The case revolves around a dispute between Jarmo Ahjupera, an Estonian professional football player, and Ujpest 1885 Futball Kft., a Hungarian football club, concerning the alleged termination and transfer of his employment contract. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with reviewing the matter de novo, meaning it had full authority to reassess both the facts and legal aspects independently. The dispute originated from financial difficulties faced by Ujpest FC, Ahjupera’s original club, which led to the transfer of its license and assets, including players, to Ujpest 1885. Ahjupera claimed he was asked to sign a resignation letter terminating his contract with Ujpest FC and subsequently enter into a new agreement with Ujpest 1885, which he alleged contained identical terms. However, Ujpest 1885 disputed this, asserting that no new contract was signed and that Ahjupera had voluntarily terminated his employment.
Ahjupera’s original contract with Ujpest FC, signed in July 2013, was valid until June 2015 and outlined his salary, bonuses, and termination conditions. After suffering an injury in October 2013, he underwent medical treatment and was unable to play. In March 2014, during a meeting with the club’s president, players were informed of Ujpest FC’s financial crisis and the need to transfer operations to Ujpest 1885. Ahjupera signed a resignation letter the same day, claiming he did so under the understanding that he would receive a new contract with identical terms. Ujpest 1885, however, argued that some players, including Ahjupera, chose to leave rather than sign new agreements.
The CAS examined whether a valid contractual relationship existed between Ahjupera and Ujpest 1885, emphasizing that professional football contracts must be in writing under FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The burden of proof rested on Ahjupera to demonstrate the existence of such a contract. The tribunal noted that European Union directives, such as the Transfer of Undertakings Directive, did not directly apply to private disputes unless transposed into national law. Ahjupera submitted witness statements from former teammates and circumstantial evidence, including a bank transfer from Ujpest 1885, to support his claim. However, the CAS found this evidence insufficient to conclusively prove the existence of a new contract. The bank transfer, while acknowledged, was deemed inconclusive as it referenced a salary payment from Ujpest FC, not a new contractual obligation.
Ahjupera later signed with an Estonian club, Nomme JK Kalju, in June 2014. In March 2016, he filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking unpaid salaries, bonuses, non-material damages, and legal fees totaling over EUR 126,000. The DRC ruled against him in November 2016, citing insufficient evidence to prove the alleged contract’s existence. Ahjupera appealed to CAS, seeking monetary compensation exceeding EUR 164,000, but the Sole Arbitrator dismissed his claims, upholding the DRC’s decision. The arbitrator emphasized that Ahjupera had voluntarily terminated his contract with Ujpest FC and failed to provide definitive proof of a new agreement with Ujpest 1885.
The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, particularly when documentation is contested or unavailable. Ahjupera’s inability to produce a signed contract or corroborative evidence weakened his claim, leading to the dismissal of his case. The final CAS award, issued on 29 September 2017, confirmed the DRC’s decision, rejecting all of Ahjupera’s claims and motions for relief. The ruling underscores the importance of clear, verifiable evidence in resolving contractual disputes and the challenges players face when clubs undergo financial restructuring.