Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant ([A.] ): Professional footballer, employee
  • Respondent (FC [B.] ): Professional football club, employer, based in Hungary

Facts:

  • Employment contract between player and club from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2023
  • Contract clause (Art. XI No. 49) regulates dispute resolution, including jurisdiction of the "Administrative and Labour Court" for labor disputes
  • Player is transferred to second team on 8 March 2022, terminates contract on 28 July 2022
  • FIFA Chamber affirms jurisdiction and awards player damages
  • Club files appeal with TAS, which upholds appeal and overturns FIFA decision
  • Player files complaint with the Federal Supreme Court to overturn TAS decision and establish jurisdiction of the TAS

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines the objection to jurisdiction under Art. 190 para. 2 lit. b PILA from a legal perspective, including preliminary questions of law on which jurisdiction depends. The validity and scope of the arbitration agreement are assessed under Swiss law, as also not contested by the appellant.

The arbitral tribunal denied the jurisdiction of the FIFA bodies and thus also its own jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, as the contract clause (Art. XI No. 49) provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hungarian state courts for labor disputes. This interpretation is based on the wording of the clause and the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, according to which a waiver of state court jurisdiction cannot be assumed lightly.

The appellant argues that the jurisdiction of the state courts does not correspond to the actual intent of the parties and that an alternative jurisdiction…