The recent decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of 9 December 2025 (FPSD-20363) provides important clarification for labour law disputes in (international) professional football. It centres on a question that is often underestimated in practice: when does an „international dimension“ exist that justifies FIFA's jurisdiction?
This demarcation is particularly important for players, clubs and lawyers, as it determines whether proceedings have to be brought before FIFA or before national instances.
The case at a glance
A Serbian player asserted outstanding salary claims against a club from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The club itself did not substantially dispute the claim, but took the view that FIFA was not responsible. This was justified in particular by the fact that the player was resident in Bosnia, had a bank account there and was treated as a „domestic“ player in the league.
The club's aim was to portray the dispute as purely national and to remove FIFA's jurisdiction.
The central legal question: What constitutes the international dimension?
In its decision, the DRC clearly and unambiguously states that the nationality of the parties is the only decisive factor when assessing the international dimension. However, criteria such as residence, residence status or economic integration in the respective country are not decisive.
In the specific case, the player was a Serbian citizen, while the club was based in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This circumstance alone was sufficient to assume an international dispute and thus establish FIFA's jurisdiction. .
This clarification is particularly relevant in practice, as in many cases clubs attempt to construct a national categorisation based on factual circumstances and thus evade the FIFA regime.
Why the league regulations played no role
The club argued, among other things, with league regulations according to which players from certain countries - such as former Yugoslavian countries - are not considered „foreigners“. The DRC clearly rejected this argument.
It stated that such regulations only concern the eligibility to participate in competitions, but not the legal categorisation of nationality. The question of international jurisdiction (of the DRC) must be strictly separated from this.
This makes it clear that national categories cannot be transferred to the standards of international jurisdiction of the DRC. .
Residence and economic ties are irrelevant
A particularly important aspect of the decision is the clear demarcation from typical argumentation patterns in practice. The DRC emphasises that neither the player's place of residence nor their bank account details or other local points of reference play a role.
Even if a player lives entirely in one country and is economically integrated, the dispute remains international if there are different nationalities. This creates a clear and easily applicable demarcation that guarantees legal certainty.
Material decision: Silence does not protect
After FIFA's jurisdiction was finally affirmed, the DRC turned its attention to the substantive claim. The fact that the club had not disputed the content of the salary claims asserted was a decisive factor.
The DRC regarded this behaviour as a failure to fulfil the burden of proof. As a result, the club was obliged to pay the outstanding remuneration totalling KM 15,500 net plus default interest of five per cent per year. .
The decision clearly shows that a purely procedural and formal defence strategy harbours considerable risks.
Additional sanctions and sporting consequences
In addition to the payment obligation, the DRC also issued a warning to the club for late payment. It was also made clear that non-payment within the set deadline could result in a transfer ban of up to three transfer periods.
The decision thus emphasises once again that FIFA proceedings can have not only financial but also considerable sporting consequences.
Conclusion
The FIFA DRC decision provides a clear and practical guideline: only the nationality of the parties is decisive for international jurisdiction. Neither sporting/national classifications nor factual circumstances can change this.
In practice, this means that questions of responsibility must be examined precisely and at an early stage. At the same time, the case shows that it is risky to focus solely on formal objections without addressing the substantive claim.
Overall, the decision strengthens legal certainty in international football labour law and confirms FIFA's central role as an enforcement body for cross-border disputes.
If you need assistance in pursuing or defending a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber or CAS, please contact me!
Lawyer David Zellinger