FIFA - FIFA Quarterly Report CAS - Ed. 2025 Jan-Mar 3

Content > Foreword 7 > Court of Arbitration for Sport 8 FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber 9 CAS 2023/A/9855 Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga v. Suphanburi Football Club & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) CAS 2023/A/9636 Mezokovesd Zsory Futball Cub LLC v. Antonio Vutov & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) TAS 2023/A/9882 Juan Martin Lucero c. Club Colo Colo &FIFA, CAS 2023/A/9935 Fortaleza Esporte Club v. Club Social y Deportivo Colo Colo FIFA, TAS 2023/A/9936 Club Social y Deportivo Colo Colo 18 c. Juan Martin Lucero & Fortaleza Esporte Clube CAS 2024/A/10485 Henan FC v. Hildeberto José Morgado Pereira 22 CAS 2024/A/10394 CPFC Limited T/A Crystal Palace FC v. North County United/Treasure Coast Tritons 25 CAS 2024/A/10642 Persepolis Football Club v. Leandro Marcos Pereira 28 CAS 2024/A/11034 Yukatel Adana Demirspor AS. v. Pape Abou Cissé & FIFA 32 CAS 2024/A/10670 FK Crvena Zvezda v. Kalifa Coulibaly 35 TAS 2023/A/9974 Bruno Pascua López c. Club Deportivo y Cultural Real Tomayapo & FIFA 38 CAS 2021/A/8325 Ararat Armenia FC v. FC Baltika A CAS 2023/A/10204 Mérks Futács v. Yeni Mersin ldmanyurdu Futbol AS. & FIFA 44 CAS 2024/A/10531 Santa Clara Acores, Futebol, S.AD.v. Kennedy Kofi Boateng and SC Austria Lustenau 47 TAS 2024/A/10251 Liseth Mariana Garnica Prieto c. CD Antofagasta & FIFA 50

CAS 2024/A/10531 Santa Clara Acores, Futebol, S.AD.v. Kennedy Kofi Boateng and SC Austria Lustenau 47 TAS 2024/A/10251 Liseth Mariana Garnica Prieto c. CD Antofagasta & FIFA 50 CAS 2024/A/10299 FK Velez Mostar v. Frane lkic 53 CAS 2024/A/10725 Anorthosis Famagusta FC v. Erik Sabo 56 CAS 2023/A/10150 Club Al Faisaly v. Ahmed Achraf Mohamed Feki & FIFA 59 CAS 2023/A/10243 Club APOEL Nicosia v. Lucas Vieira de Souza 62CAS 2023/A/10132 Lechia Gdansk v. Kevin Friesenbichler & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 5 CAS 2024/A/10382 U Craiova 1948 SA v. André Lourenco Duarte &Reggiana 1919 SRL 68 CAS 2023/A/9953 FC Spartak Subotica v. FC Sheriff. CAS 2023/A/9954 FC Sheriff v. Edmund Addo & FC 7 Spartak Subotica, CAS 2023/A/9978 Edmund Addo v. FC Sheriff CAS 2024/A/10601FC Dinamo City v. FK Laci 74 CAS 2024/A/10389 Changchun Yatai FC v. Nenad Lukic and Egyetertes Toma Osztaly 77 CAS 2024/A/10646 FC Tobol Kostanay v. Pavel Zabelin 80 CAS 2024/A/10744 Silviu Lung v. Yukatel Kayserispor 83 CAS 2024/A/10736 Beijing Guoan Football Club v. Marko Dabro 86 CAS 2024/A/10331 Ismaily Sporting Club v. Firas Cahouat 8: FIFA 89 Players' Status Chamber 92

