The case involves a dispute between Al Nassr Saudi Club and professional football player Ivan Tomecak, with FIFA as the second respondent, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the termination of an employment contract signed in July 2016, valid until July 2018. The contract stipulated the player’s remuneration, including annual wages and payment schedules, with clauses addressing termination and delayed payments. A delay of three monthly wages would constitute just cause for termination without notice. The player alleged consistent payment delays by the club, leading to tensions. In April 2017, he threatened FIFA action over unpaid salaries, which the club settled, but disputes resurfaced when the player requested an exit visa in May 2017 and later failed to return promptly for pre-season training, citing illness. The club accused him of unauthorized absence and withheld payments.
In July 2017, the player demanded outstanding payments totaling USD 552,498, threatening termination if unpaid. The club disputed the timing of an advance payment, citing a typographical error, and suspended salaries pending an investigation into the player’s absence. The player attended a disciplinary hearing but later refused further involvement, reiterating his demand for payment. On August 2, 2017, he unilaterally terminated the contract. The case was brought before CAS, which examined it under Swiss law and FIFA regulations. The panel emphasized the burden of proof lies with the party deriving rights from an alleged fact and noted that player behavior can influence damages assessment, even with just cause for termination.
The club appealed a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decision from January 25, 2018, which had partially ruled in the player’s favor, ordering the club to pay USD 558,332 in unpaid remuneration and USD 560,000 in compensation. The club sought to annul the decision, arguing the player terminated the contract without just cause and demanded compensation of USD 1,914,996, along with a playing ban for the player. FIFA and the player opposed the appeal, maintaining the club’s payment delays justified termination. The CAS panel, after a hearing in September 2018, confirmed its jurisdiction and applied FIFA regulations supplemented by Swiss law.
The panel found the club had failed to meet payment obligations, validating the player’s termination with just cause. It determined the club owed USD 555,415 in outstanding remuneration, including unpaid salaries and an advance, plus interest. The panel also calculated compensation for breach of contract at USD 500,500, adjusted for the player’s subsequent earnings and his contributory conduct. The club’s request for sporting sanctions was dismissed. The CAS partially upheld the club’s appeal, modifying the FIFA decision to reflect adjusted financial obligations. The club was ordered to pay the player USD 555,415 plus interest and USD 500,500 in compensation, both with 5% annual interest from specified dates. The decision underscores the importance of contractual obligations, timely payments, and the role of player conduct in dispute resolution.