The case involves a legal dispute between S.C. Fotbal Club Otelul S.A. (Otelul), a Romanian football club, and Zdenko Baotić, a Croatian football player, concerning the termination of an employment contract and unpaid salaries. The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The employment contract, signed in July 2009, stipulated an annual salary of EUR 60,000. In July 2010, Otelul allegedly requested Baotić to accept a salary reduction, which he refused, leading to his demotion to the second team. Baotić subsequently filed a claim with FIFA for unpaid salaries and bonuses, as well as compensation for breach of contract. Otelul contested FIFA's jurisdiction, arguing that the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL) had already ruled on the matter, invoking the principle of res judicata. However, FIFA DRC ruled in favor of Baotić, ordering Otelul to pay EUR 89,515 in compensation. Otelul appealed to CAS, challenging FIFA's jurisdiction and the RPFL's decision. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Mark Hovell, examined whether FIFA DRC had jurisdiction and whether the RPFL's decision met FIFA's requirements under Article 22 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The panel upheld FIFA DRC's jurisdiction, finding the RPFL's decision insufficient to preclude FIFA's involvement, and dismissed Otelul's appeal.
The dispute highlights complexities in international football disputes, particularly regarding jurisdiction and contractual obligations. Otelul faced financial difficulties, entering administration in July 2013, and sought to suspend CAS proceedings, citing Romanian insolvency law. The Sole Arbitrator rejected these requests, noting the player had not raised claims before CAS and the arbitrator's role was limited to reviewing the FIFA decision. The player argued that Otelul breached the contract by unilaterally reducing his salary and excluding him from the first team, justifying his termination of the contract. FIFA supported its jurisdiction, citing Articles 22(b) and 24 of the RSTP, and argued that Romanian bodies lacked the independence required under FIFA regulations. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS's jurisdiction based on FIFA's statutes and the parties' agreement, dismissing objections regarding the RPFL's inclusion as a respondent. The arbitrator found that the player had just cause to terminate the contract due to Otelul's persistent non-payment of salaries, upholding the FIFA DRC's decision and awarding Baotić EUR 89,515 in compensation. The arbitrator noted the impracticality of the appeal given Otelul's financial state and the challenges of enforcement in insolvency proceedings.
The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual terms and the jurisdictional authority of FIFA and CAS in resolving football-related disputes. It also illustrates the interplay between national insolvency laws and international football regulations, emphasizing the need for fair and independent dispute resolution mechanisms. The Sole Arbitrator's final award dismissed Otelul's appeal entirely, confirming the FIFA DRC's decision and rejecting all other claims. The decision highlighted the prolonged nature of the dispute, which lasted over four years, and its detrimental impact on the player's career. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities in enforcing decisions against clubs in financial distress and the hierarchical application of governing regulations in cross-border sports disputes.