CAS 2024/A/10736 Beijing Guoan Football Club v. Marko Dabro 86 CAS 2024/A/10331 Ismaily Sporting Club v. Firas Cahouat 8: FIFA 89 Players' Status Chamber 92 CAS 2024/A/10248 Granada Club de Futbol S.A.D. v. Alanyaspor Kulubu 93 TAS 2022/A/8640 Independiente Santa Fe c. Alejandro Patricio Camps, TAS 2022/A/8641 Independiente 96 Santa Fe c. Martin Andres Posse Paz CAS 2024/A/10474 FC Fotbal Club FCSB SA v. Galatasaray AS 100 CAS 2022/A/8964 Cruzeiro Esporte Clube v Pyramids FC, CAS 2022/A/8965 Pyramids FC v Cruzeiro 103 Esporte Clube & FIFA TAS 2023/A/9982 Gustavo Alfaro v. Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol 107 CAS 2023/A/10170 Al Salmiya Sporting Club v Bozidar Cacié To TAS 2024/A/10518 Club Atletico Banfield c. Club Necaxa &FIFA 14 TAS 2024/A/10591 Club Deportivo Popular Junior FC SA c. Club Olimpia 117 CAS 2023/A/9749 Roberto Luiz Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers Sports Club Limited 120 TAS 2024/A/10340 Sport Club Internacional c. Club Universidad César Vallejo 123 CAS 2023/A/10208 Evgeni Marinov v. FIFA &Kenan Kurtes 126 CAS 2024/A/10477 Al-Ahli Saudi Football Club v Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors Football Club and Fédération 129 Intemationale de Football Association TAS 2024/A/10582 Club Atlético Banfield c. Club León &FIFA 133 CAS 2024/A/10542 Bologna FC 1909 SPA v. KV Oostende 136

Intemationale de Football Association TAS 2024/A/10582 Club Atlético Banfield c. Club León &FIFA 133 CAS 2024/A/10542 Bologna FC 1909 SPA v. KV Oostende 136 CAS 2023/A/9880 Jorvan Vieira v. ENPPI 139 FIFA QuarterlyFIFA Judicial Bodies Disciplinary & Appeal Committees 142 CAS 2024/A/10308 AO Xanthi v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Radoslav Vasilev 143 CAS 2024/A/10384 Luis Rubiales v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association 147 TAS 2024/A/10633 Club Sport Emelec v. FIFA 151 CAS 2023/A/10510 Dayron Alexander Mosquera Mendoza v. Speranis Nisporeni & FIFA 154 CAS 2024/A/10609 Alanyaspor Kultibú v. Davidson da Luiz Pereira & FIFA 157 TAS 2024/A/10635 Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol c. FIFA 161 Ethics Committee 164 TAS 2023/A/9751 Manuel Burga Seoane v. FIFA 165 TAS 2025/A/11153 Manuel Ernesto Arias Corco c. FIFA 168 FIFA Clearing House CAS 2024/A/10522 Montpellier Herault Sport Club SAS. v. Betriebsgesellschaft FCZ AG (FC Zurich) & Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 72

CAS 2024/A/10718 KAA Gentv. FIFA 175

TAS 2024/A/10545 LYS FC de Sassandra v. Stade Brestois 29 & FIFA 178 CAS 2024/A/10454 Granada Cub de Fútbol S.A.D. v. Leader Foot Academie 181 TAS 2024/A/10858 Guidars FC c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association 184 Other FIFA cases

CAS 2024/A/10454 Granada Cub de Fútbol S.A.D. v. Leader Foot Academie 181 TAS 2024/A/10858 Guidars FC c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association 184 Other FIFA cases CAS 2024/A/10414 Alejandro Gustavo Camaño Tolosa v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association

(FIFA) 188

TAS 2024/A/10939 Foullah Edifice FC & Ibrahim Wanglaouna Foullah c. FIFA 191 CAS 2023/A/10091 Karpaty FC LLC v FIFA & HNK Cibalia Vinkovci & FC Karpaty Halych 194Non-FIFA cases TAS 2024/A/10494 Adel Amrouche c. Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF) 199 TAS 2023/A/9786 Boston River SAD c. Liverpool Fútbol Club 202 CAS 2021/A/7789 Kacper Falon v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) 205 TAS 2022/A/8799 Kenneth Zseremeta v. Federación Venezolana de Fútbol 208 CAS 2023/A/10065 Khaled Abdullah Al-Husseini, Mandil Saad Al-Hadab & Turki Makmi Al-Dhufiri v. Youssef on Karim Al-Anzi, Habas Miteb Al-Shammari, Abdullah Hajjaj Al-Alati & Abdulaziz Awaid Al-Anazi CAS 2024/A/10502 Francis Adjetey v. Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club Limited & Ghana Football 214 Association TAS 2024/A/10407 Servette Football Club 1890 SA c. Swiss Football League (SFL) 217 TAS 2024/A/10528 FAF & Union Sportive Medina d'Alger c. CAF & Renaissance Sportive Berkane & FRMF 220 TAS 2023/A/10194 Escuela Municipal Deportivo Binacional FC c. Federación Peruana de Fútbol 223

