Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16047
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Kevin
Balongo Bemanga
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kevin Balongo Bemanga, France
RESPONDENT:
FC Academy Septemvri, Bulgaria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16047
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 July 2024, the French player, Kevin Balongo Bemanga (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Bulgarian club, FC Academy Septemvri (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
15 July 2024 to 10 June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to clause III.I of the Contract, the Player was entitled to “the basic monthly
remuneration is [sic] in the amount of BGN 1500 (one thousand and five hundred) Bulgarian
Lev - net or its equivalent in EUR according to the fixed BGN-EUR exchange rate of the Bulgarian
National Bank (BNB) - EUR 767 (seven hundred and sixty seven) Euro – net, payable to the
PLAYER, by the 25th day of the month, following the month for which such remuneration is due.”
3.
Clause IX.1 of the Contract read as follows:
“IX.1. The present contract between the CLUB and the PLAYER shall be terminated only
pursuant the provisions of the Labor code of republic of Bulgaria.
IX.2. Within 7 (seven) days as of termination of the contract by mutual written agreement
between the 1 Parties, the CLUB shall submit to the Sport and Technical Department of the
BFU notification and 1 the original termination agreement. In such an event, the PLAYER may
be immediately included in the Transfer List and become player of another football club
during the transfer windows, and the CLUB shall make use of the free position.
IX.3. Upon termination of this contract, the rights of the PLAYER to play for the CLUB shall be
terminated.
IX.4. All questions and disputes relating to the execution, interpretation and termination of
this contract, as well as questions for eventual compensations due shall be exclusively decided
by the Sofia District Court, which is the only competent court.”
4.
Clause XII of the Contract read inter alia as follows:
“XII.1. This contract may be amended only upon parties’ express written consent expressed in
a written instrument. Additional protocols, additional labour agreements and any other
written instruments executed in relation to the fulfillment hereof, shall be deemed an integral
part of this contract. Any additional agreements (annexes) between the parties hereto shall
be only allowed if not aggravating the general terms and conditions hereof and related to:
prolongation of the contractual term and change in the principal remuneration.
XII.2. Any matters not governed by this contract, shall be subject to the provisions of the
applicable roles and regulations of the Bulgarian Football Union and Bulgarian law.
XII.3. For the unsettled issues in this contract, the provisions of the Labour Code, regulations
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16047
of the Bulgarian Football Union and Bulgarian legislation shall be applied.
XII.4. Either Party to this contract shall immediately notify the other Party of any change in its
address. In case of non-fulfillment of the above obligation, any correspondence - notifications,
notices etc., sent to the default party to the address indicated hereunder, shall be deemed
duly served. […]”
5.
According to the Claimant, on 9 July 2024, the parties concluded an Annex to the Contract.
According to the Claimant, the parties agreed on a monthly salary of EUR 1,300 net and a
housing allowance of EUR 400. The Respondent contested the existence of this document.
6.
On 6 August 2024, the Respondent paid the Claimant BGN 3,300 / EUR 1,687.
7.
On the same date, i.e. 6 August 2024, the Claimant and a third person named E. Sashkova
signed a lease agreement for a property in Sofia Bulgaria.
8.
On 2 September 2024, the Respondent’s first team had a day off.
9.
On the same date, i.e. 2 September 2024, according to the Claimant, he and his girlfriend
went to the hospital for medical exams.
10. Reportedly, on 2 September 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an “act for
termination of employment contract between professional football player and football club by
mutual consent” (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement). It is to be noted that the Player
disputed his signature on it.
11. The Termination Agreement stated that, on 2 September 2024, the parties mutually
terminated the Contract and “the financial relations between the parties are settled and the
Parties declare that they do not have and will not have any financial or other claims towards
each other”.
12. According to the Claimant, on 4 September 2024, his former agent informed him about the
Termination Agreement.
