Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16566
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Rai Nascimento de Oliveira
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Rai Nascimento de Oliveira, Spain and Brazil
Represented by Alejandro Pascual Madrid
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Ludogorets, Bulgaria
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16566
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Brazilian and Spanish player Rai Nascimento de Oliveira (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent); and
•
The Bulgarian club Ludogorets (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant), affiliated to the Bulgarian Football Union (BFU).
On 30 January 2023, the Player’s agent, Mr. Borja Alcazo (hereinafter: the Player’s Agent 1),
and a contact saved in his phone as “Dimitar Bozhkilov” (hereinafter: Mr. Bozhkilov), who,
according to the Player, is the Club’s Head of Recruitment, responsible for the Football
Operations Department and the designated point of contact for English-language matters
(hereinafter: Mr. Bozhkilov), had the following WhatsApp conversation (quoted verbatim):
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Who is it?”
Player’s Agent 1: “I would like to speak with you
About football”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“??”
Player’s Agent 1: “Ludogorets interesting in my player”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Who?”
Player’s Agent 1: “You still work there?”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Yes
Please present yourself
(…)
4 years contract:
-Total guaranteed budget 1.6m EUR net.
-CL group stage increase in salary 100k EUR per year
-EL group stage bonus 30k EUR
-Cup of Bulgaria 10k EUR -Champions of Bulgaria 20k EUR max
-Bonus per win(500-2500
-Flights( 1500-2000 EUR per year)
-Accommodation”
Player’s Agent 1: “Until June 2026 41 months? CL is Champions League?”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“It is for 48 months
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16566
Yes, exactly”
Player’s Agent 1: “In Europe league finish in June”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“And you have to indicate me what compensation for you if you
convince the player to accept these conditions
Yes
We can make it 4.5 years”
Player’s Agent 1: “3 and a half
What’s is that bonus is for each game? 500-2500?”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
3.
“Every win in the Bulgarian league he can get from 500 up to 2500
eur. For example last year we had 25 wins per season in Premier
League Bulgaria – on average that is 25k net in bonuses”
On 31 January 2023, the Player’s Agent 1 and Mr. Bozhkilov had the following WhatsApp
conversation (quoted verbatim):
Player’s Agent 1: “Hello Dimitar, I attach the conditions of Rai
RAI’S CONTRACT
- Since February 2023 until June 30 2026,
- 41 months x 60,000 € net
- Champions League group stage increase in salary 100k EUR per
year
- Europe League or Conference League group stage bonus 30k EUR
- Cup of Bulgaria 10k EUR
- Champions of Bulgaria 20k EUR max
- Bonus per win (500-2500 EUR)
- CAR
- Flights (4 business class tickets per year)
- House accommodation
(…)
Hola Dimitar”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“For the player
41 months (1.435.000 Eur net):
- 200.00 EUR net signing fee
- 1.235.000 EUR net total (salary)
- All above mentioned bonuses
- Car
- Accommodation
- Flights (1500-2000 eur per ano)
For Borja: 20% future sale plus commission what we discussed on the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16566
phone”
(…)
I am waiting the owner to confirm how much max we can pay to you.
But you have to tell me if you confirm the conditions of the player.
This is our maximum.”
Player’s Agent 1: “Yes is ok
Monday I’ll be there”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“(emoji)
I will call you as soon as I have response! The boss is in USA”
Player’s Agent 1: “Send me the structure videos please”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
4.
“(videos)”
On 1 February 2023, the Player’s Agent 1 and Mr. Bozhkilov had the following WhatsApp
conversation (quoted verbatim):
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“I spoke with the owner. We are inviting you on Sunday in Sofia with
the player. Here we can speak for your commission amount, the
owner prefers face to face discussion about that. Is the player
training? Because we need him to be fit!
(document attached with flight tickets)
For Rai
For you”
Player’s Agent 1: “Poor Rai 4 hours in Amsterdam”
5.
On 7 February 2023, the parties concluded a document titled “Contract of employment of
professional football player” (hereinafter: the Federative Contract). The duration of the
Federative Contract was established as follows:
“II. DURATION OF THE CONTRACT
II.I.I. This contract shall be concluded for a period until 31.12.2025 and shall enter into
force on the date immediately following the date of signing hereof. The contract shall
terminate upon its expiry on 31.12.2025.”
6.
In clause III of the Federative Contract, the parties stipulated the Player’s remuneration:
“III. REMUNERATION AND PAYMENT
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16566
1. For the services provided as a professional football player, the CLUB shall pay to the
PLAYER remuneration for the entire duration of this contract as follows:
Basic monthly remuneration of the PLAYER in the amount of BGN 57 976,44 payable to
the PLAYER by the 15th day of the month following the month for which such
remuneration is due.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby clearly established that after the CLUB has made
the necessary deductions from the basic monthly remuneration under this p. III.I
required by applicable Bulgarian laws and regulations (deductions for taxes, social and
health securities due in Bulgaria), the PLAYER shall receive as a net amount per month
the equivalence of Bulgarian leva of EUR 26 463 calculated in accordance with the official
fixed exchange rate of the Bulgarian National Bank EUR/BGN EUR 1 = BGN 1,95583.
2. Remunerations shall be paid via bank transfer to a bank account of the PLAYER. In the
remunerations set forth above any additional labor remunerations under Bulgaria law
are included.”
7.
Clause IX of the Federative Contract included the following:
“IX. CONTRACT TERMINATION
IX.1. The contract between the CLUB and the PLAYER may be terminated under the
provisions of the applicable FIFA regulations and the Bulgarian Labour Code
IX.2. Within 7 (seven) days as of termination of the contract by mutual written agreement
between the Parties, the CLUB shall submit to the Sport and Technical Department of the
BFU notification and the original termination agreement. In such 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.”
8.
Additionally, clause X of the Federative Contract stated:
“X. OTHER PROVISIONS
X.1 The Club and the Player shall observe the provisions of the Internal rules and
procedures of the Club, if any.
X.2. The CLUB shall provide the PLAYER with apartment for the duration of the Contract
at the expense of the CLUB up to the rental amount of BGN 600 per month.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16566
X.3. The CLUB shall provide the PLAYER, at CLUB's expense, with round-trip airplane
tickets for each calendar year of the term of this agreement Bulgaria/Romania-SpainBulgaria/Romania. The total sum of the tickets that will be at the expense of the CLUB
must not exceed EUR 2000 per calendar year. In any event, any fines and/or fees to be
paid due to rescheduling and/or cancellation of booked tickets by the CLUB, shall be
borne by the PLAYER.
X.4. The PLAYER shall be entitled to a car at CLUB'S expense. In any event, when the CLUB
is in the process of preparation for the coming season or in regulated timeout in
accordance with Regulations of the Bulgarian Football Union (BFU), the provisions of the
preceding sentence shall not apply and the PLAYER shall return the car for the duration
of the said period. In addition, the provision of this clause X.4. shall only apply in case
the PLAYER has a valid driving license allowing him to drive a car on the territory of the
Republic of Bulgaria and the European Union. In any event, if the PLAYER breaches the
relevant traffic laws and regulations, the PLAYER shall be obliged to immediately return
the car to the CLUB or a CLUB'S representative. The expenses related with the use and
the maintenance of the automobile shall be paid by the PLAYER. In the event of an
accident caused by the PLAYER the latter shall cover on his expense the repair works. In
the event that the insurer shall consider the automobile's insurance void due to the
PLAYER'S guilty conduct the repair works on the automobile shall be covered by the
PLAYER. After the termination of this agreement the PLAYER shall immediately return the
automobile to the CLUB or a CLUB's representative, together with all accessories and
documentation.
X.5. The CLUB shall pay to the PLAYER to a bank account indicated by the PLAYER a net
bonus (signing-on fee) in the amount of EUR 200,000 (two hundred thousand Euro)
payable within 10 (ten) business days as of the effective date of this agreement.
X.6. The Player shall be entitled to receive from the CLUB a one-time NET premium
amounting to EUR 150,000 (one hundred fifty thousand Euro) payable on 10 August
2024, provided that the PLAYER is contracted to the CLUB as at the said due date.
X.7. In case the Player is transferred by the CLUB to a third football club during the
employment relationship between the Player and the CLUB, the PLAYER will be entitled
to receive the equivalent of 20% (twenty percent) of the Net Profit Amount (the "Sell-on
Fee"). For the purpose of this Agreement as "Net Profit Amount” is considered the
subsequent transfer fee agreed for the Player by the CLUB less a) any solidarity
contribution deductions in accordance with the Player's passport, less b) any VAT and
other similar taxes associated with such transfer fee (if applicable), less(c) the costs
incurred by the CLUB for engaging the Player, including any and all transfer fees (fixed,
contingent, etc.), if any, as well as any agency/intermediation fees associated with the
engagement of the Player by the CLUB. The Sell-on Fee shall be NET and shall be paid by
the CLUB to the PLAYER within 10 (ten) business days after receipt by the CLUB of the
respective transfer fee or any portion or instalment thereof.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16566
9.
Also on 7 February 2023, the parties concluded a document entitled “Contract” (hereinafter:
the Employment Contract). The parties were identified as follows:
“1. PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB "LUDOGORETS" 1945 AD, having its seat and
registered office in Razgrad, 68A, Aprilsko Vastanie Str., 7th Floor, registered with the
Commercial Register at the Registry Agency under Unified Identification Code
201280347, with License issued by the Bulgarian Football Union, represented by the
Executive Director Mr. Angel Hristov Petrichev, hereinafter referred to as the "CLUB" and
2. Raí Nascimento de Oliveira, of Spanish nationality, born on 18 May 1998, holder of
Spanish passport No. XDE253783, issued on 10.06.2022 and valid until 09.06.2027, as a
PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER, hereinafter referred to as the "PLAYER".”
10.
The duration of the Employment Contract was as follows:
“II. DURATION OF THE CONTRACT
II. 1. This contract shall be concluded for a period until 30.06.2026 and shall enter into
force on the date immediately following the date of signing hereof. The contract shall
terminate upon its expiry on 30.06.2026.”
11.
In clause III of the Employment Contract, the parties stipulated the Player’s remuneration:
“III. REMUNERATION AND PAYMENT
III.I. For the services provided as a professional football player, the CLUB shall pay to the
PLAYER remuneration for the entire duration of this contract as follows:
Basic monthly remuneration of the PLAYER in the amount of BGN 57 976,44 payable to
the PLAYER by the 15th day of the month following the month for which such
remuneration is due.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby clearly established that after the CLUB has made
the necessary deductions from the basic monthly remuneration under this p. III.I
required by applicable Bulgarian laws and regulations (deductions for taxes, social and
health securities due in Bulgaria), the PLAYER shall receive as a net amount per month
the equivalence of Bulgarian leva of EUR 26 463 calculated in accordance with the official
fixed exchange rate of the Bulgarian National Bank EUR/BGN EUR 1 = BGN 1,95583.
(…)”
12.
Furthermore, clause IV of the Employment Contract included the parties’ rights and
obligations, inter alia, as follows:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16566
“IV. 1.5. The CLUB shall provide the PLAYER with qualified professionals for the scheduled
football plays and training activities.
IV.1.6. The CLUB shall place at PLAYER'S disposal and maintain in good order all training
grounds, changing rooms and sanitary premises in compliance with the technical and
hygienic requirements and instructions of the Bulgarian Football Union and the
Bulgarian Professional Football League.
(…)
IV.1.10. The CLUB shall provide and secure the PLAYER'S right to training and
rehabilitation for the entire term of the Contract. The CLUB shall not assign to the PLAYER
any obligations or activities other than those provided for herein.
IV.1.11. The CLUB shall duly notify the PLAYER of any changes in the training schedule.
(…)
IV.2.1. The PLAYER shall use all its energy, sports skills and talent to the CLUB's benefit,
do the necessary to maintain and improve his sports skills and condition, as well as not
to act in such manner that in general, and particularly before or during organized dub
events, trainings, competitions, championships, tournaments, could have adverse effect
on the player's mental or physical state.
IV.2.2. The PLAYER shall compete in all CLUB's football matches and events, trainings common and/or individual, in all activities that represent preparation for football games
or competitions. The above provision shall also apply when the PLAYER is not included
in the team for certain game, either as a start player or a substitute.
(…)”
13.
Clauses IX and X of the Employment Contract contained the following (quoted verbatim):
“IX. CONTRACT TERMINATION
IX. I. Upon termination of this contract, the rights of the PLAYER to play for the CLUB shall
be terminated.”
“X.OTHER PROVISIONS
X.1 The Club and the Player shall observe the provisions of the the Internal rules and
procedures of the Club, if any.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16566
X.2. The CLUB shall provide the PLAYER with apartment for the duration of the Contract
at the expense of the CLUB up to the rental amount of BGN 600 per month.