TAS 2024/A/10528 FAF & Union Sportive Medina d'Alger c. CAF & Renaissance Sportive Berkane & FRMF 220 TAS 2023/A/10194 Escuela Municipal Deportivo Binacional FC c. Federación Peruana de Fútbol 223 CAS 2023/A/10014 Morten Beck Guldsmed v. The Football Association of Iceland & The Football 226 Department ofFH CAS 2024/A/10330 Nasouh Nakdahli v A-Wahda Club and Syrian Football Association 229 TAS 2022/A/8971 Club Libertad FC. c. LigaPro 232 TAS 2023/A/10127 Duglar Alexander Angarita Martínez c. Asociación Civil Deportivo Táchira FC & 235 Federación Venezolana de Fútbol TAS 2024/A/10561 Olympique des Alpes SA c. Association Suisse de Football (ASF) et FC Lugano AS 238 TAS 2024/A/10916 ACB 1904 SA v. Swiss Football League 241 CAS 2024/A/10627 Valmiera FC v. Latvian Football Federation 244 TAS 2024/A/10599 Club Deportes Unión La Calera SADP c. Asociación Nacional de Fútbol Profesional 247 TAS 2024/A/10386 Etoile Filante de Garoua et consorts c. Fédération Camerounaise de Football 250 (FECAFOOT) > Other landmark cases 253 Court of Arbitration for Sport | Non-football CAS 2024/A/10484 Dragos Madaras v. International Tennis Integrity Agency (TIA) 255 CAS 2024/A/10760 Nayoka Clunis v. World Athletics & International Olympic Committee 259Swiss Federal Tribunal SFT4A 608/2024 FK Liepaja v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 264

CAS 2024/A/10760 Nayoka Clunis v. World Athletics & International Olympic Committee 259Swiss Federal Tribunal SFT4A 608/2024 FK Liepaja v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 264 SFT4A 612/2024 FK Liepaja v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 267 SFT4A 614/2024 FKLiepaja v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 270 SFT4A_28/2025 Rosnick Grant c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association 273 European Court of Justice ECJ C-365/23, Arce 277 rterlyForeword The jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has long been a cornerstone for legal professionals working in the field of sports law. Over the years, CAS rulings have played a crucial role in shaping the regulatory framework of various sports, providing legal certainty, and ensuring fair play. This is especially true in the world of football, where legal disputes often arise due to the complexities of contracts, transfers, disciplinary matters, and governance issues. The latest official statistics, as published by FIFA in its CAS & Football Annual Report 2024, confirm the significance of CAS in football-related disputes. According to the report, more than 70% of the proceedings brought before CAS pertain to football cases. This underscores the vital role that CAS plays in maintaining the integrity of the sport and resolving conflicts between players, clubs, national associations, and other stakeholders. Recognizing our commitment to transparency, FIFA has decided to launch the FIFA Quarterly Report on CAS Football Awards. This initiative is designed to provide legal professionals, football administrators, and all interested stakeholders with a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of CAS rulings in football-related cases. Through this Quarterly Report, we aim to enhance the understanding of CAS decisions and highlight key legal trends. Published every three months, our Report will always include non-confidential CAS awards notified by the CAS to FIFA in the last

CAS rulings in football-related cases. Through this Quarterly Report, we aim to enhance the understanding of CAS decisions and highlight key legal trends. Published every three months, our Report will always include non-confidential CAS awards notified by the CAS to FIFA in the last quarter (in this case, from 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025), as well as relevant decisions on nonfootball cases published by the CAS on its website. On top of that, the Report will also include the most important rulings of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and European Court of Justice. Beyond CAS decisions, the Quarterly Report will also include references to landmark rulings from the Swiss Federal Tribunal and the European Court of Justice, particularly those that have had a direct or indirect impact on football. Additionally, the report will feature brief mentions of notable CAS decisions in other sports. To ensure accessibility and ease of reference, the Quarterly Report will be published in PDF format and made available free of charge. It will be permanently accessible and regularly updated on our official legal platform: legal.fifa.com. Our objective is to create an indispensable legal resource that serves not only FIFA and its member associations but also clubs, players, lawyers, and academics involved in the legal aspects of football. At FIFA, we believe that knowledge-sharing and transparency are essential to fostering a wellregulated and legally sound football ecosystem. By offering this in-depth analysis of CAS rulings, we hope to contribute to the ongoing professionalization of football law and to assist stakeholders in navigating the complexities of legal disputes in the sport. Yours faithfully, ==. Emilio Garcia Silvero FIFA Chief Legal & Compliance Officer FIFA Quarterly Report on CAS Football Awards | ForewordFIFA Quarterly Report on CAS Football Awards Court of Arbitration for Sport >» FIFA Football Tribunal | Dispute Resolution Chamber >» FIFA Football Tribunal | Players Status Chamber >» FIFA Judicial Bodies | Disciplinary & Appeal Committees >» FIFA Judicial Bodies | Ethics Committee >» FIFAClearing House >» Other FIFA cases >» Non-FIFA casesFIFA Quarterly Report on CAS Football Awards m Dispute Resolution

