CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9923 — Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC v. Matija Katanec & FIFA

"Mezőkövesd Zsóry" · CAS set aside the FIFA DRC decision because the employment contract's jurisdiction clause validly excluded FIFA competence in favour of Hungarian Administrative and Labour Courts.

What happened in Mezőkövesd Zsóry

Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC, a Hungarian professional club, signed a two-year employment contract with Croatian player Matija Katanec on 1 July 2021 at a monthly salary of HUF 3,000,000. In March 2022 the club demoted the player to its second team; after repeated default notices went unanswered, the player unilaterally terminated the contract on 28 July 2022 and filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 12 April 2023 the FIFA DRC awarded the player HUF 25,989,106.58 in breach-of-contract compensation plus interest, and a registration ban was subsequently imposed on the club for non-payment. The club appealed to CAS, arguing that Clause XI.49 of the contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction over labour disputes on the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court, thereby ousting FIFA competence. The Registration Ban Decision was lifted on 8 September 2023 and the club withdrew that part of its appeal. The CAS panel (by majority) upheld the appeal and set aside the FIFA DRC decision, finding that the parties had validly opted out of Article 22(b) FIFA RSTP. The case matters because it reinforces that a sufficiently clear contractual jurisdiction clause designating national courts for labour disputes can override FIFA's default adjudicatory competence, consistent with the Swiss Federal Tribunal's ruling in 4A_2/2023.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9923

On 22 August 2022 the player lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (case FPSD-7151) seeking outstanding remuneration and breach-of-contract compensation. The club challenged FIFA's jurisdiction, arguing the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court had exclusive competence. On 12 April 2023 the FIFA DRC partially accepted the claim, ordering the club to pay HUF 25,989,106.58 in compensation plus interest. The grounds were notified to the club on 17 August 2023. On 16 August 2023 the player requested enforcement; a registration ban (case FDD-15697) was imposed on 17 August 2023. The club filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS on 24 August 2023, challenging both decisions. FIFA confirmed the late notification and lifted the registration ban on 8 September 2023; the club withdrew its challenge to that ban but maintained its appeal against the DRC decision. A three-member panel was constituted and a videoconference hearing was held on 11 March 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9923

• Parties to an employment contract with an international dimension may validly opt out of Article 22(b) FIFA RSTP by including a clear contractual clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on national courts for labour disputes.
• Clause XI.49 of the employment contract, which expressly designated the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court as competent for labour disputes without restricting that competence to national or local disputes, constituted a valid derogation from FIFA DRC jurisdiction.
• A club does not forfeit its right to object to FIFA's jurisdiction merely by appealing the FIFA decision to CAS; appealing to CAS to have an improperly assumed jurisdiction corrected is not procedurally contradictory.
• Where the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction, CAS sitting in appeals arbitration is limited to setting aside the decision and cannot enter into the merits of the case.
• Opting out of Article 22(b) FIFA RSTP requires free and willing agreement by the parties, and waiver of chosen jurisdiction must not be interpreted extensively; in case of doubt, the parties' preference for national courts should be honoured.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The majority of the panel applied Swiss law to the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause, since the allegedly derogated body (FIFA DRC) is located in Switzerland. Starting from the literal wording of Clause XI.49, the panel found that the clause, while referring to multiple fora, expressly assigned labour disputes to the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court without geographic restriction. The panel acknowledged conflicting CAS jurisprudence: CAS 2021/A/7775 and CAS 2022/A/8571 had found similar clauses to oust FIFA jurisdiction, while CAS 2018/A/6016 had reached the opposite conclusion. The panel aligned with the former line and with the Swiss Federal Tribunal's ruling in 4A_2/2023 (upholding CAS 2021/A/7775), which held that waivers of chosen jurisdiction must not be assumed easily and require restrictive interpretation in case of doubt. The panel rejected arguments that unequal bargaining power or the player's inexperience justified a different outcome, noting the player was an experienced professional. It also rejected the argument that the club had forfeited its jurisdictional objection, since the club had raised incompetence before FIFA and its CAS appeal was directed at correcting that error. No extraordinary circumstances justifying departure from the two-stage national court process were identified.

Why Mezőkövesd Zsóry matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the line of CAS jurisprudence — confirmed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in 4A_2/2023 — that a clear contractual clause designating national courts for labour disputes can validly derogate from FIFA DRC jurisdiction under Article 22(b) RSTP. It also clarifies that appealing a wrongly assumed FIFA jurisdiction to CAS does not constitute acceptance of that jurisdiction, preserving clubs' due-process rights where FIFA enforcement operates outside ordinary court systems.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4441 CAS 2016/A/4554 CAS 2013/A/3278 CAS 2021/A/7775 CAS 2022/A/8571 CAS 2018/A/6016

Frequently asked questions about Mezőkövesd Zsóry

Did the FIFA DRC have jurisdiction over the Mezőkövesd Zsóry v. Katanec dispute?

No. The majority of the CAS panel found that the parties had validly opted out of Article 22(b) FIFA RSTP through Clause XI.49 of the employment contract, which expressly designated the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court as the competent forum for labour disputes. Because the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction, the DRC decision of 12 April 2023 was set aside in its entirety.

What compensation had the FIFA DRC awarded Katanec and why was it set aside?

The FIFA DRC ordered Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC to pay HUF 25,989,106.58 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest per annum from 28 July 2022, along with interest on two tranches of late salary payments. CAS set aside the entire decision not on the merits but because the FIFA DRC had no jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, given the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Hungarian courts.

Can a Hungarian football club's employment contract clause exclude FIFA DRC jurisdiction under the Mezőkövesd Zsóry ruling?

Yes, according to the CAS majority. The panel held that parties may freely opt out of Article 22(b) FIFA RSTP provided they do so clearly and willingly. Clause XI.49 of the contract, which assigned labour disputes to the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court without geographic restriction, was found to be a valid and exclusive derogation. The panel aligned with CAS 2021/A/7775, CAS 2022/A/8571, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal's judgment 4A_2/2023 supporting this approach.

Did Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC lose its right to challenge FIFA's jurisdiction by appealing to CAS?

No. The panel held that appealing to CAS to correct an improperly assumed jurisdiction is not procedurally contradictory and does not constitute acceptance of the lower instance's competence. The club had already raised FIFA's incompetence during the FIFA proceedings and its principal CAS claim was to annul the decision on jurisdictional grounds, so no waiver occurred.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.