The case revolves around a dispute between FK Sileks, a North Macedonian football club, and GFK Dubočica Leskovac, a Serbian football club, concerning training compensation for a player who signed his first professional contract with FK Sileks in 2016. The player had previously been registered with several clubs, including GFK Dubočica Leskovac, as an amateur. In 2017, GFK Dubočica Leskovac and other training clubs filed claims with FIFA, seeking compensation from FK Sileks. A FIFA Single Judge ruled in favor of GFK Dubočica Leskovac, ordering FK Sileks to pay EUR 35,833 plus interest and procedural costs. FK Sileks appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting consolidation of the cases involving other training clubs, but this was denied.
During the CAS proceedings, GFK Dubočica Leskovac admitted it lacked the financial means to continue the case and acknowledged it may have inherited obligations from a predecessor club without proper rights to claim compensation. The club apologized to FK Sileks and conceded to the appeal, though it contested the imposition of procedural costs. FK Sileks argued that GFK Dubočica Leskovac had not actively participated in the FIFA proceedings and only acknowledged the appeal after new evidence was presented. The case was heard by a sole arbitrator, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, who examined the parties' submissions and applicable FIFA regulations. The arbitrator noted that under Swiss law, a party must have a legitimate stake in the dispute to be sued, and the case hinged on whether GFK Dubočica Leskovac had standing to claim compensation.
FK Sileks contended that GFK Dubočica Leskovac had ceased to exist as a club in April 2012, rendering its claim invalid. They provided evidence from the City Football Association Leskovac to support this. GFK Dubočica Leskovac conceded it was not entitled to compensation but objected to bearing the procedural costs, claiming it had not initiated the case and was unaware of new evidence until the appeal. The CAS proceedings involved written submissions without a hearing, and FK Sileks amended its requests to overturn the FIFA decision and have the respondent bear the costs.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under FIFA Statutes and the CAS Code, deeming the appeal admissible. The applicable law included FIFA regulations and Swiss law, with the case assessed under the 2016 editions of relevant FIFA rules. The arbitrator found that GFK Dubočica Leskovac did exist, as evidenced by its participation in the FIFA proceedings and the award it received, dismissing FK Sileks's claim that the club had ceased to exist. However, the arbitrator also examined GFK Dubočica Leskovac's submissions, including a Statement of Defence and a letter dated October 25, 2017, in which the club conceded it was not entitled to compensation. The arbitrator deemed these documents authentic and binding, concluding that GFK Dubočica Leskovac had effectively waived its claim.
As a result, the CAS upheld FK Sileks's appeal, set aside the FIFA decision, and ruled that no training compensation was owed. All other claims and relief sought by the parties were dismissed. The case underscores the complexities of sports arbitration, particularly regarding training compensation, procedural fairness, and the importance of legal standing in dispute resolution. The decision marks the conclusion of the matter, with no further actions to be taken.