>» FIFA Football Tribunal | Players Status Chamber >» FIFA Judicial Bodies | Disciplinary & Appeal Committees >» FIFA Judicial Bodies | Ethics Committee >» FIFAClearing House >» Other FIFA cases >» Non-FIFA casesFIFA Quarterly Report on CAS Football Awards m Dispute Resolution Chamber| Content <5 | January 2025 - March 2025 Edition FIFA Football Tribunal

CAS 2023/A/9855

Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga V. Reference number: CAS 2023/A/9855 Suphanburi Football Club & Eu CEE Fédération Internationale de Seat of arbitration: Lausanne, Switzerland Football Association (FIFA)

APPELLANT RESPONDENTN.1

Player e &n ClubEliandro dos Santos Gonzaga s Suphanburi Football Club i LEGAL TEAM LEGAL TEAM Andre Scalli | Attorney-at-Law in Sao Paulo, Brazil Menno Teunissen and Thomas Spee | Attorneys-at-Law, Liege, Belgium

RESPONDENT N.2

SOLE Sofoklis P. Pilavios | ARBITRATOR Attorney-at-Law, Athens, Greece Fédération Internationale de Football [+] Association (FIFA) switzerland FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber, appeal

CATEGORY

Employment, Status & Transfer ISSUES Statute of limitations; contract interpretation Is the claim time-barred? Partially yes, any claim relating to the first employment agreementis time-barred.

RELEVANT RULES 8: REGULATIONS FIFA RSTP, ed. Oct.22; art 23

LANGUAGE English Did the parties validly conclude an employment agreement? No, the parties did not validly conclude an employment contract. KEYWORDS Time-barred; essentialia negoti: venire contra factum proprium CASELAW CITED / Contract interpretation, “essentialia negotii": CAS 2021/4/8292, CAS 2017/A/5164 Contract interpretation, “venire contra factum proprium”: CAS

contra factum proprium CASELAW CITED / Contract interpretation, “essentialia negotii": CAS 2021/4/8292, CAS 2017/A/5164 Contract interpretation, “venire contra factum proprium”: CAS 2017/A/5046; CAS 2015/A/4195 Court of Arbitration for Sport | FIFA Football Tribunal | Dispute Resolution ChamberContent <5 | January 2025 - March 2025 Edition FIFA Football Tribunal

CAS 2023/A/9855

Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga

1. Suphanburi Football Club &

Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Before the FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber / 29 December 2022: player filed claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber | 21 June 2023: FIFA DRC issue its decision / 10 August 2022: FIFA DRC communicated the decisions grounds to the parties Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport / 29 July 2023: player filed his statement of appeal before CAS and requested legal aid 18 August 2028: player filed his appeal brief 8 May 2024: CAS Court Office informed player had been granted aid from the Football Legal Aid Fund (FLAF) 18 June 2024: club filed its answer 25 June 2024: FIFA expressedits decision to not actively participate in the proceedings 26 June 2024: sole arbitrator appointed 22 July 2024: sole arbitrator decided to holda hearing 8 August 2024: all parties had signed the order of procedure 9 August 2024: player filed list of attendees with additional witnesses 19 August 2024: club objected the participation of the additional witnesses 28 August 2024: sole arbitrator considered testimonies of the additional witnesses inadmisible Tl September 2024: sole arbitrator held an online hearing Court of Arbitratio Background