X.3. The CLUB shall provide the PLAYER, at CLUB's expense, with round-trip airplane
tickets for each calendar year of the term of this agreement Bulgaria/Romania-SpainBulgaria/Romania. The total sum of the tickets that will be at the expense of the CLUB
must not exceed EUR 2000 per calendar year. In any event, any fines and/or fees to be
paid due to rescheduling and/or cancellation of booked tickets by the CLUB, shall be
borne by the PLAYER.
X.4. The PLAYER shall be entitled to a car at CLUB's expense. In any event, when the CLUB
is in the process of preparation for the coming season or in regulated timeout in
accordance with Regulations of the Bulgarian Football Union (BFU), the provisions of the
preceding sentence shall not apply and the PLAYER shall return the car for the duration
of the said period. In addition, the provision of this clause X.4. shall only apply in case
the PLAYER has a valid driving license allowing him to drive a car on the territory of the
Republic of Bulgaria and the European Union. In any event, if the PLAYER breaches the
relevant traffic laws and regulations, the PLAYER shall be obliged to immediately return
the car to the CLUB or a CLUB's representative. The expenses related with the use and
the maintenance of the automobile shall be paid by the PLAYER. In the event of an
accident caused by the PLAYER the latter shall cover on his expense the repair works. In
the event that the insurer shall consider the automobile's insurance void due to the
PLAYER'S guilty conduct the repair works on the automobile shall be covered by the
PLAYER. After the termination of this agreement the PLAYER shall Immediately return the
automobile to the CLUB or a CLUB's representative, together with all accessories and
documentation. The CLUB shall provide and maintain all relevant motor insurances
(third party liability and risk insurance) at its own cost.
X.5. The CLUB shall pay to the PLAYER to a bank account indicated by the PLAYER a net
bonus (signing-on fee) in the amount of EUR 200,000 (two hundred thousand Euro)
payable within 10 (ten) business days as of the effective date of this agreement.
X.6. The Player shall be entitled to receive from the CLUB a one-time NET premium
amounting to EUR 150,000 (one hundred fifty thousand Euro) payable on 10 August
2024, provided that the PLAYER is contracted to the CLUB as at the said due date.
X.7. In case the Player is transferred by the CLUB to a third football club during the
employment relationship between the Player and the CLUB, the PLAYER will be entitled
to receive the equivalent of 20% (twenty percent) of the Net Profit Amount (the "Sell-on
Fee")- For the purpose of this Agreement as 'Net Profit Amount is considered the
subsequent transfer fee agreed for the Player by the CLUB less a) any solidarity
contribution deductions in accordance with the Player's passport, less b) any VAT and
other similar taxes associated with such transfer fee (if applicable), less (c) the costs
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16566
incurred by the CLUB for engaging the Player, including any and all transfer fees (fixed ,
contingent, etc.), if any, as well as any agency/intermediation fees associated with the
engagement of the Player by the CLUB. The Sell-on Fee shall be NET and shall be paid by
the CLUB to the PLAYER within 10 (ten) business days after receipt by the CLUB of the
respective transfer fee or any portion or installment thereof.
X.8. The Player hereby declares and confirms that there is no legal and/or sporting
prohibition, including FIFA's and/or UEFA's and/or any of their affiliated associations
preventing him from entering into this contract. In particular, the PLAYER hereby
represents, warrants and confirms to the CLUB that the PLAYER is free to sign with the
CLUB, that he is not engaged to any other football club as at the date hereof and that
the employment relationship with his immediately preceding club EC Bahia (affiliated to
the CBF) has expired or was terminated by mutual consent prior to the date hereof.
X.9. The Player hereby declares that all the information provided by him or disclosed to
the CLUB prior to signing this agreement is complete, correct and accurate, and the
PLAYER hereby undertakes to inform the CLUB of any change of such information.”
14.
Clase XI.3 of the Employment Contract established:
“XI.3. Solely and exclusively for the purpose of the registration of the PLAYER with the
Bulgarian Football Union, the PLAYER shall be obliged, along with the execution hereof,
to sign two separate contracts of employment of professional football player in the form
and substance approved by the Bulgarian Football Union. The first contract of
employment will be concluded for a term effective until 31 December 2025, and the
second contract of employment will be concluded for a term effective as of 1 January
2026 until 30 June 2026. The Parties hereto explicitly and irrevocably agree that the
contracts mentioned above shall be solely for the purpose of the registration of the
Player with the Bulgarian Football Union and neither the Club, nor the Player can
exercise any rigths vis-à-vis the other party stemming from the said contracts. Moreover,
the provisions of this Contract are intended to prevail and supersede the provisions of
the contracts aforementioned, it being explicitly understood that this Contract (and any
other amendments thereto) will be the only instrument governing the relationship
between the Player and the Club with respect to the subject matter hereof.
This Player's obligations contained herein is essential and its breach by the Player thereof
would be considered as substantial breach of Contract giving rise to a claim for
compensation for damages by the Club.”
15.
Clause XI.5 of the Employment Contract stated:
“XI.5. 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 -
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16566
notifications, notices etc., sent to the default party to the address indicated hereunder,
shall be deemed duly served.”
16.
Also on 7 February 2023, the Club announced the signing of the Player on its official
webpage.
17.
On 23 July 2023, the Player’s Agent 1 and Mr. Bozhkilov had the following WhatsApp
conversation (quoted verbatim):
Player’s Agent 1: “Hello Dimitar, what happens that want to leave Rai without a
Champions League license? He is an example of a professional player”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Borja, we have 27 players now. I cannot say to the coach which player
to choose. Only 17 foreigners can be in the list”
18.
In the 2023/2024 season, the Club won the Efbet liga – Championship Group.
19.
On 25 May 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player stating that he had been absent from
work on 23 and 24 May 2024 without explicit authorization. In this regard, the Club asserted
that his behavior constituted a material breach of the Employment Contract and, therefore,
informed him that the Club had opened disciplinary proceedings against him. Lastly, the
Club requested that the Player provide written explanations by 28 May 2024 and return to
the Club’s premises and fulfil his employment obligations no later than 28 May 2024.
20.
On 26 May 2024, the Club played a match against Levski Sofia and the Player did not
participate.
21.
On 27 May 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s letter arguing that, due to a severe family
emergency, he had been forced to bring forward his trip back to his home country by two
days. Additionally, the Player stated that he informed the coach about this situation, and
the latter told him that there was no issue with him leaving earlier. The Player further
contended that, considering that the Club’s board had already allowed other foreign
players to bring forward their trips, he misunderstood this as permission to travel. Lastly,
the Player expressed his apologies and clarified that he had not intended to breach the
contract.
22.
On 14 June 2024, the Player travelled from Sofia (Bulgaria) to Munich (Germany).
23.
On 23 June 2024, the Club played a match against SK Slovan Bratislava and the Player
played 10 minutes as a substitute.
24.
On 30 June 2024, the Player travelled from Munich (Germany) to Sofia (Bulgaria).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16566
25.
On 10 July 2024, the Player’s Agent 1 and Mr. Bozkhilov had the following WhatsApp
conversation (quoted verbatim):
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“You need to find a team for Rai in the next 10 days
The situation is very hard
We gave yoi 1 year to look and nothing”
Player’s Agent 1: “Good afternoon Dimitar, we - have talked to more than 30 ' teams
you think it is easy to go look for something good when a player
doesn't play nothing . Stay 3 years without working in the world of
football and we will see which club signs you...”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Why 3 years?
The problem is you are asking a lot of momey
Money”
Player’s Agent 1: “Next week you’re in Sofia’s”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“You took big commission, the player took big signing fee. You have to
make compromises if the player wants to play
There will be a team, but you must explain to Rai that he must start
playing even for less money
Otherwise he is finished for football
Trust me”
Players’ Agent 1: “You're telling me that he hasn't played because you haven't taken
commission?
We are talking about something that does not even come to the case
that has to do with the sports issue with the economic and besides
you accepted some conditions now you have to fulfil them”
26.
On 10 July 2024, 22 players were summoned to play against Dinamo Batumi and the Player
was called up for training, with three other players.
27.
On 16 July 2024, the Club’s translator, Mr. Denislav Manolov (hereinafter: Mr. Manolov) sent
the following WhatsApp message to the Player:
“Schedule for tomorrow:
08:30 - At TC
08:45 - 10:00 - Video
10:00 - 11:30 - Training
11:30 - 13:30 - Lunch Break
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16566
13:30 - At TC
14:00 - 15:30-Video
15:30 - 16:00 - Coffee break
16:00 - 17:30 – Training”
28.
On 17 July 2024, 23 players were summoned to play against Dinamo Batumi and the Player
was called up for training, with four other players.
29.
Also on 17 July 2024, the Player and Mr. Manolov had the following WhatsApp conversation
(quoted verbatim):
Player:
“Esto quien lo hizo?
Buen día hermano”
Mr. Manolov:
“Moti”
Player:
“El de mañana?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Hoy. No as ido”
Player:
“Me dice que no tengo que ver video”
Mr. Manolov:
“Quien”
Player:
“Moti”
Mr. Manolov:
“No veas entonces”
Player:
“Mánamelo”
Mr. Manolov:
“Asta las 15:30 libre”
Freely translated into English:
Player:
“Who did this?
Good morning, brother.”
Mr. Manolov:
“Moti.”
Player:
“Tomorrow's?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Today. You haven't gone.”
Player:
“It says I don't have to watch the video."
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16566
Mr. Manolov:
“Who?”
Player:
“Moti.”
Mr. Manolov:
“Don't watch it then.”
Player:
“Send it to me.”
Mr. Manolov:
“I'm free until 3:30.”
30.
On 21 July 2024, 21 players were summoned to play against CSKA-Sofia and the Player was
not included on the list.
31.
On 22 July 2024, the Player and Mr. Manolov had the following WhatsApp conversation
(quoted verbatim):
Mr. Manolov:
“Rai buenos días
A que hora va a venir tu agente hoy
Y también te vamos a dar el programa de entreno hoy”
Player:
“Reenviado
Hey,
Saturday and Sunday (20&21.07) - Days off
Monday (22.07)
Arrive at TC - 17:30
Training -18:00
Ya me lo dieron
Buenos días
Me dijo por la tarde no se si a las 17:00 u a las 17:00 y algo”
Mr. Manolov:
“Dobre Pero seguro viene, no?”
Freely translated into English:
Mr. Manolov:
“Good morning, Rai
What time is your agent coming today
And we'll also give you the training programme for today.”
Player:
“Forwarded
Hey,
Saturday and Sunday (20&21.07) - Days off
Monday (22.07)
Arrive at TC - 17:30
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16566
Training -18:00
They already gave it to me
Good morning
He told me in the afternoon, I don't know if it's at 17:00 or 17:00 and
something.”
Mr. Manolov:
“Dobre But he's definitely coming, right?"
32.
On 24 July 2024, 22 players were summoned to play against Dinamo Minsk and the Player
was not included on the list.
33.
Also on 24 July 2024, Mr. Manolov sent the Player the following message:
“For tomorrow
08:30 – Lower Training center
09:00 – 10:30 – Video
10:30 Training
12:00 – 13:30 Lunch break
13:30 – 15:30 Video
15:30 – 16:00 – Coffee break
16:00 – 17:30 – Training”
(…)
All the programs will be at the lower training center”
34.
On 25 July 2024, the Player and Mr. Manolov had the following WhatsApp conversation
(quoted verbatim):
Player:
“Que horas?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Misma”
(…)
Tienes libre ahora
A las 18:00 entreno con el equipo B
(…)
Tomorrow 26/07/24
09:00 – Lower training ground
10:00 – Training
17:00 – Lower training ground
18:00 – Training
(…)
Player:
“O sea lo de Gaby no voy entonces?”
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16566
Mr. Manolov:
“El entreno es abajo
A mi me envían esto (…)
Y yo te lo doy”
(…)
Player:
“Pero que ponía una cosa en el grupo y tu me enviaste lo que te
dijeron ya ya”
Mr. Manolov:
“Sim
Error mío guapo
Perdona me
Mañana
Primer entreno con el equipo
Como ha dicho Niki en el grupo
Y el segundo
Es con el equipo B”
Freely translated into English:
Player:
“What time?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Same as always.
(…)
You're free now.
At 6 p.m., training with the B team.
(…)
Tomorrow, 26/07/24
9 a.m. – Lower training ground
10 a.m. – Training
5:00 p.m. – Lower training ground
6:00 p.m. – Training
(…)”
Player:
“So, I'm not going to Gaby's then?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Training is downstairs
They sent me this (...)
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16566
And I'm passing it on to you.”
Player:
“But there was something in the group chat and you sent me what
they told you.”
Mr. Manolov:
“Yes.
My mistake, mate.
Sorry.
Tomorrow
First training session with the team.
As Niki said in the group chat.
And the second one
is with the B team."
35.
On 27 July 2024, Mr. Manolov informed the Player that he had to train with the B team at
17:30.
36.