13. On the same date, i.e. 4 September 2024, the Claimant sent to the Respondent a letter
stating that : (i) he has been sidelined since 20 August 2024, which constitutes a breach of
contract and violates his personality rights, (ii) the Respondent's allegation of the Parties
having mutually terminated the Contract is false, as he never signed the Termination
Agreement, (iii) he requested a copy of the Termination Agreement, (iv) he put the
Respondent in default of EUR 1,700 corresponding to the monthly salary and rent of August
2024, and (v) requested a copy of the Annex. The Claimant granted the Respondent a
deadline until 11 September 2024 to comply with his letter.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16047
14. Reportedly, on 5 September 2024, two fitness coaches of the Club informed the Player that
he would train alone.
15. Reportedly, on 6 September 2024, the Club’s fitness coaches prepared the Player’s training
equipment.
16. On 6 September 2024, the Respondent replied to the Claimant the following:
“Frankly speaking PFC Septemvri are absolutely surprised by your letter of 4 September 2024,
as the player Mr. Kevin Balongo Bemanga personally signed the Act of termination of his
employment contract registered at the BFU under number 483, dated 9 July 2024 by mutual
consent as of 2 September 2024.
The player is having an original copy of the above-mentioned Act of termination. Please check
this with Mr. Bemanga.”
17. On 7 September 2024, the Claimant replied to the Respondent reiterating that (i) he never
signed the Termination Agreement, (ii) he does not have a copy of it, and (iii) requested a
copy of the Termination Agreement. He also noted that it was strange that the Respondent
claimed that the Contract was terminated by mutual consent, yet its staff continued to
inform him about his training schedule and he continued to attend.
18. On the same date, i.e. 7 September 2024, the Claimant was removed from the Viber group
chat.
19. On 9 September 2024, the Respondent replied to the Claimant reaffirming its position that
both parties concluded the Termination Agreement, that it was sent to the Bulgarian
Football Union and that because it was recently signed, some of its employees were not
informed accordingly.
20. On the same day, i.e. 9 September 2024, the Claimant replied to the Respondent,
reiterating his previous position as per his correspondence dated 7 September 2024 and
granting an ultimate deadline until 12 September 2024.
21. On 10 September 2024, the Respondent sent to the Claimant a copy of the Termination
Agreement and mentioned that it does not have any outstanding amounts due to the
Claimant. The Respondent further stated that it paid the Claimant BGN 3,300 for the period
since 15 July 2024, and provided a breakdown of the amounts paid as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“The employment contract with the player was concluded on 9 July 2024 and came into force
on 15 July 2024.The player's NET monthly remuneration is 1500 BGN.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16047
For the period from 15 July 2024 to 31 July 2024, the player's monthly remuneration is in the
amount of 750 BGN.
For the period from 1 August 2024 to 31 August 2024, the player's monthly remuneration is
in the amount of 1500 BGN and 50 BGN for one day of September 2024.
PFC Septemvri and Mr. Bemanga had a verbal agreement for payment of 800 BGN for the
rent of an apartment. The club of course respected this agreement and for this did not request
the player to reimburse part of the advance payment he already received by PFC Septemvri.
The total amount that the player had to receive from 15 July 2024 to 1 September 2024 is
3100 BGN. As mentioned above, the player received 3300 BGN in advance cash payment on
6 August 2024, which is even more from the amount that the player actually had to receive.“
22. On 10 September 2024, the Claimant replied to the Respondent, disputing his signature on
the Termination Agreement and the breakdown provided regarding the amounts allegedly
paid . The Claimant also stated that the Contract was terminated without just cause.
23. On 11 September 2024, the Claimant filed a complaint with the Sofia District Prosecutor's
Office, claiming that his signature on the Termination Agreement was forged.
24. On 13 September 2024, the Respondent sent a correspondence to the Claimant, reiterating
its position that "the player signed the Act of termination by himself," so the "employment
contract of the player was terminated by means of Act of termination by mutual agreement as
of 2 September 2024."
