The case involves a contractual dispute between MSK Zilina, a Slovak football club, and Besir Demiri, a professional football player, adjudicated by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose when MSK Zilina unilaterally terminated Demiri's employment contract on 27 March 2020, citing financial difficulties and liquidation proceedings under Slovak law. The player contested the termination, arguing it lacked just cause under FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), and sought compensation for breach of contract. The key legal issues included jurisdictional competence, the validity of unilateral termination clauses, and the calculation of damages.
FIFA DRC initially asserted jurisdiction, finding that the Slovak Football Association's Dispute Resolution Chamber (SFA DRC) did not meet FIFA's requirements for independence and fair representation. The DRC ruled the termination unjust, ordering the club to pay the player EUR 180,009.50 in compensation. MSK Zilina appealed to CAS, challenging FIFA's jurisdiction and the merits of the decision. The club argued that the termination was lawful under Slovak sports regulations and that the SFA DRC should have handled the dispute. CAS upheld FIFA's jurisdiction, emphasizing the club's failure to prove the SFA DRC met FIFA's standards for impartiality and equal representation.
On the merits, CAS found the termination unjustified, as the club resumed operations shortly after and did not terminate all player contracts, indicating bad faith. The arbitrator applied the principle of positive interest, calculating compensation based on the player's remaining contract value, including salaries and bonuses, minus earnings from his subsequent contract with an Albanian club. The final award adjusted the compensation to EUR 167,388 net, plus 5% interest from 26 June 2020. The decision reinforced the invalidity of unilateral termination clauses favoring one party under Swiss law and FIFA regulations.
The case underscores the tension between national sports legislation and FIFA's global framework, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and contractual obligations in international sports disputes. It also reaffirms the primacy of FIFA's dispute resolution mechanisms when national bodies fail to meet required standards. The ruling ensures players are protected against arbitrary contract terminations and clarifies the burden of proof in jurisdictional disputes. Ultimately, the decision promotes fairness and accountability in professional football contracts.