On 28 July 2024, Mr. Manolov informed the Player the following:
“11:00 entreno
13:00 salen para Sofía
Sobre las 10:30 tienes que estar en la base de abajo”
Freely translated into English:
“11:00 training
13:00 departure for Sofia
You need to be at the base downstairs at around 10:30.”
37.
On 29 July 2024, the Club’s second team (hereinafter: the second team or the B team) played
against CSKA 1948’s second team. The Player was part of the starting lineup.
38.
On 31 July 2024, 23 players were summoned to play against Dinamo Minsk and the Player
was not included on the list.
39.
On 3 August 2024, 23 players were summoned to play against Arda and the Player was not
included on the list.
40.
Also on 3 August 2024, the Club’s Director of Sports Administration, Mr Georgi
Karamandzhukov (hereinafter: Mr. Karamandzhukov), Mr. Manolov and the Player had a
meeting at the Club. Mr. Bozhkilov joined over the phone.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16566
41.
Also on 3 August 2024, Mr. Bozhkilov sent the following message to another individual also
identified as a Player’s agent, Mr. Nicolás Romeo Josa (hereinafter: the Player Agent 2):
“Porque no te tomaste en serio nuestra fecha límite hasta el 2 de agosto y demostraste
tu falta de respeto hacia nosotros, las únicas condiciones posibles son: -300.000 EUR
préstamo hasta el 30.06.2025 y -800.000 EUR transferencia. No se ponga en contacto
con nosotros con menos ofertas que esta.
Nuestra oferta de renuncia ya no es válida, ha caducado.”
Freely translated into English:
“Because you did not take our deadline of 2 August seriously and demonstrated your
lack of respect towards us, the only possible conditions are: a loan of EUR 300,000 until
30 June 2025 and a transfer of EUR 800,000. Please do not contact us with any offers
lower than this.
Our renounce offer is no longer valid; it has expired."
42.
On 6 August 2024, 23 players were summoned to play against Qarabag and the Player was
not included on the list.
43.
Between 8 August 2024 and 24 August 2024, the Player was given a training schedule that
consisted of video and training sessions.
44.
According to the Player, he trained alone on 8, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 August 2024.
Additionally, also according to the Player, on 14, 15, 17 and 19 August 2024 he assisted to
the video sessions alone. The Club acknowledged that the Player trained alone on 8, 9, 10,
12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 August 2024.
45.
On 8 August 2024, Mr. Manolov sent the following message to the Player (quoted verbatim):
“Es la una y no estás presente por programa. El entrenador, te está esperando aquí para
darte el programa para toda la semana”
Freely translated into English:
“It's one o'clock and you're not here for your programme. The coach is waiting for you
here to give you your programme for the whole week”
46.
Also on 8 August 2024, Mr. Bozhkilov and the Player’s Agent 2 had the following WhatsApp
conversation (quoted verbatim):
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16566
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“He is not training seriously, we are going to assess his efforts
everyday and if he is not putting all necessary efforts we will take the
necessary measures”
Player’s Agent 2: “I think the club is not clear about its training plan and is a little
confused. Everything happens because you don't want to negotiate a
financial solution and you know that the player is very professional
and takes care of himself.”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Its very clear, Nicolas. To negotiate what, I asked you to meet in
Madrid, I was there. I didnt see any intention. You dont want to
participate in negotiations.”
Player’s Agent 2: “If you don't want to talk about money you are not negotiating,
neither in Madrid nor in Sofia. If there is a possibility we are open to
talking”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“I told Rai to send someone in Madrid
Everything else is excuses
You know our offer. Accept it and we do it”
Player’s Agent 2: “That offer was not logical. It has already been rejected if you do not
move we cannot move forward that is the problem you do not want
to negotiate you want us to accept your offer only and that you
already know is not negotiating”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“It is logical because the player received high signing fee”
Player’s Agent 2: “We do not advance”
47.
On 9 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 sent the following WhatsApp message to Mr.
Bozhkilov (quoted verbatim):
“Listen, the situation is getting very complicated for the player. He has been training alone
since 16 July (making 8 hours per day of trainings) and the club is not allowing him to
train with the first team all this time, which is creating a severe prejudice to his career.
Also the club has been threatening him to accept a ridiculous settlement offer. So please,
we need the player to get back to the normal trainings with the first team ASAP.”
48.
Also on 9 August 2024, the Player and Mr. Manolov had the following WhatsApp
conversation (quoted verbatim):
Mr. Manolov:
“Training 09:30 will be at the lower training center
Training for tomorrow will be also at the lower training center”
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16566
Player:
“No veo nombre del responsable
Que me dice para ir
Así que me quedo aquí díselo a Moti”
Mr. Manolov:
“From the coaching staff: training today in the morning and tomorrow
at lower center”
Player:
“Nombres”
Mr. Manolov:
“Coach”
Player:
“Este es el nombre del entrenador del primer equipo? No lo creo”
Mr. Manolov:
“Meeting with technical director at 09:20”
Player:
“Nombres”
Mr. Manolov:
“In the office of the Head coach”
Player:
“De las personas”
Mr. Manolov:
“Con el entrenador del equipo A”
Player:
“Vale y no sabes su nombre?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Te está esperando el mister”
Player:
“Ok”
Mr. Manolov:
“From coaching staff Video is cancelled today”
Player:
“El entrenador que estaba en la sala y no hablaba dijo esto?
Si eres mi traduto porque pones en inglés si hablamos siempre en
español?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Así me lo envían”
Player:
“Quien bro?”
Mr. Manolov:
“No puedo hablar nada hermano
Me vas a meter en un lío…”
Player:
“Vale hermano”
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-16566
Mr. Manolov:
“De verdad…”
Player:
“Tu no tienes nada que ver
Son ellos”
Mr. Manolov:
“Luego lo como yo (emoji)”
Player:
“Que te hacen enviarme
Y no quieren que tu me digas el nombre suyo ya lose
Entonces te dijeron que no tengo que ir al video solo entrenar?”
Freely translated into English:
Mr Manolov:
“Training at 9:30 will be at the lower training centre
Tomorrow's training will also be at the lower training centre.”
Player:
“I can't see the name of the person in charge
Can you tell me where I need to go?
Then I'll stay here, tell Moti.’
Mr Manolov:
“From the coaching staff: training this morning and tomorrow at the
lower centre.”
Player:
“Names.”
Mr Manolov:
“Coach.”
Player:
“Is that the name of the first team coach? I don't think so.”
Mr Manolov:
“Meeting with the technical director at 9:20.”
Player:
“Names.”
Mr Manolov:
“In the head coach's office.”
Player:
“Of the people?”
Mr Manolov:
“With the A team coach.”
Player:
“OK, and you don't know his name?”
Mr Manolov:
“The coach is waiting for you.”
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-16566
49.
Player:
“OK.”
Mr. Manolov:
“From the coaching staff, the video is cancelled today.”
Player:
“The coach who was in the room and didn't speak said that?
If you're my translator, why are you writing in English when we always
speak Spanish?”
Mr. Manolov:
“That's how they sent it to me.”
Player:
“Who, bro?”
Mr. Manolov:
“I can't say anything, brother.
You're going to get me in trouble...”
Player:
“Okay, brother.”
Mr. Manolov:
“Really...”
Player:
“You have nothing to do with this
It's them”
Mr. Manolov:
“Then I'll eat it (emoji)”
Player:
“Why are they making you send me this
And they don't want you to tell me their names, I already know them
So they told you I don't have to go to the video, just train?”
On 11 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 sent the following WhatsApp message to Mr.
Bozhkilov (quoted verbatim):
“The player told me that he was summoned today for a meeting, even though it was his
free day. The club told him that he will not play anymore in the first team...and he will
be training alone all the time.
I don’t understand why the club is doing this. You are prejudicing the player career
without justification. Please you have to put the player back in the trainings immediately,
we cannot continue this way. Please.”
50.
On 13 August 2024, 21 players were summoned to play against Qarabag and the Player
was not included on the list.
51.
On 14 August 2024, the Player and Mr. Manolov had the following WhatsApp conversation
(quoted verbatim):
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-16566
Mr. Manolov:
“No video hoy”
Player:
“Me mandas una vez ya que estoy aquí?
Entonces me voy?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Me lo acaba de decir Mario
Que está ocupado”
Player:
“Que hago le voy a casa u que hago que aún sigo en el club? Me*”
Mr. Manolov:
“Ves a casa”
Player:
“Que horas vuelvo?
Porque eso de me avisar después de que esté ya esperando aquí está
mal.”
Mr. Manolov:
“Es problema de Mario
Está dormido el chaval
Ayer ni se presentó”
Freely translated into English:
Mr. Manolov:
“No video today.”
Player:
“Do you send me this when I'm already here?
Then I'll leave?”
52.
Mr. Manolov:
“Mario just told me
he's busy.”
Player:
“What should I do? Should I go home or stay at the club?”
Mr. Manolov:
“Go home.”
Player:
“What time should I come back?
Because telling me after I'm already waiting here is not right.”
Mr. Manolov:
“It's Mario's problem.
The kid is asleep.
He didn't even show up yesterday.”
Additionally, on 14 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 and Mr. Bozhkilov had the following
WhatsApp conversation:
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-16566
Player’s Agent 2: “Yesterday, the player kept training alone, making just running...the
club is puting the player in a critical situation, training at very
uncomfortable hours like yesterday, where he was training at 37
degrees....This makes no sense at all and the player cannot be training
alone any more, without knowing when he will be able to train with
the team. I again insist in the club reinstating him in the team
immediately. The situation is not sustainable at all.”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“Yesterday all the players trained at 35 degrees
The game at 21h was at 31 degrees, the temperatures are like that”
Player’s Agent 2: “I don't know what the rest of players did because Raí is not included
there, but we need to solve Rai's problem because he is not allowed
to train with the team and this situation cannot continue anymore...”
53.
On 15 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 and Mr. Bozhkilov had the following WhatsApp
conversation:
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“He is often getting injured and we are preserving him. We are doing
the best possible schedule for him”
Player’s Agent 2: “You know that he is not injured and he has been training alone from
the beginning of the preseason... let’s stop this please. The player
cannot keep in this situation and you know it. We need him to be put
in the trainings again with the team immediately”
Mr. Bozhkilov:
“He is with players from the team”
Player’s Agent 2: “You know it's not like that, he trained the other day with the players
that were not summoned in the official match but he is always
training alone in double sessions, mornings and afternoons..makes
no sense. Seems the club even deregistered the player.
Really, we need a solution now.”
54.
On 17 August 2024, 21 players were summoned to play against Levski and the Player was
not included on the list.
55.
According to the Player, on 17 August 2024 he had to wait alone in the video room for 20
minutes.
56.
On 18 August 2024, the Player and Mr. Manolov had the following WhatsApp conversation
(quoted verbatim):
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-16566
Player:
“Buenas tardes hermano, tengo que seguir el mismo itinerario de la
semana pasada?
(…)”
Mr. Manolov:
“Mañana te doy el programa
Que tengo trabajo y no puedo imprimirlo
No estoy por casa”
Player:
“Que horas tengo que ir? Vale”
Mr. Manolov:
“08:30”
Freely translated into English:
57.
Player:
"Good afternoon, brother, do I have to follow the same itinerary as
last week?
(...)”
Mr. Manolov:
“I'll give you the schedule tomorrow
I have work and can't print it out
I'm not at home”
Player:
“What time do I need to go?
OK”
Mr. Manolov:
“8:30”
On 21 August 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club terminating the Employment
Contract. The Player stated that the Club had been breaching the Employment Contract in
a severe manner, specifically since mid-July 2024, after the team started preseason.
According to the Player, he was prevented from training with the first team and was mainly
training alone all the time, doing double-session trainings and being required to attend
video sessions. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the Club had seriously threatened him,
forcing him to sign a termination agreement. In addition, the Player indicated that the Club
owed him EUR 150,000, which became due on 10 August 2024. The Player further
contended that the Club informed him that he had been deregistered and had no option
to return to the team within the remaining term of the Employment Contract. The Player
explained that he had been warning the Club during that time, especially in the last two
weeks, where he repeatedly told the Club to reinstate him and to stop the double-session
trainings as he was going to get injured. Nonetheless, the Player asserted that the Club did
not pay attention to his requests, leaving him no option but to terminate the Employment
Contract. Lastly, the Player granted the Club 10 days to attempt to find an amicable
solution.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-16566
58.
On 22 August 2024, 23 players were summoned to play against Petrocub and the Player
was called up for training with the B team.
59.
On 25 August 2024, 20 players were summoned to play against Beroe and the Player was
given a day off.
60.
On 29 August 2024, 22 players were summoned to play against Petrocub and the Player
was called up for training with the B team.
61.
