The case involves a contractual dispute between FC Steaua Bucuresti, a Romanian football club, and Rafal Grzelak, a Polish professional football player, centered around unpaid remuneration and a disciplinary sanction. The dispute originated from an employment contract signed on July 1, 2009, which stipulated financial terms including a signing bonus, monthly salary, and additional allowances. By September 2009, the club ceased payments to Grzelak, prompting him to file a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in January 2010. FC Steaua Bucuresti acknowledged owing Grzelak EUR 95,500 but sought to deduct EUR 30,000, citing a disciplinary sanction imposed on Grzelak in February 2010 for alleged misconduct. Grzelak contested the sanction, arguing it was disproportionate, not aligned with FIFA's Disciplinary Code, and that he was unaware of the disciplinary proceedings.
In October 2013, the FIFA DRC ruled in Grzelak's favor, ordering the club to pay the full EUR 95,500. FC Steaua Bucuresti appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), asserting it had already paid EUR 65,000 and that the remaining EUR 30,000 should be offset by the disciplinary sanction. Grzelak maintained his claim for the full amount plus interest, challenging the sanction's validity. The CAS proceedings, conducted by sole arbitrator Vít Horáček, were decided based on written submissions without a hearing. The arbitrator noted Grzelak's failure to appeal the disciplinary sanction within the required timeframe, rendering it final and enforceable. The arbitrator also examined whether the sanction could legally offset the club's debt, applying principles such as reciprocity of claims, similarity of performances, and absence of prohibitive reasons.
The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, ruling that FC Steaua Bucuresti must pay Grzelak the full amount owed under the contract, as the disciplinary sanction could not legally offset the debt. The case underscores the importance of timely appeals in disciplinary matters and the stringent conditions under which set-offs are permitted in contractual disputes. The decision reinforces the principle that clubs must adhere to contractual obligations unless valid and properly enforced sanctions apply.
In a subsequent phase, the CAS addressed procedural matters, confirming the appeal's admissibility as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by FIFA Statutes and complied with CAS rules. Jurisdiction was established under FIFA Statutes and CAS regulations, with both parties agreeing to arbitration. The applicable law was determined to be FIFA regulations, supplemented by Swiss law, despite the contract specifying Romanian law for disputes, as the core issue involved FIFA rules.
On the merits, the CAS found the contract valid and undisputed, confirming the total remuneration of EUR 95,500. The club had paid EUR 65,500, leaving EUR 30,000 unpaid. The central dispute was whether the club could offset this amount against the disciplinary sanction. The CAS noted the club's reliance on Romanian law for set-off, while Grzelak argued the sanction was invalid under FIFA rules. The arbitrator concluded that the disciplinary sanction lacked a basis in FIFA regulations and was unenforceable, thus rejecting the set-off claim. Consequently, the CAS upheld the DRC's decision, ordering the club to pay the remaining EUR 30,000 to Grzelak and bear the arbitration costs. The ruling emphasized compliance with FIFA's regulatory framework over conflicting contractual or national law provisions.
Ultimately, the case highlights the complexities of contractual and disciplinary disputes in football, the importance of adhering to procedural timelines, and the precedence of FIFA regulations over national laws in such matters. The decision serves as a reminder of the binding nature of disciplinary sanctions and the limited circumstances under which they can offset contractual obligations.