 36,000 for unpaid salaries, as the club's counterclaim was inadmissible.
The case highlights the importance of contractual stability in football and reinforces players' rights against forced transfers. It also underscores the strict procedural requirements in CAS proceedings, where minor delays can lead to claim dismissals. The ruling clarifies that clubs cannot terminate contracts based on subjective performance assessments and must adhere to contractual obligations unless there is just cause. The panel's decision affirmed the DRC's award in favor of Grubelic, concluding the club's actions constituted an unjust termination.
The CAS ultimately dismissed FC Metallurg's appeal, upholding the FIFA DRC's decision in full and rejecting all additional claims. The ruling reaffirmed the principles of integral reparation under Swiss law and the limitations of CAS jurisdiction when procedural deadlines are missed. The case serves as a reminder of the legal frameworks governing employment disputes in sports and the importance of adhering to contractual obligations. The decision brought the matter to a conclusive end, leaving no further avenues for appeal.