On 30 August 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s letter, indicating that the
termination was surprising and unexpected, as the alleged violations had not been
communicated to the Club by the Player and the Club had never been put in default. In this
regard, the Club argued that its official address for any kind of notifications is the address
specified in the preamble of the Employment Contract. Specifically, the Club asserted that
the Player’s allegation – that the Club had been warned – was incorrect, as the warnings
were not made in accordance with the requirements of the contract. Additionally, the Club
alleged that it was the Player who breached the Employment Contract on 26 May 2024,
when he left the Club and the country, skipping the training process and one official match,
and then refused to sign a document imposing a fine. Furthermore, the Club stated that,
most of the time, the Player has trained either with his teammates from the first team or
with the second team and, exceptionally, had individual training sessions, based on his
physical condition. The Club explained that he trained at the Club’s facilities and with
supervision of a qualified coach and that, in any event, the Employment Contract did not
stipulate that the Club was obliged to send him to train with the first team only. The Club
also argued that it has not forced him to sign an agreement but attempted to reach a
mutually benefit solution. Regarding the owed bonus, the Club remarked that the Player
had not put it in default. While the Club acknowledged that the Player was not registered
for the UEFA club tournaments, it asserted that he was duly registered with the BFU and,
therefore, registering him for UEFA matches was not mandatory. Consequently, the Club
contended that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Employment Contract
but stated that it was open to entering into discussions to reach an amicable settlement.
62.
On 31 August 2024, the Club, the Brazilian club Vasco da Gama (hereinafter: Vasco da Gama)
and the player Erick Marcus (hereinafter: the New Player) concluded a document titled “Loan
agreement with a buy option clause” (hereinafter: the New Player Loan Agreement), by
means of which the New Player was transferred on loan from Vasco da Gama to the Club
for a USD 150,000 loan fee. Furthermore, the agreement included a buy option of USD
1,350,000.
63.
On an unspecified date, the Club and the New Player concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the New Player Contract), valid as from 1 July 2025 until 30 June 2028. Until 30
June 2026, the New Player would be entitled to a monthly salary of USD 24,000 net.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-16566
64.
On 1 September 2024, 21 players were summoned to play against Cherno More and the
Player was summoned to attend the match.
65.
On 21 January 2025, the Club, Vasco da Gama and the New Player concluded a document
titled “Agreement for the permanent transfer of professional football player” (hereinafter:
the New Player Transfer Agreement) by means of which the Club undertook to pay USD
1,100,000 net to Vasco da Gama on or until 15 February 2025 for the permanent transfer
of the New Player.
66.
On 3 February 2025, the Player entered into an employment relationship with the Brazilian
club Guarani Futebol Club (hereinafter: Guarani), valid as from 4 February 2025 until 31
March 2026, the terms and conditions of which were established under the following
documents:
•
A federative contract (hereinafter: the Subsequent Federative Contract) and a private
employment contract (hereinafter: the Subsequent Employment Contract), by means
of which the Player would be entitled to a monthly salary of BRL 20,000 and a
monthly housing allowance of BRL 3,000.
•
Furthermore, an image rights agreement signed between the Player, Guarani and
the company Rai Nascimento de Oliveira – Rio Sport (hereinafter: the Subsequent
IRA), valid as from 13 February 2025 until 31 March 2026, by means of which the
Player would be entitled to BRL 30,000 per month and to BRL 40,000 if he played 10
matches in the starting line-up for at least 45 minutes. The Subsequent IRA
established that the Player would not be entitled to a monthly payment for the
months of November and December.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
67.
On 14 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
68.
The Player first argued that, on 7 February 2023, the parties concluded the Federative
Contract, valid as from that date until 31 December 2025, which was only used for
registering purposes before the BFU. In this context, the Player stated that the same day
the parties signed the Employment Contract, which was the only contract governing the
parties’ relationship. Specifically, the Player contended that clause XI of the Employment
Contract expressly included a provision clarifying this. The Player argued that the
Employment Contract was valid until 30 June 2026, and under this document the Club
undertook to pay him a monthly salary of EUR 26,463 net. Furthermore, the Player alleged
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-16566
that this Employment Contract included two signing fees that were to be paid by the Club:
EUR 200,000 net and EUR 150,000 net.
69.
According to the Player, he was signed for the Club’s first team, considering that, when he
was announced, the Club stated that he was signed after performing with the elite Brazilian
club Bahia Esporte Clube and made it clear that he was signed as a player for the 11-time
champions. Additionally, the Player asserted that this is consistent with the magnitude of
the Employment Contract.
70.
The Player further alleged that, on 23 May 2024, he was given the consent from the Club
to take the relevant holidays and be absent from the last official match of the Club, which
was scheduled for 26 May 2024. Nonetheless, the Player sustained that on 25 May 2024,
the Club sent him an unjustified notice requesting him to return to the Club. The Player
mentioned that he responded to this letter stating that the head coach granted him
permission to leave two days earlier not only to follow the Club’s custom but also due to a
family issue and that, in any case, he apologised for any inconvenience.
71.
However, the Player indicated that he was sanctioned with a first penalty of EUR 16,500,
and, afterwards, the Club tried to force him to sign a second sanction amounting to EUR
180,000 for such alleged absence, which he refused to sign. According to the Player, this
sanction was a second penalty for the same violation and was not only unjustified but
disproportionate. The Player alleged that the amount of the fine was similar to the EUR
150,000 signing fee that the Club was required to pay him on 10 August 2024. In this regard,
the Player contended that the Club was attempting to avoid the payment of this fee to force
him out, as the Club had already lost interest in him.
72.
In this respect, the Player pointed out that on 10 July 2024, his agent (i.e., the Player’s Agent
1) and Mr. Bozhkilov had a conversation in which the latter stated that the Player had to
find a new team, reduce his salary and leave the Club. The Player referred to Mr. Bozhkilov
as the Club’s Head of Recruitment, as well as responsible for the Football Operations
Department of the Club and the Club’s contact person for English-language matters.
73. The Player alleged that the Club continued with this modus operandi after the start of the
preseason 2024/2025, when it began to prevent him from attending the training and
matches of the team, only allowing him to train on very specific dates with the B team and
mainly ordering him to train alone, without supervision.
74.
According to the Player, he was mistreated with the sole purpose of forcing him to reach
an agreement benefitting the Club, as (i) he was ordered to attend double training sessions
without any logic and at inconvenient times; (ii) he was summoned to individual video
sessions, without any other player and even on non-working days; (ii) his car was replaced
with a very old one, which he eventually returned since it was unsafe.
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-16566
75.
The Player remarked that, as this strategy did not work, the Club also summoned him to
several personal meetings where it threatened his physical integrity. He argued that he
managed to record one of these meetings, during which the Club (i) informed him that he
would not play anymore, neither in the first nor in the B team of the Club; (ii) he would have
to train eight and a half hours per day and attend trainings on New Year’s day or in
temperatures below minus 30 degrees in winter if he did not agree to settle the
Employment Contract for two monthly salaries; (iii) and threatened with a potential car
accident or going to jail, among other things. The Player stated that the Club was placing a
burden on him by requesting that he find a EUR 300,000 loan offer or EUR 800,000 transfer
offer.
76.
Moreover, the Player argued that, fearing the possibility of being physically harmed, he
instructed his agent to address all relevant complaints to the Club on his behalf. The Player
outline that one of his agents, i.e., Player’s Agent 2, warned the Club on several occasions
that the situation with the Player had to change radically and immediately. In this sense,
the Player highlighted that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bozhkilov remarked again the conditions under which the Player was able to
leave the Club;
Mr. Bozhkilov shared a video of the Player training alone;
the parties were talking about the existence of potential negotiations;
on 9 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 warned the Club about the Player training
alone since 16 July 2024 and requested his reinstatement in the team;
on 11 August 2024, a new warning was sent;
on 14 August 2024, a further warning was sent;
on 15 August 2024, the Club stated that the Player was often getting injured and
the Club was preserving him;
that day, the conversation continued, and the Player’s agent stated that the
Player had even been deregistered.
77.
The Player explained that Mr. Bozhkilov was always the Club’s contact person with whom
the Player’s agents communicated regarding the Player’s matters. Additionally, he asserted
that Mr. Manolov, the Club’s translator, provided him the training plans in physical paper
in order not to leave any evidence about the specific individual plan the Club was ordering
him to follow.
78.
On another note, the Player argued that on 10 August 2024 the signing fee amounting to
EUR 150,000 fell due and the Club failed to pay it.
79.
In light of all the above, the Player asserted that he sent a termination letter on 21 August
2024, which was responded by the Club on 30 August 2024. The Player mentioned that it
was not possible to reach an amicable settlement.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-16566
80.
The Player further pointed out that while he was training alone, none of the summons
issued by the Club included his name. However, he argued that, after the termination, the
Club suddenly included him in the official notifications.
81.
In this context, the Player stated that he terminated the Employment Contract with just
cause, as the Club (i) prevented him from joining the training and matches of the Club, (ii)
deregistered him and (ii) failed to pay a substantial part of his salary.
82.
Regarding the prevention from joining training and matches, the Player alleged that since
mid-July 2024 he was separated from the rest of the team, excluding him from almost all
the Club’s activities, especially from 5 August 2024 onwards. The Player further contended
that he was mainly training alone without instructions, and the Club was only providing him
with the training schedule, which already constituted a reason to terminate a contract with
just cause. The Player recalled that the Club told him that he would never train or play
again, confirming that the decision was of a definitive nature.
83.
Regarding the deregistration, the Player indicated that he was not even called up for any
game played by the Club neither in the national league nor in the European competitions,
violating his fundamental rights, as the Club was blocking his access to competitive football.
Additionally, the Player pointed out that he was never informed about his deregistration.
84.
Regarding the salary, the Player indicated that, as the Club had lost interest in the Player,
it wanted to avoid the payment of EUR 150,000 stated in clause 6 of the Employment
Contract, the triggering element of which was that the Player had to be contracted to the
Club on the specified due date. The Player mentioned that this amount was equivalent to
5.5 monthly salaries.
85.
Consequently, the Player alleged that he is entitled to EUR 150,000 net as outstanding
remuneration and to EUR 608,649 net (23 monthly salaries from 1 August 2024 to 30 June
2026) and BGN 13,800 net (23 housing allowances) as compensation.
86.
The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“143. In view of all the foregoing, the Player herein requests the FIFA FT to:
1. To accept this claim;
2. To determine the Employment Contract was terminated with just cause by the Player
on 21 of August 2024 and condemn the Club to pay the Player:
2.1. EUR 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand euros) net of taxes as outstanding
remuneration in relation to the premium set out in Art. X.6 of the Employment
Contract, plus 5% interests per year starting from 10 August 2024 until its effective
payment.
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-16566
2.2. EUR 608,649 (six hundred eight thousand six hundred and forty-nine euros) net
of taxes as compensation for the breach of the Employment Contract, plus 5% interest
per year starting from 21 August 2024 until its effective payment;
2.3. BGN 13,800 (thirteen thousand eight hundred Bulgarian Levas) net of taxes as
further compensation for the breach of the Employment Contract, plus 5% interest
per year starting from 21 August 2024 until its effective payment.
2.4. Provide the Player with the relevant tax certificates confirming the amounts as net
of taxes.
3. To impose the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, in case the amounts are not paid within the 45-day deadline;”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
87.
In its reply, the Club first raised a preliminary procedural issue regarding the admissibility
of one piece of evidence submitted by the Player. In this regard, the Club alleged that Annex
13 of the Player’s claim (hereinafter: Annex 13) is an audio secretly recorded by the Player
without the consent of other people present at the meeting. As such, the Club requested
that any references in the claim and assertions relating thereto be disregarded by the DRC
and not taken into account, as the Player’s conduct violated both the Swiss and the
Bulgarian law.
88.
The Club further argued that in this case the interest in the truth-finding is lower and the
dignity of people, the protection of personal privacy and personal rights should override.
Additionally, the Club stated that the Player informed the individuals present at that
meeting that he was not recording and, therefore, he lied. The Club submitted three
statements of Mr. Bozhkilov, Mr. Manolov and Mr. Karamandzhukov, in which they
asserted that they were not aware that the Player was recording the meeting and that he
was specifically asked to leave the phone aside.
89.
Regarding the merits, the Club acknowledged that the Employment Contract is the only
valid contract governing the employment relationship. In this respect, the Club remarked
that the Club hired the Player to provide services as a professional footballer, without
indicating that he was exclusively hired to play for the Club’s first team. The Club contended
that both the first and the second team in Bulgaria are considered professional within the
applicable FIFA and BFU Regulations. Therefore, the Club asserted that it was free to assign
the Player to train and compete with the second team.
90.
The Club also stated that the announcement on which the Player relies did not mention
anything about the Club hiring the Player exclusively to train and compete with the first
team. Furthermore, the Club indicated that the Player failed to explain what the
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-16566
“magnitude” of the Employment Contract is. Thus, the Club alleged that the Player failed to
prove that he was hired exclusively for the Club’s first team. Moreover, the Club mentioned
that both the Federative Contract and the Employment Contract were unambiguous in
defining the Club’s right to assign the Player to train individually.
