The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on January 16, 2018, resolving a dispute between Debreceni Vasutas Sport Club (DVSC) and Nenad Novakovic, a Serbian football player. The case stemmed from the termination of Novakovic's employment contract with DVSC, a Hungarian club, following his injury in April 2015. The injury, diagnosed as Popliteal Artery Entrapment Syndrome (PAES), required surgery and extensive rehabilitation, during which DVSC ceased salary payments. Novakovic formally demanded unpaid salaries, bonuses, and medical reimbursements in September 2015, but DVSC failed to comply, leading Novakovic to terminate the contract, citing "just cause" under FIFA regulations. He subsequently filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, ordering DVSC to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation. DVSC appealed to CAS, challenging FIFA's jurisdiction and arguing that Hungarian labor law should apply.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Mr. András Gurovits, and Mrs. Petra Pocrnic Perica, addressed several legal issues, including the duty to substantiate claims, the relationship between choice-of-law agreements, and the definition of "just cause" for contract termination. The panel emphasized that non-payment or late payment of salaries can constitute just cause, particularly if the breach persists after a warning, as established in FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and CAS jurisprudence. DVSC argued that Hungarian law justified withholding payments during Novakovic's sick leave, but the panel found this argument unsubstantiated, as the club failed to provide specific legal provisions supporting its claim. The panel also rejected DVSC's jurisdictional challenge, noting that the contract included a clause submitting disputes to FIFA and CAS, and that DVSC had not contested this during initial proceedings.
On the merits, the panel upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, confirming that Novakovic had just cause to terminate the contract due to DVSC's persistent non-payment. The panel ruled that DVSC was liable for unpaid salaries, bonuses, and compensation, calculated based on the remaining contract term and Novakovic's contractual entitlements. Interest on the awarded amounts was set at 5% per annum under Swiss law, as the contract did not specify Hungarian law for this purpose. The panel adjusted the total amount owed to account for partial payments made by DVSC during proceedings, reducing the original FIFA award slightly.
The decision reinforced the primacy of FIFA regulations in international sports disputes and underscored the importance of contractual stability and timely payments in player-club relationships. It also highlighted the burden of proof on parties to substantiate their claims and the limited role of national labor laws when conflicts arise with sports governing bodies' regulations. The panel's ruling balanced procedural fairness with the need for consistency in sports arbitration, ultimately dismissing DVSC's appeal and affirming Novakovic's entitlements under the contract and FIFA rules. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving contractual breaches and jurisdictional conflicts in professional sports.