The case centers on a legal dispute between Vladimir Sliskovic, a Bosnian football coach, and Qingdao Zhongneng Football Club, a Chinese professional football club, regarding the termination of his employment. Sliskovic claimed he was employed as an assistant coach under an oral agreement, while Qingdao argued he was an unpaid intern assisting his father, the head coach. The absence of a written contract complicated the matter, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found evidence of an employment relationship based on mutual obligations and the club’s control over Sliskovic’s duties. The CAS emphasized that the lack of contract registration with the Chinese Football Association did not negate the existence of an implied contract, given the circumstances and documentary evidence.
The dispute arose when Qingdao terminated Sliskovic’s position after he allegedly missed three training sessions for the B team without explanation. The CAS deemed the termination harsh, as Qingdao did not issue a prior warning or consider lesser sanctions before dismissing him. The panel noted that termination should be a last resort for serious breaches, and Qingdao’s actions did not meet this standard. Sliskovic filed a claim with FIFA, seeking $216,000 in unpaid remuneration, but the FIFA Players’ Status Committee rejected his claim, citing insufficient evidence of a binding contractual relationship. Dissatisfied, Sliskovic appealed to the CAS, which conducted a thorough review, including witness testimonies and post-hearing submissions.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Rui Botica Santos, examined the evidence, including a release letter from Qingdao that referred to Sliskovic as an assistant coach and detailed his dismissal for failing to follow instructions. This letter demonstrated the club’s authority over Sliskovic, reinforcing the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The arbitrator concluded that the parties had an implied employment contract based on their conduct, despite the lack of a written agreement. Under Swiss law, which supplemented FIFA regulations, Sliskovic was entitled to compensation for unjust termination. The arbitrator assessed the terms of the implied contract, aligning Sliskovic’s compensation with the head coach’s contract, which stipulated 50% of the remaining salary as compensation for breach. Sliskovic revised his claim to $102,000, which the arbitrator deemed reasonable.
The CAS ruled in favor of Sliskovic, awarding him $102,000 in compensation and overturning FIFA’s earlier decision. The ruling underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the recognition of implied employment relationships in football coaching disputes. It also highlighted the applicability of national law in resolving employment disputes when specific regulations are silent. The case concluded with the club ordered to pay the awarded amount, finalizing the legal resolution of the dispute. The decision serves as a reminder of the need for clear, documented agreements to avoid such conflicts in international sports.