91.
Then, the Club argued that, in May 2024, the Player began breaching his contractual
obligations, when he missed training despite the Club had not given him permission to
leave. In this regard, the Club mentioned that it put the Player in default, as he breached
clauses IV 2.1, 2.2, 2.13 and 2.18 of the Employment Contract. The Club also highlighted
that the Player missed a professional match on 26 May 2024 and that the Player himself
admitted that his absence had not been authorised by the Club’s officials.
92.
Hence, the Club confirmed that the Player was sanctioned with a fine of EUR 16,500,
proportional to the fact that he unexpectedly missed two training sessions and an official
professional match. However, the Club denied having attempted to impose a fine of EUR
180,000. Additionally, the Club remarked that, since he admitted that the Club was right
about his absence, this notice could not have been unjustified.
93.
The Club further mentioned that the Player was part of the preseason that took place in
Austria from 14 June to 30 June 2024, and that he was included in certain friendly matches.
Notwithstanding, the Club sustained that the Player was far from the desired level of fitness
and preparation, both physically and tactically, and provided the statement of the former
head coach to support these allegations.
94.
On another note, the Club stated that Mr. Bozhkilov does not have the ability to speak
officially on behalf of the Club, as he is employed by a company since 2016. The Club
contended that, while he occasionally assists the Club, he is not an employee, as his
presence cannot be found on the Club’s official website nor does he receive any salary from
the Club. In this sense, the Club provided Mr. Bozhkilov’s contract with the company and
his statement. The Club alleged that the Player’s agent should have verified with whom he
had been discussing and should have made reasonable efforts to identify the correct
individuals within the Club’s organisation. In any event, the Club asserted that Mr. Bozhkilov
was not threatening the Player but expressing his opinion.
95.
Further, the Club indicated that the Player began to miss more training sessions, for
example on 17 July 2024, and that on 21 July 2024 the Club’s medical staff recommended
that the head coach send the Player to train with the second team, due to his poor physical
condition. The Club provided a statement of the medical staff. Therefore, the Club stated
that the Player was sent to train with the second team as of 22 July 2024 and that, for
example, he played an official match for this team on 29 July 2024.
96.
The Club acknowledged that, on 3 August 2024, it had a meeting with the Player, but
asserted that, if this recording is considered as evidence, the transcript needs to be
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-16566
considered holistically, because the Player has taken portions of the recording that paint
the conversation as abusive.
97.
After that meeting, the Club contended that the Player trained with teammates from the
first team that were not included in the squad for the UEFA Champions League™ match
against Qarabag. According to the Club, the Player then missed the trainings on 8 and 9
August 2024.
98.
The Club argued that the Player was subjected to a longer plan for treatment and recovery,
which included individual trainings, and was therefore assigned individual trainings after 8
August 2024, supervised by a qualified staff. The Club recalled that sending the Player to
individual trainings did not constitute a breach of the Employment Contract. Furthermore,
the Club stated that on 13 August 2024, the Player was sent to train with the first team as
part of the reintegration process.
99.
Regarding the car, the Club alleged that it was only obliged to provide him with a car
without any reference to brand or model. The Club contended that the car was not
dangerous and that it was not the Club’s obligation to maintain the car.
100. Then, the Club affirmed that on 20 August 2024 the Player took a taxi from Razgrad to Sofia,
in order to leave the country. The Club provided a witness statement from the taxi driver
to support its allegations. The Club asserted that the following day it received the Player’s
termination letter.
101. According to the Club, this termination letter was the first time the Club was officially made
aware of any alleged abuse suffered by the Player. The Club stated that its official address
was included in both the Federative Contract and the Employment Contract, and that the
Club had never received any official notifications. In this sense, the Club sustained that
there were no abusive conducts on the part of the Club which could entitle the Player to
terminate the relationship without immediate effect and denied all the Player’s allegations
related to the alleged abusive schedule or the idea that the Club was trying to injure him
through overtraining. The Club concluded that the Player was seeking a way out of the
employment relationship after May 2024
102. Based on all the above, the Club asserted that the termination was made without just cause
for the following reasons:
• There was no abusive conduct:
According to the Club, the Player was hired as a professional player and not for
the first team only. In this regard, the second team is a professional team, and,
in any event, the Player used to be sent to train and play for the second team in
2023, without complaining about it. Furthermore, the Club mentioned that, while
the Player trained alone a few times due to his poor conditions, with the guidance
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-16566
of professionals, he also trained in both the first and second team after 16 July
2024.
On another note, the Club stated that it never threatened the Player to sign an
agreement, and that he failed to provide this alleged agreement. Even if the
recording of the meeting were to be taken into account, the Club alleged that
when viewed contextually, the Club’s behaviour was not abusive and, in any
event, the Player only terminated the contract 18 days after, while during that
time the Club continued fulfilling its obligations.
Although the Club acknowledged that the bonus owed to the Player was due on
10 August 2024 and had not been paid, the Club remarked that the Player failed
to send any notice of default and used the non-payment as an excuse,
terminating the relationship only 10 days after the amount become due.
Lastly, the Club contended that the Player was not de-registered and provided a
certificate issued by the BFU to support its allegations.
•
Termination can only be an ultima ratio measure:
The Club highlighted that terminating a contract without consequences can only be
allowed when there is a valid reason and when the other party was given a chance
to comply with its obligations. In casu, the Club alleged that not only there were no
valid reasons, but also the Club was not given a chance to even talk with the Player.
Even in the case of the alleged abusive conduct directed towards the Player, the Club
argued that he failed to meet the second requirement, i.e., to warn the Club, for it to
have the chance, if it deemed the complaint legitimate, to comply with its
obligations.
Lastly, the Club affirmed that even if the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
considers that some of the Club’s behaviours were not appropriate, they were not
serious enough for the Player to terminate the relationship with immediate effect
and without prior warning/notice
103. The Club also indicated that, if the DRC considers that the termination was with just cause,
compensation should be zero, as the Player had his own fault by not communicating with
the Club and not making the Club aware of his unsatisfaction and concerns about the
situation. Furthermore, the Club mentioned that the Player has the duty to mitigate his
damages.
104. Given that, according to the Club, the termination was without just cause, the Club lodged
a counterclaim against the Player. In this regard, the Club sustained that the Player had
pg. 35
REF. FPSD-16566
acted in bad faith, trying to build his version of the story and attempting to collect evidence
while, in reality, he had only trained alone a few times due to his condition.
105. Therefore, the Club asserted entitlement to the residual value of the Employment Contract,
totalling EUR 590,722.
106. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“In view of the factual and legal considerations, including the documentation mentioned
and enclosed above, the Respondent and Counterclaimant herein respectfully request
the Football Tribunal to rule as follows:
1. Reject the claim submitted by the Player and accept the counterclaim of the Club.
2. To determine that the Player terminated the Employment Contract without just cause
3. To order the Player to pay the Club compensation equal to the amount of EUR 590.722
4. To impose six (6) months restriction sanction upon the Player.
5. To condemn the Player to pay the legal fees to the Club incurred due to this case.
Alternatively, if the Panel decides that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause,
then:
1. The Club should pay zero compensation due to the Player's own contributory fault; or
2. The compensation should be largely reduced due to the Player's fault and legal duty
to mitigate his loss.”
107. On 23 December 2024, the Bureau of the FIFA Council adopted a new interim regulatory
framework (hereinafter: the IRF), which entered into force on 1 January 2025.
108. On 4 March 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Club to supplement its position
exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the IRF to the
present case.
109. In this regard, the Club remarked that any loss caused by the Player’s premature
termination without just cause should be awarded to the Club. The Club requested that it
be awarded the cost it incurred on the Player’s replacement due to his early departure
without just cause.
110. According to the Club, the Player’s departure left it without a left winger and, therefore, the
Club had to acquire the services of another left winger, the New Player, on loan from Vasco
pg. 36
REF. FPSD-16566
da Gama. The Club contended that this loan agreement was executed on 31 August 2024,
shortly after the Player left the Club, incurring an unexpected cost of USD 150,000 for the
loan from 2 September 2025 (sic) until 30 June 2025, with an option to buy his services. The
Club explained that it exercised the buy option on 21 January 2025 and paid USD 1,100,000
for the permanent transfer.
111. The Club stated that this amount should be amortised until the initial expiration date of
the Employment Contract, which was 30 June 2026, totalling USD 440,000 i.e., USD
1,100,000 / 30 months (from 1 July 2025 until 31 December 2027) * 12 months (from 1 July
2025 until 30 June 2026).
112. The Club then argued that the fact that the Player occasionally trained with the second
team cannot be used as conclusive evidence that the Club did not want his services, as this
was due to his condition. In any event, the Club stated that it was using the Player’s services
for the second team, and it was constantly counting on his service.
113. Thus, the Club concluded that the Club’s expenses on the replacement are a direct loss
caused by the Player and his premature just cause. Hence, the Club requested that the
Player be condemned to pay USD 590,000, including the loan fee and the amortised
transfer fee.
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
114. In his response to the counterclaim, the Player first addressed the Club’s objection to the
admissibility of the Annex 13. In this sense, the Player contended that arbitral proceedings,
are more flexible in relation to the production of evidence. The Player referred to art. 13 of
the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
which establishes that any type of evidence may be produced. According to the Player, this
evidence was not obtained in an unlawful and immoral way but was actually taken in a
normal meeting and without coercion from the Player to the Club.
115. The Player also pointed out that the Club has not denied the occurrence of the meeting,
nor its participants. Also, he mentioned that the Club did not dispute the authenticity of
the recordings. Furthermore, the Player stated that the personal rights of a company
cannot be violated, as it is an entity and not a person. Conversely, the Player alleged that
he was protecting his personal rights.
116. Lastly, the Player contended that evidentiary issues shall be addressed applying the
Procedural Rules and not Swiss law. Thus, the Player concluded that Annex 13 shall be
admitted to the file, even if considered to have been obtained without consent from the
Club.
117. Then, the Player referred to the Club’s allegations that he was not hired for the first team.
In this regard, the Player stated that the Club did not allow him to train with any of the two
pg. 37
REF. FPSD-16566
teams on a regular basis and was not even mentioned in the Club’s summons. The Player
remarked that he was assigned individual and double-session training plans at least from
5 August 2024 onwards, so he had no material time to train with his teammates.
118. Based on the above, the Player alleged that even if it were to be considered that he was
not hired to play for the first team, the Club would have still violated the Employment
Contract by preventing him from training with any team. The Player mentioned that in the
response to the termination letter, the Club acknowledged that the Player made at least
eight days of individual training in the previous nine training days, although this list of
trainings did not coincide with the training plans provided by the Club. In this last regard,
the Player stated that he had the exact same training plan on the days that, according to
the Club, he trained with the team.
119. The Player further argued that he was neither injured nor had any physical problems and
that there was no evidence of any medical report confirming this allegation from the Club.
Additionally, he stated that he did not miss any training session on 8 August 2024 and that
the Club was trying to mislead the DRC. He clarified that he trained alone on 8 and 9 August
2024, and, in the WhatsApp messages, he was just asking who the responsible person was.
The Player argued that even Mr. Manolov was aware of the Club’s mistreatment.
120. The Player remarked that if the Club were only fulfilling with its standard obligations, there
would be no need to print specific training plans. Further, the Player indicated that the Club
confirmed his individual trainings and double sessions and failed to prove any evidence
demonstrating that he was consistently training in a group setting. The only evidence
submitted by the Club, according to the Player, were witness statements from individuals
with a close link to the Club, hence with limited probatory weight.
121. In addition, the Player mentioned that the alleged absence in an official match on 26 May
2024, the following two training sessions, and all the evidence related to the training camp
are, in any event, past issues which have nothing to do with the reasons why he terminated
the Employment Contract.
122. The Player also pointed out that the Club mentioned that it recommended the coach to
send him to the second team based on the physical conditions, when the coach should be
the person deciding this. Furthermore, the Player argued that individual training due to
alleged poor sporting performance is contrary to the FIFA regulations. The Player affirmed
that the Club did not even provide him with any specific timeframe or period of absence
from training with a team.
123. Regarding Mr. Bozhkilov, the Player argued that he was recognized as part of the Club’s
management on its official website, but that the Club removed him on purpose. The Player
also stated that there were pictures of him signing new players and in the Club’s title
celebration, wearing the Club’s official suit and the champion’s medal. In fact, the Player
alleged that Mr. Bozhkilov was present when he signed the Employment Contract and that
pg. 38
REF. FPSD-16566
he was the person in charge of the negotiations related to his signing, exchanging offers
and providing the flight tickets.
