Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18355
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Maksym Drachenko
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Maksym Drachenko, Ukraine
RESPONDENT:
Kyzylzhar, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18355
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 January 2020, the Ukrainian player Maksym Drachenko (hereinafter, the Player or
the Claimant) and the Kazakhstani club Kyzylzhar (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the First Contract) valid until 10 November
2020.
2.
On 16 January 2021, the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties)
concluded another employment contract (hereinafter, the Second Contract), valid until 15
November 2021.
3.
According to Clause 8 of the Second Contract:
“8.1. All disputes arising in the process of execution of this employment contract will be
resolved through negotiations.
8.2. If the Parties have not reached an agreement through negotiations, then the dispute is
subject to consideration by the Conciliation Commission of the Employer in the manner
prescribed by the Code.
8.3. If the dispute between the Parties is not settled in the Conciliation Commission of the
Employer, then it is subject to settlement in the legal bodies of the KFF in the manner
prescribed by the regulatory documents of the KFF.
8.4. If the dispute between the Parties is not resolved in the manner prescribed by the
regulatory documents of the KFF, then it is subject to consideration in accordance with the
Code”.
4.
According to the Player, on 22 April 2022 the Club provided him with the so-called “Letter
of guarantee for payment of outstanding wages and bonuses” (hereinafter, the Guarantee
Letter), in accordance with which:
“[The Club] guarantees you to close all financial obligations under [the First Contract] and
[the Second Contract] in the amount of 14,125,000 (fourteen million one hundred twentyfive thousand) tenge until April 30,2024”.
5.
According to the Guarantee Letter, the Club undertook to pay the aforementioned amount
of KZT 14,125,000 in the following 11 instalments:
o KZT 1,100,000 on 30 May 2022;
o KZT 1,100,000 on 30 June 2022;
o KZT 1,100,000 on 30 July 2022;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18355
o KZT 1,100,000 on 30 August 2022;
o KZT 1,100,000 on 30 September 2022;
o KZT 1,125,000 on 30 October 2022;
o KZT 1,000,000 on 30 November 2022;
o KZT 1,000,000 on 30 December 2022;
o KZT 1,000,000 on 30 January 2023;
o KZT 2,000,000 on 30 March 2024; and
o KZT 2,500,000 on 30 April 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 25 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Player asserted that the Club has only paid KZT 9,625,000 of the KZT
14,125,000 acknowledged by the Club in the Guarantee Letter. Accordingly, the Player
contended that KZT 4,500,000 remains outstanding.
8.
In addition, the Player also claimed to be entitled to interest at a rate of 19.06% on the
aforementioned outstanding amount, based on art. 113 of the Labour Code of the Republic
of Kazakhstan
9.
The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of all the above factual arguments, the Claimant (…) hereby respectfully requests
the FIFA FOOTBALL TRIBUNAL and its DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER to:
a) Accept the Statement of the Claimant (…) in full;
b) Condemn the Respondent (…), to pay the Claimant, (…) the following amounts:
- KZY 4 500 000 (four million five hundred thousand) tenge net as bonus (a one-time
personal payment).
c) Condemn the Respondent, (…), to pay the Claimant, (…), a penalty (interest) at the rate of
19,06% p.a. from each due amount”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18355
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA to entertain this case, based on
Clauses 9 and 8 of the First Contract and the Second Contract, respectively. According to
the Club, the Parties expressly agreed to refer their disputes to the legal bodies of the
Kazakhstan Football Federation (FFK).
11. The Club further argued not being aware of any agreement concluded between the Parties
other than the First Contract and the Second Contract. In this regard, the Club contended
that all the contracts were signed by the former president of the Club, Mr Loria Grigory
Otarovich (hereinafter, Mr Otarovich), which ended his mandate in March 2024.
12. The Club argued that after the conduction of an audit, a criminal case was initiated against,
inter alia, Mr Otarovich, which ended with the recognition of the Club as a victim in
accordance with the Resolution of the Head of the SIG, Senior Investigator of the
Investigative Department of the Economic Investigation Department for the North
Kazakhstan Region of the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In this regard, the Club
asserted that “criminal prosecution is underway against the President of [the Club], who signed
contracts with [the Player], and the documents presented are also the subject of an
investigation for validity”. Based on this, the Club considered the claim to be inadmissible
based on the legal principle of lis pendens.
13. The Club further questioned the authenticity of the documents submitted by the Player
with his claim. In particular, the Club contended that there are visual discrepancies
between the First Contract and the Second Contract submitted by the Player and the Club,
and also in the Guarantee Letter in which, according to the Club, a facsimile signature was
placed.
14. The Club lastly asserted that the Player failed to provide a calculation of his total income
under the employment relationship, and did not explain how exactly he determined the
requested amount. As such, the Club considered the Player’s request to be unfounded.
