The case involves a dispute between Ukrainian football club FC Kryvbas and Albanian professional player Ervin Bulku, centered on unauthorized absences, disciplinary sanctions, and salary deductions. The conflict arose in 2010 when Bulku failed to attend training sessions and physical examinations during a scheduled camp in Turkey, leading the club to issue reprimands and later demote him to the backup team with a reduced salary. In May 2010, Bulku left the team without permission to join his national team, missing training, a final match, and a team meeting. The club responded by withholding his May salary, citing contractual provisions. The dispute hinged on whether Bulku had permission to leave and the interpretation of the disciplinary clause in his contract, which listed various fines for misconduct, including a "100% of salary" deduction for severe violations. The club argued this meant forfeiting the entire month's salary, while Bulku contended it should only apply to the days he was absent.
The case was brought before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which partially ruled in Bulku’s favor, ordering the club to pay $64,355 in unpaid salaries. FC Kryvbas appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where a Sole Arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator found the club’s appeal admissible but dismissed its arguments, emphasizing that ambiguous contract terms should be interpreted reasonably. The arbitrator concluded that the "100% of salary" sanction referred to the days absent, not the entire month, aligning with the modest fines outlined for other infractions in the contract. The arbitrator also ruled that the club lacked proper justification for reducing Bulku’s salary earlier in the year, as mutual agreement was required under the contract.
The CAS proceedings were complicated by logistical challenges, including the club’s eventual insolvency and lack of communication, leading the arbitrator to proceed based on written submissions. Witness statements from both sides were considered, with the club alleging Bulku’s repeated breaches of discipline and the player citing misunderstandings and unfair treatment. The arbitrator upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, dismissing the club’s appeal and confirming the original ruling. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, proportionate disciplinary measures, and procedural fairness in player-club disputes. It also highlights the role of arbitration bodies in resolving such conflicts, balancing contractual obligations with equitable treatment. The final outcome reinforced the principle that ambiguous clauses should be interpreted in a manner consistent with common sense and fairness, ensuring disciplinary actions are both justified and clearly defined.