124. According to the Player, the primary means of communication between him and the Club
were mainly through Mr. Bozhkilov. In this regard, the Player contended that the parties’
behaviour should be read together with the Player’s warning before terminating the
relationship. In fact, the Player remarked that Mr. Bozhkilov was talking in first person when
referring to the Club’s position, clearly considering himself as part of the Club.
125. Furthermore, the Player argued that in one the WhatsApp conversations, Mr. Bozhkilov
confirmed that the Club was offering a termination. The Player concluded that Mr.
Bozhkilov’s involvement in the Club’s management shall be out of question. In this respect,
the Player contended that he sent several messages to Mr. Bozhkilov warning the Club
about his situation and requesting a solution, but to no avail. The Player further mentioned
that if the Club were unaware and committed no violation, it should have offered the Player
the possibility to return to the Club in its response to the termination letter.
126. The Player also argued that the Club wrongly stated that any notification had to be made
to the addresses indicated in the Employment Contract. He asserted that the provision to
which the Club referred does not impose an obligation on the parties to communicate by
post. In this context, he remarked that he was in close contact with Mr. Bozhkilov, the postal
address of whom was never included in the Employment Contract.
127. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the Player mentioned that he did not terminate
the relationship specifically and solely due to this reason, but it was just pointed out as one
of the breaches committed by the Club. However, he remarked that this payment was a
signing-on fee and was equivalent to more than five and a half salaries, constituting a
severe breach.
128. Then, the Player referred to the witness statements and mentioned that they are written
in the same form and pattern and even Mr. Karamandzhukov’s statement is in English while
he does not speak the language. Moreover, the Player alleged that all testimonies are from
people directly linked to the Club, either currently employed or with long-lasting
relationship, thus with a special interest in benefitting the Club, which makes them lack any
credibility at all.
129. Lastly, the Player sustained that the Club was again trying to mislead the DRC when
comparing the New Player to him and alleging that the New Player was hired to replace
him, when he was defenestrated and prevented from training with any team. In this sense,
the Player argued that the New Player was playing regularly in the first team and is a right
winger, not a left winger. Therefore, the Player argued that the request for the replacement
cost is unsubstantiated.
130. Based on the above, the Player made the following requests for relief:
pg. 39
REF. FPSD-16566
“In view of all the foregoing, the Player herein requests the FIFA FT to:
1. To reject the Club's Counterclaim in full, including:
1.1 Determine that the Player did not terminate the Employment Contract without just
cause, but with just cause.
1.2. Reject the payment of any compensation to be paid by the Player to the Club.
1.3. Reject the imposition of any sporting sanctions over the Player.
1.4. Reject the payment of any legal fees from the Player to the Club.
2. To determine the Employment Contract was terminated with just cause by the Player
on 21 of August 2024 and condemn the Club to pay the Player:
2.1. EUR 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand euros) net of taxes as outstanding
remuneration as set out in Art. X.6 of the Employment Contract, plus 5% interests per
year starting from 10 August 2024 until its effective payment.
2.2. EUR 608,649 (six hundred eight thousand six hundred and forty-nine euros) net
of taxes as compensation for the breach of the Employment Contract, plus 5% interest
per year starting from 21 August 2024 until its effective payment;
Alternatively, in case the Mitigating Amount is applied:
2.2.1. EUR 562,379 (five hundred sixty-two thousand three hundred and
seventy-nine euros) net of taxes as compensation for the breach of the
Employment Contract, plus 5% interest per year starting from 21 August 2024
until its effective payment;
2.3. BGN 13,800 (thirteen thousand eight hundred Bulgarian Levas) net of taxes as
further compensation for the breach of the Employment Contract, plus 5% interest
per year starting from 21 August 2024 until its effective payment.
2.4. Provide the Player with the relevant tax certificates confirming the amounts as net
of taxes.
To impose on the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, in case the amounts are not paid within the 45-day deadline;
3. To impose on the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, in case the amounts are not paid within the 45-day deadline.”
pg. 40
REF. FPSD-16566
d. Final comments by the Club
131. In its final comments, the Club insisted that Annex 13 shall be inadmissible, as the Player
has not demonstrated that the information allegedly captured therein could not have been
presented through lawful means. According to the Club, accepting these recordings would
set a dangerous precedent.
132. Notwithstanding the above, the Club alleged that, if this proof were to be admitted, the
content of the conversations does not prove what the Player alleged. The Club stated that
the applicable regulations forbid termination without just cause but did not forbid
discussing the Player’s situation where it may involve the potential termination. However,
the Club asserted that it made it clear that it would honour the Employment Contract. The
Club mentioned that “angry talk” is different than threats.
133. Then, the Club reaffirmed that the Player trained individually due to his physical condition
and that he had technical plans that were adapted to his individual development. According
to the Club, the temporary absence from the group does not constitute a breach of
contract. In any event, the Club stated that, if he was not satisfied and believed that he was
mistreated, he could have sent notifications to the Club and warned about the potential
consequences.
134. Furthermore, the Club insisted that Mr. Bozhkilov was employed by a company, and that
he occasionally offered his assistance to the Club. According to the Club, Mr. Bozhkilov
never received a salary from the Club and the Player failed to provide any evidence. The
Club contended that Mr. Bozhkilov is an experienced football agent and only expressed his
opinions regarding the Player’s situation, but he was acting independently and not as a
Club’s representative. The Club mentioned that the pictures provided by the Player can
only demonstrate that Mr. Bozhkilov assisted his signing with the Club but not that he is
the higher manager.
135. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the Club reaffirmed that this was a one-time
contractual benefit rather than recurring monthly salary, and that the Player was regularly
receiving his remuneration. In addition, the Club mentioned that a short-term delay of a
one-off fee does not immediately endanger a player’s livelihood. In any event, the Club
stated that the Player should have sent a notice of default.
136. The Club then alleged that the Player was not fully committed to continuing with the Club
and his attitude and conduct made it challenging for the Club to derive any benefit of his
services. In this sense, the Club indicated that, if it is considered that the Player had just
cause to terminate the Employment Contract, compensation must be reduced or
dispensed, as he was absent without authorisation from official training sessions and a
competitive match and failed to send any notice of default before terminating the
Employment Contract. The Club argued that the Player contributed to the termination.
pg. 41
REF. FPSD-16566
137. The Club then rejected the Player’s disqualification of the witnesses, as they are precisely
those who directly witnessed the facts of the dispute.
138. Lastly, the Club mentioned that while the Player contended that the Club did not provide
any conclusive evidence, the Player is relying on Annex 13, the existence and content of
which remain entirely uncertain, with no verifiable proof that such a meeting ever took
place or that the document reflects its alleged content. The Club stated that it would be
inappropriate for the DRC to give evidentiary weight to a document of unconfirmed
authenticity and origin.
139. The Club submitted the following requests for relief:
“In view of the factual and legal considerations, including the documentation mentioned
and enclosed above, the Respondent and Counterclaimant herein respectfully request
the Football Tribunal to rule as follows:
1. Reject the claim and the answer to the counterclaim submitted by the Player and
accept the counterclaim of the Club.
2. To determine that the Player terminated the Employment Contract without just cause
3. To order the Player to pay the Club compensation equal to the amount of EUR 590,722
4. To impose six (6) months restriction sanction upon the Player.
5. To condemn the Player to pay the legal fees to the Club incurred due to this case.
Alternatively, if the Judge decides that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause,
then:
1. The Club should pay zero compensation due to the Player’s own contributory fault; or
2. The compensation should be largely reduced due to the Player’s fault to mitigate his
loss.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
140. 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 14 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 21 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
pg. 42
REF. FPSD-16566
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
141. 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) (July 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 Spanish and Brazilian player and a Bulgarian club.
142. 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 July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof and admissibility of evidence
143. 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).
144. Still concerning the production of evidence, the Chamber recalled that the Club had
challenged the admissibility of Annex 13 submitted by the Player, a matter which the DRC
decided to address in the preliminary considerations.
145. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, while the Player relied on this audio recording as
evidence of his account of the facts during a purported meeting at the Club’s premises, the
Club argued that this audio was secretly recorded, without the consent of the other people
present at the meeting. Thus, the Club claimed that it should be disregarded, citing Swiss
and Bulgarian law in support.
146. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which
establishes the following:
“Article 13: Submissions and evidence
(…)
3. Any type of evidence may be produced. A chamber has ultimate discretion as to the
weight it gives to evidence. All the evidence upon which a party intends to rely must be
pg. 43
REF. FPSD-16566
filed in the original language and, if applicable, translated into English, Spanish or
French.”
147. Based on this provision, the Chamber decided that there was no procedural impediment
to the admissibility of the recordings. It further confirmed that these rules took precedence
over any other procedural laws cited by the parties (particularly by the Club).
148. The Chamber subsequently decided to admit the recordings into the case file. It also
emphasized that it retained full discretion to assess their probative value, taking into
account the circumstances under which they were obtained and the legal arguments
presented by both parties.
c. Merits of the dispute
149. 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
150. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract, and a counterclaim of a club against a player for compensation for breach of
contract.
151. The Chamber recalled that, on the one hand, the Player argued that he had just cause to
terminate the Employment Contract based on the Club’s abusive behaviour, as he stated
that the Club (i) prevented him from joining the training and matches of the Club, (ii)
deregistered him, and (ii) did not pay a substantial part of his salary. The Player therefore
alleged that he was entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation equal to the
residual value of the Employment Contract.
152. The Chamber further recalled that, on the other hand, the Club contended that the
termination was without just cause, as there was no abusive behaviour and, in any event,
the termination was not an ultima ratio measure, because the Player failed to send any
prior notice of default. Consequently, the Club claimed entitlement to compensation
equivalent to the costs of the Player’s replacement.
pg. 44
REF. FPSD-16566
153. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Employment Contract and to assess its
consequences.
a) DID THE PLAYER HAVE JUST CAUSE TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT?
154. As a starting point, the Chamber recalled that art. 14 of the Regulations establishes:
“14. Terminating a contract with just cause
1. A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause.
In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer
reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.
2. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.”
155. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he terminated the
Employment Contract due to the Club’s abusive conduct. Based on this, the Chamber
highlighted that it must determine (i) whether the Club’s conduct was abusive and, if so, (ii)
whether the termination was an ultima ratio measure.
a.1) Abusive conduct
156. The Chamber observed that the Player argued that the Club’s abusive conduct consisted of
(i) preventing him from joining training and playing matches, especially after he refused to
sign a purported agreement, (ii) deregistering him, and (iii) failing to pay a substantial part
of his salary.
157. Conversely, the Club contended that (i) the Player was hired as a professional player and
not exclusively for the first team only, and that, while he trained alone a few times due to
his poor physical condition, he also trained with both the first and second team after 16
July 2024, (ii) the Club never threatened him to sign an agreement, (iii) the Player was not
deregistered, and (iv) although it acknowledged that EUR 150,000 were not paid to the
Player on the relevant due date, the Club mentioned that the Player never put it in default.
158. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of the allegations in turn.
(i)
Demotion to the B team and deregistration
pg. 45
REF. FPSD-16566
159. The Chamber begun by analysing whether the contracts concluded between the parties
(i.e., the Federative Contract and the Employment Contract) expressly guaranteed the
Player the right to only play and train for the first team, or if they expressly granted the
Club the right to drop the Player to the second team.
160. The Chamber noted that clause 3 of the Federative Contract stipulated:
“1. For the services provided as a professional football player, the CLUB shall pay to the
PLAYER remuneration for the entire duration of this contract as follows: (…)”
161. Additionally, clause 3 of the Employment Contract established:
“III.l. For the services provided as a professional football player, the CLUB shall pay to
the PLAYER remuneration for the entire duration of this contract as follows: (…)”
162. Although the Chamber acknowledged that it could be argued that due to the amounts the
Club undertook to pay the Player, he was likely to be hired for the first team – a claim
further supported by the fact that the Club was seeking compensation for his replacement
costs taking into account the hiring costs of a first-team player – the Chamber considered
that these would be mere assumptions.
163. As a result, the Chamber concluded that both the Federative Contract and the Employment
Contract were silent about the Player’s right to only play and train for the first team, as well
as the Club’s right to drop him to the second team.
164. On another note, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he was deregistered,
as he was not called up for any game played by the Club neither in the national league nor
in European competitions. Nevertheless, the Chamber underlined that the Club submitted
evidence proving that the Player remained registered with the BFU.
165. In the Chamber’s opinion, in this specific case, not being included on the UEFA Champions
League™ list did not constitute a breach of contract nor it amounted to deregistration, as
the Player remained eligible to compete in the national league. Furthermore, the Player
himself submitted evidence demonstrating that he had also been excluded from the UEFA
Champions League™ list in 2023 and, based on his own actions at that time, it can be
inferred that he did not consider such exclusion to constitute grounds for premature
termination.
166. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that the Player could not prove that he was
illegally demoted to the B Team and/or deregistered. The Chamber therefore decided that
these were not, in themselves, decisive grounds for the termination.