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. On 15 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
26. The Claimant filed a claim for breach of contract. In his submission, he initially denied
having accepted or signed the Termination Agreement and made the following assertions:
-
He requested the FIFA General Secretariat to instruct the Respondent to provide
original copies of the Contract, the Annex, and the Termination Agreement, and to
submit them for forensic examination of the Claimant’s alleged signature.
-
He compared the signatures on the Contract, the complaint submitted to the Sofia
District Prosecutor’s Office, and the Termination Agreement, highlighting
discrepancies such as the use of uppercase versus lowercase letters, the presence
or absence of accents, and the overall handwriting style. He concluded that even a
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16047
-
layperson could observe that the signatures on the Contract and the complaint differ
from the one on the Termination Agreement.
These observations were further supported by the events of 2 September 2024,
namely that: (i) it was a day off; (ii) the Claimant visited a doctor with his girlfriend;
(iii) until 6 September 2024, the Respondent’s staff continued to send him training
instructions to train alone; and that (iv) the Claimant filed a formal complaint alleging
forgery.
-
There were no messages or emails from the Respondent inviting the Claimant to sign
the Termination Agreement, nor was any draft of the agreement provided.
-
It would be illogical for the Claimant to waive his salary up to the date of the alleged
signing of the Termination Agreement, as this would render the agreement invalid.
-
The Claimant stated: “In terminating the Contract by mutual consent and waiving all
future receivables, there is no gain for the Claimant but only for the Respondent, who will
save a significant amount of money. It is even more odd since, when this allegedly
happened, the Respondent was already 13 days in breach of contract by sidelining the
Claimant without any sporting or legal justification, which would have allowed the
Claimant to terminate the Contract based on Article 14.2 RSTP. The Claimant had no
intention of leaving the Respondent and Bulgaria since his girlfriend is Bulgarian and
pregnant. He is still in Sofia, Bulgaria, fighting for his rights.”
27. In light of the above, the Claimant concluded that the Termination Agreement was neither
signed nor accepted by him.
28. The Claimant further argued that, since the Termination Agreement is invalid, the
Respondent effectively and unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause on 2
September 2024, as it no longer wished to retain his services or continue the contractual
relationship.
29. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the Claimant submitted the following:
-
He is entitled to a monthly salary of BGN 1,500 net under the Contract and EUR 1,300
net as monthly salary and EUR 400 as accommodation allowance under the Annex.
-
He requested the FIFA General Secretariat to obtain a copy of the “signed document”
referenced by the Respondent in its correspondence dated 10 September 2024.
-
Contrary to the Respondent’s position, he asserted that the payment of BGN 3,000
corresponded to his July salary and an advance on his August salary.
-
He noted that it is common practice for Bulgarian clubs to sign annexes to
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16047
employment agreements.
30. Based on the above, the Claimant concluded that his total monthly remuneration
amounted to EUR 1,700 net. Accordingly, and considering that the Respondent only
partially paid his salary, he claimed entitlement to EUR 850 net as the outstanding balance
for the month for August 2024, including rent.
31. As to the compensation, the Player requested EUR 36,210 net.
32. The Claimant made an evidentiary and forensic Expert analysis request, and requested:
“1. Provide original copies of (i) the Contract, (ii) the Termination Agreement, and (iii) the
document or payment receipt ("Payslip") the Claimant signed to receive BGN 3,300 on August
6, 2024, and the Respondent referred to in its email on September 10, 2024; and
2. Provide an original or electronic copy of the Annex.
The above evidence is required to (i) analyze the authenticity of the Claimant's signature
affixed to the Termination Agreement by comparing it to the other documents signed by him
and (ii) prove the existence of the Annex. Additionally, the Payslip is expected to corroborate
the reason(s) for the payment of BGN 3,300 by the Respondent to the Claimant on August 6,
2024.