19 August 2024: club objected the participation of the additional witnesses 28 August 2024: sole arbitrator considered testimonies of the additional witnesses inadmisible Tl September 2024: sole arbitrator held an online hearing Court of Arbitratio Background The parties signed an employment contract on 17 December 2019, valid until 31 December 2020. On 20 April 2020, the club provided the player with a document that amended the employment contract, according to which the club reduced the player's salary by 50% as of April 2020 dueto financial hardship caused bythe covid-10 pandemic and the suspension of the Thai professional football league. The player did not sign that document. The parties allegedly concluded a new employment contract on 14 October 2020, valid until 30 April 2021. The club allegedly forced the player to leave his apartment on 25 December 2020. The player signed an employment agreement with a new club on 26 December 2020, valid from 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2021. On 31 December 2020, the parties concluded a document according to which the parties ended their employment relationship, the club did not owe the player any monies, and that the player waived any financial claim against the club. The player was hospitalized between 11 and 18 January 2021. The player signed an employment agreement with a third club on 19 May 2021. The player sued the club at the FIFA DRC for breach of the second employment contract without just cause. The player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions aswellas payment of outstanding salaries and additional compensation. The player alleged that the club unilaterally decided to reduce his monthly salaries under the pretext of the covid-19 pandemic and that the club forced him to transfer to another club and sign the 31 December 2020 waiver. The club failed to timely provide any arguments in rebuttal. On 21 June 2023, the FIFADRC rejected the player's claim.

salaries under the pretext of the covid-19 pandemic and that the club forced him to transfer to another club and sign the 31 December 2020 waiver. The club failed to timely provide any arguments in rebuttal. On 21 June 2023, the FIFADRC rejected the player's claim. The player filed his appeal with CAS requesting that the panel set aside the FIFA DRC decision. The player requested that: (a) the club pay the player outstanding salaries; (b) the club compensate the player for the early termination without just cause; (c) the club compensate the player additionally due to egregious circumstances; and (d) the club be sanctioned for terminating the employment contractwithout just cause. In short, the playeralleged that the club breached their secondemployment contract, that the club forced hiswifeto sign the 31 December 2020 waiver, and that the clubs illegal behaviour caused severe psychological and physical impact on the player which resulted in his hospitalization for a week due to “adjustment disorder". In addition, the player noted that the FIFA DRC erred in rejecting the player's claim as time-barred, given that the player filed his claim before two years from the 31 December 2020 waiver. The club filed its answer requesting that the panel uphold the FIFA DRC decision. The club alleged that the club did not breach any employment contract with the player, that the club did not force the player to sign the 31 December 2020 waiver, and that the club does not owe the player any amount. In short, the club's position is that the player's claim is time-barred as it applies to each individual payment rather than the entire contractual relationship. all Tribunal | Dispute Resolution ChamberContent <5 | January 2025 - March 2025 Edition FIFA Football Tribunal >» CAS 2023/A/9855 Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga v. Suphanburi Football Club & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

MAIN LEGAL FINDINGS

>» CAS 2023/A/9855 Eliandro dos Santos Gonzaga v. Suphanburi Football Club & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) MAIN LEGAL FINDINGS The sole arbitrator decided that: (a) the appeal filed by the player is dismissed; (b) the FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber deci confirmed; and (c) the player shall bear his own costs and pay the club a contribution in the amount of CHF 1,000 towards the legal fees and other expenses. The sole arbitrator reasons that the 31 December 2020 waiver does not cover any outstanding payment that fell due prior to December 2020. The sole arbitrator notes that any amount due before 30 December 2020 is time-barred. The sole arbitrator decides that the player's claim is time-barred. The sole arbitrator reasons that an employment contract must include the following “essentialia negotii" to be considered a valid and binding agreement between the parties: (a) a date; (b) the names of the parties; (c) the duration of the agreement; (d) the position of the employee; (e) the remuneration components to be paid; and (f) the signatures of the parties. The sole arbitrator notes that the second employment contract includes all essential points to be considered a valid employment agreement between the parties, save for their signatures. In addition, the sole arbitrator notes that the player did not discharge his burden of proof on any fact that could supplement the lack ofthe parties' signatures. The sole arbitrator decides that the second employment agreement is not a valid and binding contract between the parties. Court of Arbitration for Sport | FIFA Football Tribunal | Dispute Resolution ChamberContent <5 | January 2025 - March 2025 Edition FIFA Football Tribunal