(ii) Individual trainings and segregation from the main team
pg. 46
REF. FPSD-16566
167. Then, the Chamber analysed whether the Player could prove whether he was training alone
or with a team.
168. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, since mid-July 2024 he was separated
from the rest of the team and excluded from almost all the Club’s activities, especially from
5 August 2024 onwards. The Player further contended that he was mainly training alone
without instructions, and the Club was only providing him with the training schedule.
169. In contrast, the Club alleged that the Player participated in the Club’s pre-season and was
included in certain friendly matches but, due to physical and tactical reasons, he was sent
to train with the second team as of 22 July 2024 and even played an official match for this
team on 29 July 2024. The Club then argued that he was subjected to a longer plan for
treatment and recovery, which included individual trainings, and was therefore assigned
individual trainings after 8 August 2024, supervised by a qualified staff. Lastly, the Club
stated that on 13 August 2024, the Player was sent to train with the first team as part of
the reintegration process.
170. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that it is undisputed that the Player was part
of the Club’s pre-season in Austria, which took place in June 2024. Nonetheless, it is strongly
disputed whether, since mid-July 2024, the Player was separated from the rest of the team.
171. After a thorough analysis of all the evidence on file, the Chamber acknowledged that:
•
between 10 July and 19 August 2024, (i) there is evidence that the Player trained with
the second team four times and played a match with that team, (ii) it is
acknowledged that he trained ten times alone and (iii) there is evidence that he
trained three times with a very small group and another time alone.
•
it is disputed that on 13 August 2024 he trained alone, as the Club argued that he
trained with the first team. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Club provided
a statement of the former head coach, in which the coach mentioned that there was
an attempt to reintegrate him to the first team. Nonetheless, the Chamber
underscored that the fact that this witness statement comes from an individual that
was part of the Club’s staff three times during the last 10 years it is in principle of
limited probative value to the current proceedings. According to the Chamber, the
same applies to the allegations regarding the period from 3 to 6 August 2024, where
there is no further evidence apart from the former head coach statements.
•
it is undisputed that, during this period, the Club provided the Player with an
individual training schedule and did not include him on the list in which other
members of the team were included, which is another indication that the Player was
given an individual and specific treatment.
pg. 47
REF. FPSD-16566
172. In light of all the above, the Chamber was convinced that, during the period 10 July – 19
August 2024, the Player was mainly training alone, except for a few occasions when he
trained with the B team.
173. Having established the above, the Chamber then proceeded to analyse why the Player was
sent to the B team or asked to train alone.
174. The Chamber recalled that according to the Club, the Player was sent to the B team and
was later required to train alone due to his poor physical condition, as he was subjected to
a longer plan for treatment and recovery. In order to support these allegations, the Club
provided the witness statement of the former head coach, in which he mentioned that the
Club’s medical staff recommended giving the Player a lighter schedule and, therefore, he
was initially sent to train with the B team. Furthermore, the head coach argued that, a few
weeks later, he was again advised to subject the Player to a longer plan for treatment and
recovery.
175. Moreover, the Club also submitted the statements of its medical staff, in which they argued
that, for medical reasons, they first recommended the head coach to send him to train to
the second team and then to individual trainings. The Club also provided the statements
of the coaching staff, which are consistent with the other statements.
176. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber referred to its previous conclusion and remarked
that it considered that the coach’s statement is, in principle, of limited probative value to
the current proceedings. The same applies to the statements made by the medical and
coaching staff, who are either directly providing services to or employed by the party they
are submitting the corresponding statements for. Additionally, the Chamber wished to
stress that the medical and coaching staff did not provide individual statements but a joint
one, raising concerns regarding the impartiality of their assessment.
177. Even if these witness statements were to be taken into consideration, the Chamber
underlined that the Club failed to provide any additional evidence of these alleged physical
issues attributed to the Player. The Chamber remarked that the Club could have submitted
medical reports or any other supporting documentation to demonstrate that the Player’s
physical condition justified his training with the B team or being assigned to individual
training sessions.
178. At this point, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 132), which establishes that:
“(…) in principle, since football is a team sport, a player should train with their team and
not be separated to receive individual training. However, if a player needs to recover from
an injury, is required to improve their fitness levels, or has been absent from the team
(with the consent of the club) for an extended period of time (e.g. playing for their
pg. 48
REF. FPSD-16566
representative team or for personal reasons), moving them temporarily to train with the
reserve team can be justified.”
179. In the absence of any evidence, the Chamber concluded that the Club failed to prove that
there was a valid justification for sending the Player to the B team or requiring him to train
alone.
180. The Chamber also highlighted that, from the evidence provided by the Player, on 10 July
2024 the Club played a UEFA Champions League™ match and on 21 July 2024 played its
first match of the Bulgarian national league. Therefore, the Chamber considered that these
measures were implemented from the beginning of the football season and without proper
substantiation.
181. Similarly, the Chamber found no evidence on file demonstrating that the Club had
informed the Player that the measures were temporary and/or that it had proposed a
reasonable training plan for him to regain his physical condition. The opposite: the
evidence on file seemingly suggest that the Club had already informed the Player that he
would no longer play with any team.
182. Regarding the meeting of 3 August 2024, although the Chamber acknowledged that the
Club had requested that the recording be dismissed, it did not dispute its occurrence or
agenda – as described by the Player. In fact, the Club submitted the witness statements in
which Mr. Karamandzhukov, Mr. Manolov and Mr. Bozhkilov confirmed that the meeting
took place, although they stated that they were not aware the Player was recording it and
did not give their consent for the recording.
183. The Chamber, without entering into the analysis of whether the sayings of the Club’s
representatives constituted threats or were merely “angry talk” in the context of a
negotiation, noted, inter alia, that the Club’s representatives made the following remarks:
•
•
•
That the Player would no longer play football, neither with the B team nor with the A
team;
That the Player would have to train eight and a half hours per day, including video
and gym sessions;
That the Player needed to bring an offer of EUR 300,000 for a loan or EUR 800,000
for a permanent transfer.
184. The Chamber further observed that on the same date, Mr. Bozhkilov sent the following
message to the Player’s Agent 2:
“Porque no te tomaste en serio nuestra fecha límite hasta el 2 de agosto y demostraste
tu falta de respeto hacia nosotros, las únicas condiciones posibles son: -300.000 EUR
préstamo hasta el 30.06.2025 y -800.000 EUR transferencia. No se ponga en contacto
con nosotros con menos ofertas que esta.
pg. 49
REF. FPSD-16566
Nuestra oferta de renuncia ya no es válida, ha caducado.”
Freely translated into English:
“Because you did not take our deadline of 2 August seriously and demonstrated your
lack of respect towards us, the only possible conditions are: a loan of EUR 300,000
until 30 June 2025 and a transfer of EUR 800,000. Please do not contact us with any
offers lower than this.
Our renounce offer is no longer valid; it has expired."
185. In light of all the above, the Chamber was convinced that the Club had indeed informed
the Player that he would be separated from the team and would not be allowed to play
with either the first or the second team. It further considered that this conclusion was
consistent with the fact that the Player trained alone as from, at least, 8 August 2024.
Likewise, considering these statements and the Club’s subsequent actions, the Chamber
deemed that the Player could reasonably have expected these measures to be permanent.
(iii) Outstanding remuneration and others
186. The Chamber then moved to analyse whether the Player was still being paid his full salary
and receiving his non-financial contractual benefits during this period.
187. Although the Player acknowledged that the Club paid all his salaries until he terminated
the employment relationship, he argued that the Club failed to pay him EUR 150,000 for a
signing fee that was due on 10 August 2024. The Club acknowledged the debt but claimed
that (i) this was a one-time contractual benefit rather than a recurring monthly salary, and
(ii) the Player should have sent a notice of default.
188. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the relevant contractual provision established that:
“X.6. The Player shall be entitled to receive from the CLUB a one-time NET premium
amounting to EUR 150,000 (one hundred fifty thousand Euro) payable on 10 August
2024, provided that the PLAYER is contracted to the CLUB as at the said due date.”
189. Based on the wording, the Chamber first considered that the nature of this payment
differed from a signing fee, as it was subject to a different condition than the signing of the
contract (more akin to a loyalty bonus). Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the
Employment Contract already included a signing fee, and in that case, the parties clearly
specified that the payment constituted a signing fee.
190. Nevertheless, the Chamber highlighted that this sum in any event fell due on 10 August
2024 and was not paid by the Club – at a time when the Player was training individually.
The Chamber underscored that, while it is true that the Player did not put the Club in
default and, therefore, was not entitled to terminate his contract solely based on this non-
pg. 50
REF. FPSD-16566
payment, it is also true that the Club failed to make substantial payment, equivalent to
more than five and a half months’ salaries during a period when the Player was already
facing extraordinary circumstances.
191. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not receive his full remuneration
during the relevant period, which it considered to constitute a breach of contract.
192. In contrast, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber dismissed the Player’s claims
regarding the replacement (and downgrade) of his car due to a lack of evidence. It also
stated that the parties’ conflicting views concerning the Player’s absence during May were
immaterial to the present dispute, as the alleged infringement had already been
sanctioned by the Club and apparently acknowledged by the Player.
(iv) Interim conclusion
193. In sum, the Chamber considered that the Player had sufficiently demonstrated that the
Club’s conduct was abusive. In the Chamber’s view, the overall behaviour of the Club, when
assessed together collectively, indicated both a loss of interest in the Player’s services and
an attempt to pressure him into terminating the Employment Contract or, at the very least,
accepting a prejudicial amendment to its terms.
a.2) Ultima ratio
194. Having established the above, the Chamber then referred to the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, according to which a premature contractual
termination may only arise where there has been a substantial or repeated breach of
contract by the relevant counterparty, and if there are more lenient measures for the
parties to remedy their contractual relationship, those measures should be turned to prior
to unilaterally terminating a contract. A premature unilateral termination of a contract may
only be an ultima ratio measure.
195. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that, even if it were to be
considered that the Club’s conduct was abusive (as accepted above), the termination was
not an ultima ratio measure, as the Player did not send any notice of default before
terminating the Employment Contract. The Player, however, stated that he had sent several
messages to Mr. Bozhkilov prior to the termination, warning the Club and requesting a
solution. Regarding this allegation, the Club contended that these messages were not
official communications in the sense of the Employment Contract and, in any event, Mr.
Bozhkilov was not an employee or director of the Club.
196. As a starting point, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player did not send any formal
notice of default before the termination, which it considered legally risky and far from ideal.
While the termination letter was issued by his legal representative and addressed to “Mr.
Angel Petrichev”, including two email addresses with the Club’s domain, the Chamber
pg. 51
REF. FPSD-16566
observed that there were no previous letters that complied with the same requirements.
The only similar letter was the one sent on 27 May 2024, in response of a warning issued
by the Club due to the Player’s absence.
197. Based on this, the Chamber found the need to establish (i) whether the Employment
Contract stipulated that notices of default had to comply with specific requirements to be
valid and, if not, (ii) whether the messages sent to Mr. Bozhkilov could be considered valid
notices for the purposes of allowing the Club to remedy its abusive behaviour.
(i)
Contractual basis for the notification
198. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Club relied on the following clause included
in the Employment Contract to assert that the Player should have notified the Club to the
postal address included therein:
“XI.5. 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.”
199. The Chamber stressed that this provision essentially set forth that the parties had a duty
to inform each other of any modification in their address and, if they failed to do so, any
correspondence sent to the last known address would be considered valid. Nevertheless,
the Chamber did not interpret this to mean that the parties were obliged to send all the
notices of default to those addresses.
200. The Chamber remarked that there was no “address indicated hereunder” and, even if the
addresses included in the preamble were to be considered, the Player’s address was not
included. Moreover, the Chamber highlighted that (i) the termination letter was sent via
email, and the Club did not contest its legal effect, and (ii) the Club, on 25 May 2024, sent a
notice to the Player via email, contradicting its own argumentation.
201. In light of the above, and in the absence of any specific requirements for the notices of
default, the Chamber concluded that, in principle, the default notices did not have to
comply with formal requirements.
(ii) Validity of the messages sent to Mr. Bozhkilov
202. Having established the above, the Chamber then proceeded to analyse whether the
WhatsApp messages sent by the Player’s agent to Mr. Bozhkilov could be considered valid
warnings. First, the Chamber determined that it had to analyse the role of Mr. Bozhkilov
within the Club or, at least, his involvement in the relationship between the parties.
pg. 52
REF. FPSD-16566
203. The Chamber noted that the Club argued that Mr. Bozhkilov is not an employee or
representative of the Club but occasionally assists the Club, and that he is currently
employed by the company ISV Trade AD. To support this allegation, the Club provided his
employment contract with this company. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that (i) this
employment contract is dated 20 July 2016, and there is no indication that it is still in force
and (ii) even if Mr. Bozhkilov is employed by another company, this does not mean that he
cannot also be employed by the Club.