In this respect, we respectfully ask that the FIFA general secretariate submit the Termination
Agreement and all other documents signed by the Claimant and available on file to an
independent forensic expert in Zurich or Miami to perform forensic expertise on the
Claimant's signature on the Termination Agreement and establish whether it is authentic (as
the Respondent claims) or not (as the Claimant holds).
Finally, if the Respondent fails to provide any of the requested documents, the DRC should
infer that the relevant evidence would adversely affect the Respondent's interests, pursuant
to Article 12.2 in conjunction with Article 13.3 of the Procedural Rules.”
33. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“1. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant outstanding remuneration of EUR 850 net, plus
interest of 5% p.a. from September 2, 2023, until full payment.
2. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract of EUR
36,210 net, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of September 2, 2023, until full payment.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16047
b. Position of the Respondent
34. In its reply, the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction.
35. The Respondent mentioned that on the basis of art. 22 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and clause IX.4 of the Contract, FIFA
does not have jurisdiction to hear the present matter. In particular, it mentioned that the
parties voluntarily and explicitly agreed upon clause IX.4 and the dispute shall be
exclusively decided by the Sofia District Court.
36. In case FIFA retained jurisdiction, the Respondent indicated the following:
-
It had never signed the Annex with the Claimant.
-
As to the rental agreement, it had verbally agreed with the Claimant to pay the
amount of BGN 8,000 for the rent.
-
It did not sideline the Claimant from the team on 20 August 2024.
-
It is a small club, and therefore only one person is responsible for handling the
administrative processes “thus, it is not surprising that in the few days the fitness
coaches were not aware about the mutual termination of the Claimant’s Contract.”
-
The Claimant concluded the Termination Agreement on 2 September 2024. In
particular it mentioned that (i) the visit to the doctor would not take more than an
hour, (ii) it “was the end date of the registration period in Bulgaria and despite that the
rest of the team had a day off as the Claimant mentioned the Act of Termination had to
be signed whiten the registration period in order to facilities the signing of the Claimant
with another club outside the registration period”, and that (iii) the Respondent is
waiting for the decision of the Claimant’s complaint before the Prosecutor's Office of
Republic of Bulgaria.
37. Regarding the Claimant’s signature differences, the Respondent mentioned that he “simply
does not have an established handwriting as one time he writes lowercase letters as in the Rent
contract and the Act of Termination and other times with capital letters as in the Contract and
the Complaint. Sometimes the Claimant writes the “e” without the accent, and other times with
the accent “é”.”
38. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“Primarily:
1) To decline jurisdiction over this dispute and to render the claim of the player Kevin
Bemanga inadmissible.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16047
Alternatively, only if the above is rejected:
2) To reject any and all claims made by the player Kevin Bemanga against PFC SEPTEMVRI to
the extent they are admissible.”
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
39. With regard to FIFA’s jurisdiction, the Claimant stated that initiating proceedings in a
Bulgarian civil court could potentially expose the Respondent to criminal liability. In this
regard, he expressed surprise at the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection and proposed
that the dispute be resolved through FIFA mediation or arbitration instead.
40. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent had failed to substantiate its reply,
particularly concerning the alleged signing of the Termination Agreement on 2 September
2024. The only evidence submitted by the Respondent consists of copies of the Contract,
the Termination Agreement, and a decision rendered by FIFA’s deciding bodies.
41. Regarding the signature discrepancies, the Claimant questioned the authenticity of the
signatures on the Termination Agreement, noting inconsistencies and suggesting that the
Respondent’s copy was created after the fact to counter his arguments. He also highlighted
that the metadata of the Termination Agreement copies indicated that they were created
after the Claimant’s request, casting further doubt on the Respondent’s claims. Moreover,
the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent had not provided any tangible evidence to
support its assertions. Accordingly, the Claimant reiterated his request for the appointment
for evidentiary and forensic expert.