CAS 2023/A/9636

Mezokovesd Zsory Futball Cub LLC v. Antonio Vutov 8: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Reference number: CAS 2023/A/963

Award date: 15 January 2025

CAS 2023/A/9636

Mezokovesd Zsory Futball Cub LLC v. Antonio Vutov 8: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Reference number: CAS 2023/A/963

Award date: 15 January 2025

Seat of arbitration: Lausanne, Switzerland

APPELLANT RESPONDENTN.1

Club TE Mezokovesd Zsory Futball Club LLC ¢ - Player i [~ Antonio Vutov Hungary Bulgaria LEGAL TEAM LEGAL TEAM Istvan Demeter | Demeter Law Firm, Miskolo, Hungary Georgi Gradev and Marton Kiss | SILA International Lawyers, Sofia, Bulgaria

RESPONDENT N.2

SOLE Mr Hendrik Willem Kesler ARBITRATOR — Attomey-at-Law Enschede/The Netherlands IF Fédération Internationale de Football o Association (FIFA) bl LEGALTEAM AD HOC Mr Dennis Koolaard Miguel Lietard | Director of Litigation CLERK Attorney-at-Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Roberto Najera Reyes | Senior Legal Counsel Litigation Department, FIFA, Zurich, Switzerland

CATEGORY

Employment, Status & Transfer ISSUES Choice of forum; choice of law; termination; good faith RELEVANT RULES 8: REGULATIONS | FIFARules Goveming the Procedures ofthe Players' Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Jun.20; art 9bis | FIFARSTP Jul.22; arts. 14,17 and 22

LANGUAGE

English KEYWORDS Applicable law: jurisdiction; breach of contract; contract interpretation CASELAW CITED Choice of law, parties' autonomy limitation: CAS 2018/A/S771 8:5772.

Contractual interpretation, good faith: SFT 4A_2/2023.

CAS 2018/A/5664; CAS 2017/A/5M; CAS 2016/A/4568; CAS 2014/A/3690.

Contractual interpretation, good faith: SFT 4A_2/2023.

CAS 2018/A/5664; CAS 2017/A/5M; CAS 2016/A/4568; CAS 2014/A/3690.

Termination, just cause: CAS 2020/A/6727; CAS 2019/4/6171; CAS 2017/A/5312; CAS 2006/A/180. Employment relation, employers direction limits: CAS 2014/A/3642

Contractual stability: CAS 2008/A/1568; CAS 2008/A/1519 81520; CAS 2007/A/1358; CAS 2007/A/1359; CAS 2005/A/876. | Compensation, positive interest: CAS 2018/A/6017; CAS 2018/A/5607; CAS 2017/A/5366; CAS 2016/A/4843; CAS 2015/A/4046 4047; CAS 2015/0/4346; CAS 2010/A/2146 8:2147; 2008/A/1519 &1520.

Mitigation, duty: CAS 2016/A/4605. Court of Arbitration fc Jurisdiction, valid choice of forum: SFT 4A_244/2012; CAS 2022/A/8571, CAS 2021/A/7775; CAS 2018/A/6016; FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber, appeal Preliminary issue n.1 Is res judicata applicable? No, res judicata is inaplicable in this case. Preliminary issue n.2 Is the evidence filed by the club admisible? Yes, the evidence filed by the club is admisible. Supporting issue Is the club's conduct abusive/inappropriate for filing an evidence solely at CAS? No, the clubs conduct is not abusive/abusive/inappropriate. Does FIFA have standing to be sued? The arbitrator considers that FIFAs objection against its standing to be sued is moot.

admisible. Supporting issue Is the club's conduct abusive/inappropriate for filing an evidence solely at CAS? No, the clubs conduct is not abusive/abusive/inappropriate. Does FIFA have standing to be sued? The arbitrator considers that FIFAs objection against its standing to be sued is moot. Did FIFA properly notify the club of the players claim filed before the FIFA DRC? Yes, FIFA properly notified the club of the player's claim filed before the FIFA DRC. Did the FIFA DRC have jurisdiction originally? Yes, the FIFA DRC has jurisdiction over the dispute originally. Did the player have just cause to terminate his employment contract early? Yes, the player had just cause to terminate his employment contract early. Supporting issue Did the player fulfil his duty to mitigate? Yes, the player fulfilled his duty to mitigate. all Tribunal | Dispute Resolution ChamberContent <5 | January 2025 - March 2025 Edition FIFA Football Tribunal

