The case involves a legal dispute between MKS Cracovia SSA, a Polish football club, and Bojan Puzigaca, a Bosnian professional football player, regarding the termination of the player's employment contract. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) was also involved as the governing body, with the dispute centering on whether the club had just cause to terminate the contract and the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) versus a national arbitration tribunal. The original employment agreement, signed on 10 February 2011, was valid until 30 June 2014. An annex signed on 21 June 2012 modified the player's salary for the 2012/2013 season but did not specify remuneration beyond 30 June 2013. On 30 June 2013, the club unilaterally terminated the contract, claiming it was invalid due to the lack of a defined salary for the remaining period. The club filed a claim with the Polish Football Association’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (PZPN DRC), while the player contested the termination, arguing it was without just cause and that FIFA DRC had jurisdiction over the dispute.
The key legal issues addressed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) included the interpretation of contractual clauses, the competence of FIFA DRC versus national arbitration bodies, and the applicable interest rate on unpaid wages. The CAS panel, applying Swiss law, emphasized that contractual interpretation should first seek the parties' actual intent before resorting to legal principles like the principle of confidence. It also clarified that FIFA DRC retains jurisdiction over international disputes unless an independent national arbitration tribunal exists and the parties explicitly agree to its jurisdiction. Regarding the termination, the panel found that the club lacked just cause to end the contract, as the absence of a specified salary for the final year did not automatically invalidate the agreement. Consequently, the club was ordered to compensate the player for unpaid wages and damages. The panel also ruled that default interest on unpaid amounts should be calculated at 5% per annum under Swiss law, starting from the date the employment relationship ended.
The CAS upheld the player’s claim, confirming that the club’s termination was unjustified and that FIFA DRC had proper jurisdiction over the dispute. The decision reinforced the importance of clear contractual terms and the need for just cause in employment terminations under FIFA regulations. The case highlights the complexities of jurisdictional disputes in international football contracts and underscores FIFA’s role in resolving such conflicts when contractual terms are ambiguous or absent. The matter concluded with the FIFA DRC’s binding decision, leaving open the possibility of further disciplinary action if payments were not made within the stipulated timeframe. The CAS proceedings aimed to review the DRC's decision, with the club contesting the findings on contract validity, termination, and compensation. The case underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the jurisdiction of football governing bodies in resolving employment disputes.
The CAS Panel ruled that the statement from the Polish Football Association was inadmissible due to the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying its late submission. Regarding the applicable law, the Panel determined that FIFA regulations and Swiss law govern the dispute, as the parties did not specify a choice of law in their agreement. The Panel also addressed the jurisdiction of the FIFA DRC, rejecting the club's argument that the Polish Football Association's DRC had exclusive jurisdiction. The Panel found no valid arbitration clause conferring jurisdiction to the national body, thus affirming the FIFA DRC's authority. The Panel interpreted the annex and the original agreement, applying Swiss law principles to determine the parties' intent. The Panel found that the annex explicitly referred only to the 2012/2013 season and did not alter the agreement's validity beyond that period. The wording of the annex, along with the principle of interpreting unclear clauses against the drafter, supported the conclusion that the original agreement remained in force after June 30, 2013.
The Panel then examined whether the Club's letter to the Player on June 30, 2013, constituted a termination of the agreement. The letter instructed the Player to leave the training camp and cease contractual obligations, which the Panel interpreted as a clear unilateral termination. The Club failed to provide any just cause for this termination, and the Panel concluded it was unjustified. Finally, the Panel addressed the consequences of the unjustified termination, referencing FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).