204. On the other hand, the Chamber recalled that the Player provided the following evidence:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bozhkilov’s LinkedIn profile, in which it can be seen that he presented himself
as the “Head of Recruitment” of the Club as of September 2013, with tasks including
a “holistic approach to recruitment of players”, “communication and negotiations
with agents and clubs” and “constantly investigating football market’s dynamics”;
A screenshot of a picture of Mr. Bozhkilov on the Club’s official webpage, where he
is identified as the “Transfer manager”;
Pictures of Mr. Bozhkilov with several players of the Club, seemingly singning their
contracts;
Pictures of Mr. Bozhkilov celebrating the Club’s title;
A picture of Mr. Bozhkilov and the Player when he signed the Employment Contract;
Several WhatsApp conversations between the Player’s representatives and Mr.
Bozhkilov, in which they negotiated the Employment Contract or discussed issues
related to the employment relationship between the parties. In one of the
messages, he acknowledged that he worked for the Club.
205. The Chamber underscored that despite the Club’s allegations regarding the evidence
provided, it never denied the authenticity of any of the documents provided by the Player.
206. The Chamber further noted that Mr. Bozhkilov was the one who, inter alia, (i) negotiated
with the Player’s Agent 1, establishing the terms of the employment relationship, (ii)
provided the Player and his agent with the flight tickets, (iii) informed the Player’s Agent 1
that he needed to find the Player a new club, and (iv) acknowledged having been part of
the meeting held on 3 August 2024, during which the Player’s future was discussed, and
the Club’s financial expectations for a potential offer were set – expectations that were later
confirmed by him via WhatsApp.
207. In the Chamber’s view, while it could be argued that any individual piece of evidence, in
isolation, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Bozhkilov is indeed related to the Club, the
whole body of evidence provided by the Player clearly shows that he, in fact, has an
important role at the Club. At the very least, the Chamber interpreted that this is what the
Player could have reasonably expected, considering Mr. Bozhkilov’s prominent
involvement throughout their interactions.
pg. 53
REF. FPSD-16566
208. The Chamber then recalled the communications between the Player’s Agent 2 and Mr.
Bozhkilov during the last 17 days of the employment relationship. In particular:
•
On 3 August 2024, Mr. Bozhkilov informed the Player’s Agent 2 that he had failed to
comply with the deadline granted and, therefore, the only valid conditions were
either a EUR 300,000 loan until 30 June 2025 or a EUR 800,000 definitive transfer;
•
On 8 August 2024, Mr. Bozhkilov told the Player’s Agent 2 that the Player was not
training seriously and that “they” would assess his efforts daily. Mr. Bozhkilov stated
that, if he did not put the necessary effort, “they” would take the necessary
measures. Furthermore, they also discussed a settlement agreement;
•
On 9 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 sent a message to Mr. Bozhkilov stating that
the Player had been training alone since 16 July, training eight hours per day, and
that the Club was not allowing him to train with the first team. Therefore, the
Player’s agent stated: “So please, we need the player to get back to the normal trainings
with the first team ASAP”;
•
On 11 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 sent a new message to Mr. Bozhkilov,
alleging that the Player told him he would no longer play for the first team anymore
and would be training alone. The Player’s Agent 2 mentioned: “Please you have to put
the player back in the trainings immediately, we cannot continue this way”;
•
On 14 August 2024, the Player’s Agent 2 indicated to Mr. Bozhkilov: “This makes no
sense at all and the player cannot be training alone any more, without knowing when he
will be able to train with the team. I again insist in the club reinstating him in the team
immediately. The situation is not sustainable at all.” and “(…) we need to solve Rai's
problem because he is not allowed to train with the team and this situation cannot
continue anymore”;
•
On 15 August 2024, Mr. Bozhkilov replied to the Player’s Agent 2 saying that “they”
were preserving the Player and that “they” were preparing the best possible
schedule for him. The Player’s Agent 2 stated: “(…) let’s stop this please. The player
cannot keep in this situation and you know it. We need him to be put in the trainings
again with the team immediately”. When Mr. Bozhkilov replied arguing that the Player
was with players from the team, the Player’s Agent 2 contended: “You know it's not
like that, he trained the other day with the players that were not summoned in the official
match but he is always training alone in double sessions, mornings and
afternoons..makes no sense. Seems the club even deregistered the player. Really, we
need a solution now”.
209. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that on 9, 11, 14 and 15 August 2024 the Player’s
Agent 2 sent messages to Mr. Bozhkilov requesting that the Club remedy the breach and
pg. 54
REF. FPSD-16566
reinstate him to training. Additionally, during the period from 3 August to 15 August 2024,
Mr. Bozhkilov was replying to the messages using the plural form and clearly speaking on
behalf of the Club or, at least, giving the Player’s Agent 2 strong reason to believe that he
was doing so.
210. In the Chamber’s opinion, while it is true that these messages were not formal notices of
default addressed to the Club, Mr. Bozhkilov was the individual whom the Player’s Agent 1
had contacted from the very beginning of the contractual relationship. Additionally,
although the Chamber noted that the Player’s Agent 2 did not grant the Club any term to
remedy the breach, and he only requested immediate solutions, the fact remains that
between his first message and the termination, 11 days elapsed, and three additional
messages were sent requesting any solution.
211. At this point, the Chamber recalled the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, which has
established that a notice of default is intended to ensure that the defaulting party is given
a chance to comply with its obligations and, if it accepts the claim is legitimate, to rectify
the situation.
212. In this case, the Chamber considered that, despite the absence of a formal notice
addressed to the Club, the Player gave the Club several opportunities to comply with its
obligations and to rectify the situation. In the Chamber’s view, while the Player could have
sent a formal notice, this does not negate the prior warnings communicated via WhatsApp
on different occasions – particularly in light of the Club’s failure to respond to his concerns
or cease abusive behaviour.
213. Based on the above analysis, the Chamber concluded that the Player was able to
demonstrate that the termination was an ultima ratio measure, as he had warned the Club
on several occasions without any resolution of the breach and, therefore, could no longer
reasonably be expected to continue the contractual relationship.
a.3) Conclusion
214. In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that (i) the Club’s conduct towards the
Player was abusive over a significant period of time, and (ii) despite his efforts to find a
solution, the Club failed to remedy its conduct.
215. As a result, the Chamber decided that on 21 August 2024 the Player terminated the
employment relationship with the Club with just cause and the Club is liable to the
consequences that follow.
b) CONSEQUENCES
216. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
pg. 55
REF. FPSD-16566
b.1) Outstanding remuneration
217. The Chamber initially recalled that, according to clause X.6 of the Employment Contract,
the Player was entitled to a bonus of EUR 150,000 net, which was to be paid no later than
10 August 2024. Considering that the Club has acknowledged that it failed to pay this
amount, the Chamber decided to award the Player EUR 150,000 net as outstanding
remuneration with 5% interest p.a. as from 11 August 2024 until the day of effective
payment.
218. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player requested EUR 608,649 as compensation,
including in his calculations the salary for August 2024. The Club, on its part, did not provide
any evidence of having paid any amount for August 2024.
219. Considering that the termination occurred on 21 August 2024 and based on the standard
practice of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber decided to award the salary for August 2024
(EUR 26,463 net) as outstanding remuneration, with interest as from the termination date.
220. The Chamber also noted that the Player requested BGN 13,800 as compensation, arguing
that he was entitled to BGN 600 per month as a housing allowance. In his calculations, he
also included the housing allowance for the month of August 2024, which, in any case,
would be considered as outstanding remuneration. In this context, the Chamber recalled
that the relevant clause established:
“X.2. The CLUB shall provide the PLAYER with apartment for the duration of the Contract
at the expense of the CLUB up to the rental amount of BGN 600 per month.”
221. Based on the wording of the clause, the Chamber considered that the parties did not agree
upon a monthly allowance of BGN 600. Instead, the Club undertook to provide the Player
with accommodation at its expense, the cost of which could not exceed BGN 600 per
month.
222. The Chamber stressed that, while it is true that the Club did not expressly dispute the
Player’s entitlement to this amount, it is also true that it rejected all of his claims.
Furthermore, the Player failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that he received this
amount as a lump sum, and the Chamber could not establish whether the apartment
provided to the Player indeed cost BGN 600 or less, as this amount only served as a
reference for the maximum value. In this sense, the Chamber considered that the BGN 600
was not part of the Player’s remuneration and, instead, he was entitled to an apartment
for the duration of the Employment Contract.
223. In light of the above, the Chamber considered that the Player is not entitled to the housing
allowance.
pg. 56
REF. FPSD-16566
b.2) Compensation
224. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
225. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract(s) contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that none of the contracts signed by the parties contained such compensation
clause.
226. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
227. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the Player’s claim, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Employment
Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. The Chamber noted
that the Employment Contract was terminated by the Player on 21 August 2024 and would
have remained valid until 30 June 2026. Given that the salary for August 2024 was
considered as outstanding remuneration, the residual value consists of the salaries from
September 2024 until 30 June 2026, i.e., 22 monthly salaries. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 582,186 net serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
228. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the Player requested BGN 13,800 net as
compensation, corresponding to 23 months’ worth of housing allowances. However, as
previously mentioned, the Chamber confirmed that, in its view, the Player was not entitled
to housing allowances but rather to an apartment provided by the club. Thus, the Chamber
decided to reject this part of the claim.
229. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
pg. 57
REF. FPSD-16566
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with players general obligation to
mitigate their damages.
230. Indeed, the Chamber noted that the Player found employment with Guarani, valid as from
4 February 2025 until 31 March 2026. In this regard, the Player concluded the Subsequent
Federative Contract and the Subsequent Employment Contract, by means of which he
would be entitled to a monthly salary of BRL 20,000 and a monthly housing allowance of
BRL 3,000. Furthermore, the Player concluded the Subsequent IRA, valid as from 13
February 2025 until 31 March 2026, by means of which he would be entitled to BRL 30,000
per month and to BRL 40,000 if he played 10 matches in the starting line-up for at least 45
minutes. The Subsequent IRA established that the Player would not be entitled to a
monthly payment for the months of November and December.
231. Considering that the Subsequent IRA was part of the contractual framework, the Chamber
then recalled that the Player is entitled to the following amounts under his new
employment relationship:
•
BRL 20,000 as monthly salary, based on the Subsequent Employment Contract and
the Subsequent Federative Contract, which at the time of the signature was
equivalent to EUR 3,335.30. The Player is entitled to receive 14 monthly salaries,
totalling EUR 46,694.20;
•
BRL 3,000 as housing allowance. In this case, the Chamber noted that it is clear that
Guarani agreed to pay the Player this amount as a lump sum and, therefore, it
considered that this amount shall be taken into account. This amount was
equivalent to EUR 500.29 and, therefore, the Player is entitled to receive 14 monthly
allowances, totalling EUR 7,004.06;
•
BRL 30,000 under the Subsequent IRA. The Chamber wished to remark that,
although the Subsequent IRA stipulated that this amount would be increased to BRL
40,000 if the Player played at least 10 matches within the starting eleven, there is
no evidence that this occurred. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Player
was entitled to BRL 30,000. This amount was equivalent to EUR 5,002.95 at the time
of signature. Additionally, this contract was signed on 13 February 2025 and the
parties agreed that the Player would not receive any amount in November and
December. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that Player is entitled to EUR
57,891.27 under this contract.
232. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages by EUR 111,589.53
and, therefore, the mitigated compensation (i.e., residual value minus mitigation) amounts
to EUR 470,596.47 net.
pg. 58
REF. FPSD-16566
233. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber stressed that, while it is true
that the Player did not terminate the Employment Contract exclusively based on overdue
payables, it is clear that the termination was, among other reasons, due to overdue
payables. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Player is entitled to additional
compensation.
234. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
79,389 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
235. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the Player the total
amount of EUR 549,985.47 net (i.e., EUR 582,186 minus EUR 111,589.53 plus EUR 79,389),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
236. Taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 21 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
b.3) Tax certificates
237. Lastly, the Chamber recalled that the Player requested to be provided with the relevant tax
certificates confirming the amounts as net of taxes. Nevertheless, the Chamber decided to
reject this part of the claim due to a lack of contractual basis.
238. The Chamber however remarked that this decision was without prejudice of the Player’s
right to seek reimbursement of subsequent tax-related expenses that should have been
covered by the relevant club under the contract, if applicable and in front of the competent
decision-making bodies.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
239. 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.
240. 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
pg. 59
REF. FPSD-16566
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.
241. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
242. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
243. 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.
d. Costs
244. 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.
245. 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.
246. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 60
REF. FPSD-16566
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Rai Nascimento de Oliveira, is partially
accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Ludogorets, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- EUR 176,463 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 150,000 net as from 11 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 26,463 net as from 21 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 549,985.47 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 21 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 61
REF. FPSD-16566
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 62
REF. FPSD-16566
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. 63