42. The Claimant requested that FIFA dismiss the Respondent’s claims, uphold the Claimant’s
requests for relief, and consider inviting the parties to mediate the dispute through the
Football Tribunal. He also asked the Football Tribunal to inquire whether the Respondent
maintains or renounces its jurisdictional objection. Finally, he requested that the
Respondent’s claims be dismissed, and the Claimant’s relief be granted in full.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
43. The Respondent’s position remained unchanged, as did its requests for relief.
44. Moreover, the Respondent mentioned that it would not mediate the dispute.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16047
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
45. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 3 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
46. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a French player and a Bulgarian club.
47. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent, on one hand, contested the
jurisdiction of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 9 of the Contract, alleging that
the competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment
contract are the courts of Sofia in Bulgaria. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the
Claimant stressed that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.
48. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 of the Regulations (January 2025 edition), FIFA has jurisdiction to hear employmentrelated disputes between a player and a club with an international dimension “without
prejudice to the right of any player (…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment
related disputes”.
49. In the present matter, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had
unambiguously and exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the
Contract would be submitted to the “Sofia District Court, which is the only competent court”
pursuant to clause.
50. The Chamber recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court, and
that such choice shall always prevail. In fact, the Chamber, recalling its jurisprudence and
that of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in this regard, highlighted that even if the
choice of law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g., a generic reference is made
to a region/city), FIFA is not competent when the parties have exclusively agreed upon the
jurisdiction of a civil court. In addition, the Chamber emphasized that art. 22 par. 1 of the
Regulations provides a clear hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16047
51. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to hear
the dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent on the basis of the Contract.
52. However, the Chamber recalled that, in addition to the Contract, there were two additional
documents mentioned by the parties: the alleged Annex and the alleged Termination
Agreement. In particular, the Chamber observed the following:
-
On one hand, the Claimant argued that both parties concluded the Contract and the
Annex. On the other hand, the Respondent mentioned that both parties only concluded
the Contract.
-
The Claimant denied signing the Termination Agreement. The Respondent considered
that both parties concluded the Termination Agreement.
-
The Claimant made an evidentiary request for a copy of the Annex and the Termination
Agreement.
53. With regards to the Claimant’s evidentiary request of the Annex, the Chamber observed
that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate that the evidence requested is likely to exist.
In fact, the Chamber noted that, apart from presenting a rental agreement in his name and
a WhatsApp communication with a third person stating that it is common to sign additional
contracts in the Club’s country i.e., Bulgaria, it did not have elements to conclude that such
Annex existed. Moreover, the Chamber took note that, following the Claimant’s evidentiary
request, the Respondent contested the existence of the Annex in its response and final
comments, but no further evidence was provided by the Claimant. Therefore, on the basis
of the documentation on file and the information provided by both parties, the Chamber
concluded that such Annex does not exist.
54. Moreover, the Chamber recalled art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, which states that
“[…] a party submitting an evidentiary request shall demonstrate that the evidence requested is
likely to exist and is relevant. An adverse inference may be drawn from a party’s reaction to an
evidentiary request”. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that it did not have elements to
draw an adverse inference.
55. Subsidiarily, even if such Annex existed, the Chamber stated that the Claimant clearly
mentioned that it was an Annex to the Contract. In fact, in the Chamber’s understanding,
the Annex was linked to the Contract and, consequently, the jurisdiction clause of the
Contract would be applicable to this alleged Annex as well.
56. On the basis of all the above considerations, and considering that the only contract binding
on the parties is the Contract, which contains an exclusive jurisdiction over civil courts, the
Chamber confirmed that, the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim
of the Claimant.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16047
57. Finally, and for the sake of clarity, the Chamber stated that the analysis regarding whether
the Termination Agreement was forged, as well as the related evidentiary request, should
be set aside. This is because the Claimant did not base his claim on this agreement and, in
fact, explicitly requested that it be disregarded. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that
any analysis in this respect would be moot.
b. Costs
58. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
59. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
60. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16047
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Kevin
Balongo Bemanga.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16047
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15