15. The Club requested the following relief:
“In view of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests FIFA DRC to make the following
decision:
1. The claim of the Plaintiff (…) is inadmissible, or, alternatively.
2. The claim of the Plaintiff (…) is rejected”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18355
c. Replica of the Claimant
16. On 21 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player (i) to provide his
comments on the reply presented by the Club and (ii) to provide the original copy of the
Guarantee Letter via post.
17. On 26 March 2025, the Player provided the original copy of the aforementioned document,
but failed to present any additional comments despite having been invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 25 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 20 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
19. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the DRC is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Ukrainian player and a Kazakhstani club.
20. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction
in favour of the “legal bodies” of the FFK, based on Clauses 9 and 8 of the First Contract and
the Second Contract, respectively.
21. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that in January 2025, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for National Dispute Resolution Chambers (NDRC) in order to
provide clarity and the necessary legal certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure,
applicable requirements and possible formal and permanent recognition by FIFA and
existing NDRCs.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18355
22. Most importantly, the members of the Chamber noted that the aforementioned rules have
been incorporated in art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to
cases brought before FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations).
23. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 25 February 2025, the Chamber
remarked that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on art. 22
of the Regulations (January 2025 edition), in accordance with which:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
(…)
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension;
the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be
decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution
body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in
accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such
jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a
collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties”.
24. Having confirmed that the present dispute is employment-related and has an international
dimension (i.e., claim for overdue payables arising from a document issued by the Club
within the employment relationship between a Ukrainian player and a Kazakhstani club),
the Chamber considered that said dispute in principle falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction.
25. In this context, the Chamber underscored that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction
in favour of an NDRC, the interested party challenging the Football Tribunal’s should first
demonstrate that the parties had validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant
decision-making body and, in such case, that such body has been officially recognised by
FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles.
The Chamber also highlighted that, according to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
these conditions were cumulative and should all be met at the time a party submitted a
claim to FIFA.
26. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that it first of all had to analyse whether the
Parties had clearly and exclusively agreed on the jurisdiction of the NDRC of Kazakhstan.
27. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that the Guarantee Letter –as the
document at stake in the present proceedings– does not contain a jurisdiction clause. As a
result, the Chamber underlined that this analysis had to be made on the basis of the
employment contract concluded between the Parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18355
28. Considering that the Second Contract was the last employment contract concluded
between the Parties, this analysis had to be made based on Clause 8 of the Second
Contract, which stipulates the following:
“8.1. All disputes arising in the process of execution of this employment contract will be
resolved through negotiations.
8.2. If the Parties have not reached an agreement through negotiations, then the dispute is
subject to consideration by the Conciliation Commission of the Employer in the manner
prescribed by the Code.
8.3. If the dispute between the Parties is not settled in the Conciliation Commission of the
Employer, then it is subject to settlement in the legal bodies of the KFF in the manner
prescribed by the regulatory documents of the KFF.
8.4. If the dispute between the Parties is not resolved in the manner prescribed by the
regulatory documents of the KFF, then it is subject to consideration in accordance with the
Code”.
29. After having analysed the foregoing provision, the members of the Chamber considered
that it was unclear whether the “legal bodies” of the FFK is indeed the NDRC of Kazakhstan.
The Chamber also noted that the Club failed to provide any evidence to conclude
otherwise.
30. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Chamber further observed that, in the absence of
a settlement before the “legal bodies” of the FFK, the Parties could also submit their
disputes “in accordance with the Code”. The Chamber also considered this reference to be
unclear, as it was not specified in the Second Contract which body would have jurisdiction
“in accordance with the Code”. The Club also failed to further substantiate or prove this
extent.
31. The Chamber, therefore, concluded that the Parties did not agree on a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Kazakhstan and, consequently, decided that
the Club’s challenge to FIFA’s jurisdiction shall be rejected.
32. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber considered relevant to point out that, in any
case, the NDRC of Kazakhstan has not been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with
the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles when the present claim
was filed before FIFA.
33. As a result, the Chamber unanimously ruled that the Football Tribunal had jurisdiction to
hear the present claim as to the substance.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18355
34. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the claim
35. The Chamber noted that the Club also challenged the admissibility of the claim, arguing
that it is affected by lis pendens, based on the ongoing criminal proceedings conducted
against Mr Otarovich.
36. The Chamber, therefore, had to examine the admissibility of the claim and the alleged lis
pendens before considering the merits of the case at hand.
37. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, on the basis of the principle of lis pendens, a
decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case, which has
already been brought before and is still pending at another (competent) deciding body. The
principle of lis pendens is applicable if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the
disputes and the object of the matter in dispute are identical.
38. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber underscored that there is no
evidence on file regarding a parallel proceeding between the Parties in connection with the
Player’s requests based on the Guarantee Letter before any other competent deciding
body.
39. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the present claim is not affected by lis
pendens.
40. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that the criminal proceedings conducted against
Mr Otarovich do not affect the admissibility of the present claim and, therefore, the
enforceability of the Guarantee Letter and the Player’s entitlement to the amounts
requested can be analysed in the merits of the dispute.
c. Burden of proof
41. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18355
d. Merits of the dispute
42. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
43. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club for overdue payables arising from the Guarantee Letter,
allegedly issued by the Club.
44. The members of the Chamber started the analysis of the claim at hand by briefly recalling
the Parties’ positions, starting with the Player, according to whom the Club has only
remitted KZT 9,625,000 of the KZT 14,125,000 that it undertook to pay under the Guarantee
Letter. The Player therefore claimed to be entitled to KZT 4,500,000, as well as interest at a
rate of 19.06% on the aforementioned amount, based on the Labour Code of Kazakhstan.
45. The Chamber also noted that, for its part, the Club acknowledged that the Parties had
entered into an employment relationship by means of the First Contract and the Second
Contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Club contended that the documents
submitted by the Player, in particular, the Guarantee Letter, contained visual discrepancies
and therefore questioned its authenticity. In particular, the Club argued that the Guarantee
Letter included a facsimile signature. In addition, the Club asserted that the payments
allegedly received by the Player do not confirm that the payments were made in
accordance with the Guarantee Letter, and the latter failed to provide any calculation for
the payments that were made.
46. The Chamber first noted that it remained undisputed that the Parties had entered into two
employment contracts, and that the Parties’ employment relationship expired naturally at
the end of the Second Contract. It was also not disputed that Mr Otarovich was the
president of the Club when the Parties concluded the First Contract and the Second
Contract, as well as when the Guarantee Letter was allegedly signed by Mr Otarovich.
47. In this context, and before analysing the Player’s entitlement to the amounts requested,
the members of the Chamber acknowledged that they first had to analyse whether, as
argued by the Club, the Guarantee Letter had been forged.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18355
48. In this respect, the DRC remarked that although, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies
are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged
falsified signature or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the
competent national criminal authority, in order to be able to solve such disputes in a
satisfactory and timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation and conclusion
of a potential criminal investigation, the Football Tribunal adopts a practical procedure in
such cases, namely to request the party who claims the authenticity of the disputed
document to provide its original version via regular mail. If for a layman the document
appears to be authentic and in line with the further documentation on file, such document
is considered as authentic for the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.
49. After having carefully analysed the original copy of the Guarantee Letter provided by the
Player via post and after comparing it with the different contracts concluded between the
Parties, the Chamber was satisfied that the signature included appears to be authentic and
not a facsimile. In addition, the signature included in the Guarantee Letter appears to be
Mr Otarovich’s.
50. Based on the above, and considering that it remained undisputed that Mr Otarovich was
the president of the Club when the Guarantee Letter was issued –and therefore had
capacity to act on its behalf– the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s arguments in this
regard.
51. The Chamber subsequently went on to analyse the Player’s entitlement to the amounts
requested, and noted that the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied
with the financial terms under the Guarantee Letter.
52. In this regard, considering that the Club failed to provide any evidence of compliance with
the aforementioned terms, and bearing in mind the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber ruled that the Club is held liable to pay the Player the outstanding amounts
deriving from the Guarantee Letter, namely, KZT 4,500,000, corresponding to the last two
instalments of KZT 2,000,000 and KZT 2,500,000, which were due on 30 March and 30 April
2024, respectively.
53. The Chamber decided to reject the Club’s arguments regarding the alleged lack of
explanation and/or justification of the amounts requested, in that the evidence submitted
by the Player confirms that the payments made by the Club were made in connection with
the Guarantee Letter, as they started in October 2022, i.e., after both the First Contract and
the Second Contract had expired and also after the Guarantee Letter was issued on 29 April
2022.
54. The Chamber lastly found that the Player’s request to be awarded interest at a rate of
19.06% had no contractual basis. As such, and taking into consideration the constant
practice of the DRC in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest at the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18355
rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following the respective
due dates, until the date of effective payment, as follows:
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of KZT 2,000,000 as from 31 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of KZT 2,000,000 as from 1 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
56. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
57. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
58. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
59. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
e. Costs
60. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18355
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18355
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Maksym Drachenko.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is admissible.
3.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
4.
The Respondent, Kyzylzhar, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
KZT 4,500,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of KZT 2,000,000 as from 31 March 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of KZT 2,500,000 as from 1 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18355
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18355
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 16