CAS 2023/A/9636

Mezokovesd Zsory Futball Cub LLC v. Antonio Vutov & Fédération Internationale de Football Assox on (FIFA) Before the FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber / 16 July 2022: player filed claim before the FIFA DRC, to which the club did not respond | 26 January 2023: FIFA DRC rendered the operative part of the decision | 18 April 2023: FIFA DRC issued a rectified decision due to clerical mistakes Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport / 8 May 2023: club filed statement of appeal against the player and FIFA 15 May 2028: FIFA requested to be excluded from the proceedings 22 May 2023: CAS Court Office informed that FIFA would not be excluded as the Appellant had not withdrawn its appeal against FIFA 2 June 2023: club filed its appeal brief 20 June 2023: CAS Appeals Arbitration Division president appointed the sole arbitrator 30 June 2023: player filed his answer

would not be excluded as the Appellant had not withdrawn its appeal against FIFA 2 June 2023: club filed its appeal brief 20 June 2023: CAS Appeals Arbitration Division president appointed the sole arbitrator 30 June 2023: player filed his answer 5 July 2023: ad hoc clerk appointed 6 July 2023: player filed amended answer 24 July 2023: FIFA filed its answer 31 July 2023: club filed new evidence (CAS award) 2 August 2028: sole arbitrator ordered the player to produce evidence 2 August 2023: player produced the evidence (new employment contract) Tl August 2023: player waived his objection to the new evidence admissibility provided his comments admitted to the file 15 August 2023: FIFA requested the exclusion ofthe new evidence 15 August 2023: club filed comments regarding the players new employment contract 23 August 2023: sole arbitrator admitted the new evidence and the player's submissions 23 August 2023: player filed his comments Next page Court of Arbitratio Background The parties signed an employment agreement on 22 September 2022, valid until 30 June 2023. The employment contract included a clause according to which the employer could direct the employee at which team to perform his obligations. The club directed the player to perform for its second team on 10 June 2022, to which the player countered. The player's lawyer requested the player's reintegration to the first team on 14 June 2022, and that the club owed the player his May 2022 salary. The club informed the player on 15 June 2022 that he was contractually obliged to perform for the second team, and that the club would pay the May 2022 salary as soon as the club had completed changesin its finance department. The players lawyer requested the players reintegration to the first team again on 16 June 2022 and on 21 June 2022. The club and the players lawyer exchanged communications reiterating their

May 2022 salary as soon as the club had completed changesin its finance department. The players lawyer requested the players reintegration to the first team again on 16 June 2022 and on 21 June 2022. The club and the players lawyer exchanged communications reiterating their respective positions while the employment relationship deteriorated further, with mutual accusations. On 8 July 2022, the club settled the players May 2022 salary and the player's lawyer informed the club that the player had passed his medical examination on 7 July 2022 as well as he acknowledge partial payment of the players May 2022 salary. On 11 July 2022, the player's lawyer informed that the club continually denied the player's right to train with the first team and that the club had not paid the players June 2022 salary. On 12 July 2022, the club informed the player that the player would train individually until 13 July 2022 at latest and that the player had violated the clubs rules of conduct for taking photos during a training session. On that same date, the clubs manager texted the player that he had physicals tests on that same day, to which the player's lawyer countered. On 13 July 2022, the club issued to letters to the player informing him that he would be transferred to the second team for 30 days, starting 14 July 2022. On 14 July 2022, the player's lawyer requested the club to reinstate the player to the first team and to pay his June 2022 salary until 15 July 2022 or the player would terminate his employment contract for cause. On the same date, the club informed the player that it maintained its position, to which the player's lawyer countered and terminated the players employment contract based on FIFA RSTP art. 14.2. On 10 August 2022, the club settled the player's June 2022 salary after the player had filed his claim before the FIFA DRC. The player sued the club on 16 July 2022 at the FIFA DRC for breach

FIFA RSTP art. 14.2. On 10 August 2022, the club settled the player's June 2022 salary after the player had filed his claim before the FIFA DRC. The player sued the club on 16 July 2022 at the FIFA DRC for breach of contract requesting outstanding salaries and compensation for j