The case involves a dispute between FC Würzburger Kickers AG (the Appellant) and professional football player Elia Soriano (the Player), along with Korona Spolka Kielce and FIFA, before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from the termination of the Player's employment contract with the Appellant and his subsequent signing with Korona. The central issue was whether FIFA or German labor courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The Appellant argued that FIFA should have jurisdiction, citing references to FIFA regulations in the contracts and the international nature of the dispute. The Player and Korona contended that the employment contract explicitly granted exclusive jurisdiction to German labor courts, rendering FIFA's involvement inadmissible.
The case stemmed from multiple contracts between the Appellant and the Player, including a First Contract (January 2016) and a Second Contract (July 2016), which included a clause stipulating that disputes would be resolved exclusively by German labor courts. A Supplementary Agreement adjusted salary terms but did not alter the dispute resolution clause. When the Appellant was relegated to the Third League in the 2016/2017 season, the Player failed to report for training and later signed with Korona. The Appellant filed a claim with FIFA, seeking €700,000 in damages for breach of contract and requesting sporting sanctions against the Player and Korona. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) dismissed the claim as inadmissible, citing the contractual agreement to submit disputes to German courts.
The Appellant appealed to CAS, arguing that FIFA retained jurisdiction because the Second Contract became inapplicable after relegation and that the dispute involved an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) issuance, which fell under FIFA's purview. The Sole Arbitrator examined the contracts and concluded that the Second Contract, as amended by the Supplementary Agreement, remained in force and clearly assigned jurisdiction to German labor courts. The Arbitrator emphasized that the parties' intention, as reflected in the contract wording and context, was decisive. References to FIFA regulations in the contract did not override the explicit jurisdiction clause, and the ITC argument was dismissed as irrelevant to the core employment dispute.
The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, confirming that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of German labor courts due to the contractual agreement. The ruling reinforced the principle that parties are free to choose jurisdiction for employment disputes, and such choices must be respected unless they conflict with mandatory FIFA provisions. The case highlights the tension between contractual autonomy and FIFA's regulatory framework, underscoring the importance of clear contractual terms in resolving jurisdictional conflicts in international football. The appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA DRC's decision was confirmed.