The case centers on a contractual dispute between Györi ETO FC Kft, a Hungarian football club, and Sasa Malaimovic, a Serbian football player, which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from the termination of their employment contract, signed in August 2002 and originally valid until July 2007. The player alleged that the club failed to pay his salaries for April, May, and June 2003, as well as a bonus due in July 2003, leading him to unilaterally terminate the contract. He sought unpaid salaries and bonuses totaling EUR 223,000. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) partially accepted his claim, ordering the club to pay EUR 70,000. The club appealed this decision to the CAS, arguing that the contract term was mistakenly noted as 2007 instead of 2005 and that the bonus payments were performance-based, which the player failed to meet. The club also contended that the player was responsible for securing his residency and work permits, which he did not do, leading to the contract's termination. Additionally, the club claimed it had overpaid the player and sought reimbursement for taxes and a transfer fee.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator reviewed the case based on written submissions and applicable laws, including FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The arbitrator found that the club's failure to pay the additional EUR 10,000 bonus did not constitute a persistent breach of contract, as it occurred only once. Regarding the residency and work permits, the arbitrator noted that while the club had an obligation to assist, the player also shared responsibility under Hungarian law. Since the player did not fulfill his obligations, the club's failure to secure the permits was not deemed a breach. The arbitrator dismissed the club's counterclaims for tax reimbursement and transfer fees due to lack of evidence.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld part of the DRC's decision, confirming the club's obligation to pay the EUR 10,000 bonus but rejecting the player's broader claims. The ruling emphasized the mutual responsibilities of clubs and players in employment contracts, particularly concerning financial obligations and administrative requirements like work permits. The decision underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and adherence to legal frameworks in resolving sports-related disputes. The CAS partially upheld the club's appeal, adjusting the financial liabilities and clarifying the obligations of both parties.