The case revolves around a dispute between professional football player Nikola Kalinić and FC Dnipro concerning unpaid salaries and performance-based bonuses. The conflict began when Kalinić, who had a contract with FC Dnipro from January 2015, claimed the club failed to pay him agreed-upon bonuses for goals, assists, and match appearances during April and May 2015. After transferring to Fiorentina in August 2015, Kalinić formally demanded payment, but the club did not respond, prompting him to file a claim with FIFA. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) partially upheld his claim in April 2016, ordering FC Dnipro to pay overdue salaries of EUR 340,000 plus 5% annual interest but rejected his claim for unpaid bonuses of EUR 170,000 due to insufficient evidence.
Dissatisfied with the DRC’s decision, Kalinić appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS, under sole arbitrator Ivaylo Dermendjiev, reviewed the case de novo but limited its scope to the issues raised in the appeal. Key legal considerations included the applicability of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Swiss law, particularly Article 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which governs default interest. The arbitrator admitted supplementary evidence, such as match reports, which substantiated Kalinić’s claims regarding his appearances and goals. These reports demonstrated that he had met the contractual conditions for bonuses in various competitions, including the Ukrainian Premier League, Ukrainian Cup, and UEFA Europa League.
The arbitrator found FC Dnipro liable for unpaid bonuses, though the amount was adjusted to EUR 165,000 instead of the claimed EUR 170,000. The club’s failure to respond or defend its position in earlier proceedings further weakened its case. The CAS also ruled that default interest of 5% per annum would apply from February 2016, the date following Kalinić’s formal demand for payment. The final award upheld Kalinić’s appeal, ordering FC Dnipro to pay the outstanding bonuses plus interest, while dismissing other claims, such as unpaid bonuses from March 2015 and currency conversion losses, as they were not formally part of the relief sought.
The case highlights the importance of contractual compliance in football employment disputes and the role of CAS in resolving such conflicts. It also underscores procedural consequences when a party fails to engage in arbitration, as FC Dnipro’s lack of participation weakened its defense. The decision reinforces the enforceability of contractual obligations and the hierarchical application of FIFA regulations over national laws in sports-related disputes. Ultimately, the ruling serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to players and the consequences for clubs that fail to meet their contractual commitments.