Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17743
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Amil Yunanov
BY:
Angela Collins, Australia
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Amil Yunanov, Azerbaijan
Represented by Eljan Hasanli
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
KF Bylis, Albania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17743
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 September 2024, the Azeri player Amil Yunanov (hereinafter: the Claimant, the Player
or the Counter-Respondent) and the Albanian club Bylis (hereinafter: the Club, the Respondent
or the Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from 17 September 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
The preamble to the Contract defines the Claimant’s digital contact details, inter alia his email address as follows: y******[email protected].
3.
According to art. 2 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
monthly salary of EUR 400, by no later than the 10th day of the following respective month.
4.
Pursuant to art. 16 of the Contract, the parties agreed that if the Player were to terminate
the Contract unilaterally before the agreed upon term, liquidated damages of EUR 100,000
would be payable to the Respondent as a result.
5.
Furthermore, pursuant to the Contract, the following provisions governed the jurisdiction
of any potential disputes:
- Art. 1 General Conditions: “The player accepted the Club’s disciplinary authority and shall be
subject to the decisions of the Club’s management authorities as well as the football authorities
mentioned above (the Albanian Football Federation, UEFA and FIFA) for everything that is in their
jurisdiction.”
- Art. 18 Final Provisions: “In case of possible disputes, the parties of this contract
undertake/commit in their resolution by consensus, otherwise competent to address them as
the first degree will be the respective committees of the Albanian Football Association and as a
degree of appeal will be the Sports Court in Switzerland (CAS).”
6.
On 12 October 2024, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, stating that he was
present for training in the morning of 10 October 2024, but had abandoned training
prematurely, and that he was also not present on 11 October 2024, requesting an
explanation.
7.
On 27 October 2024, the Claimant allegedly sent a WhatsApp message to the Respondent’s
president, stating that he had to return home as he had a serious personal matter to
attend.
8.
On 28 October 2024, the Claimant allegedly sent a message within the Club’s WhatsApp
group chat, informing them as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17743
“Hello friends, Due to some problems in my family, I had to go to Azerbaijan. I probably won’t
be back anytime soon. Consider me sorry that I could not meet your diapers.. (sic) I wish you
success in your future life..”
9.
On 30 October 2024, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, informing him that he
was absent without authorization as from 10 October 2024 and requesting him to return
to the Club by no later than 5 November 2024. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that
the Claimant failed to provide a bank account in Albania in order to be able to transfer his
salary. Should the Claimant not return by 15 November 2024, the Respondent would deem
the Contract terminated unilaterally without just cause.
10. On 9 November 2024, the Claimant sent a further communication to the Respondent’s
president via WhatsApp, stating that he wished to settle his current situation amicably and
that he would attempt to collect money for this purpose.
11. On 13 November 2024, the Respondent sent a reminder to the Claimant as to its previous
correspondence and further provided an extension until 18 November 2024 to comply with
its request.
12. On 14 November 2024, the Claimant replied, stating that he had not received a signed copy
of the Contract since the beginning of the Contract. Furthermore, he stated that he did not
receive 2 monthly salaries, as well as no apartment, food or access to the Club‘ doctor. As
a result, the Claimant requested the Respondent to remedy this alleged breach within 15
days.
13. On 16 November 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of EUR 800, corresponding to the salaries for September 2024 and October 2024, granting
it a deadline of 15 days to remedy the default. In his default notice, the Claimant indicated
his bank account details.
14. On 28 November 2024, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, requesting the Claimant
to open a bank account in Albania, as it had “no way of paying” otherwise. Furthermore, the
Respondent stated that the Claimant is only entitled to remuneration subject to work
performed, and since he left the Club on 29 October 2024 (sic), he was not entitled to
receive any salary. Additionally, the Respondent addressed the Claimant’s allegations
regarding the absence of accommodation or access to the Club’s doctor, arguing that it had
provided a hotel room for the Claimant and that its doctor was available, but that he never
requested or needed medical services. Lastly, the Respondent highlighted that the
Claimant had, as part of his hotel accommodation, been entitled to food. The Respondent
finally reiterated its request for the Player to return, within 3 days.
15. On 5 December 2024, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17743
16. On the same date, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Azeri club
Shafa FC (hereinafter: Shafa FC), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2026.
17. In accordance with the New Contract, the Claimant was entitled to AZN 3,000 as a monthly
remuneration until 31 May 2025, and as from 1 June 2025 until the end of the Contract, a
monthly remuneration of AZN 3,500.
18. On 11 December 2024, the Albanian Football Federation (FSFH) purportedly notified the
parties of a claim opened before the Albanian NDRC. The relevant email notification was
communicated to the Claimant via the email address “y*****[email protected]”, and its
content indicated as follows:
“(…) a claim has been filed by the football club “KF Bylis against Amil Azim Oglu YunaNov” with
the secretariat of the Albanian Football Association. In accordance with the Regulations of the
National Dispute Resolution Chamber, the arbitration panel will consist of three members. Each
party has the right to select one member of the panel from the list of NDRC members by the date
16.12.2024
If the respondent party does not choose its member of the panel within the above-mentioned
deadline, the panel member and the chairperson will be selected by lot by the NDRC chairman.”
19. On 23 January 2025, the FSFH allegedly informed the parties of the hearing date before the
Albanian NDRC.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 10 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
21. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA and requested
overdue payables and compensation for breach of contract.
22. In his claim, the Player argued that the Respondent failed to comply with its contractual
obligations, as it had failed to remit the salaries for September 2024 and October 2024 on
time.
23. The Claimant further argued that he had put the Respondent in default of payment,
granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy such breach, to no avail.
24. As a result of the above, the Claimant argued that he had a just cause to prematurely
terminate the Contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17743
25. The Claimant therefore formulated the following request for relief:
- EUR 3,200 as the value of the Contract for the 2024/2025 season;
- EUR 1,200 as additional compensation.
b. Reply of the Respondent and counterclaim
26. On 30 January 2025, the Respondent requested the suspension of the proceedings before
FIFA due to the ongoing claim before the Albanian NDRC, outlining inter alia that it had
presented a claim before the Albanian NDRC and rendering a decision would potentially
give rise to conflicting rulings, and further that FIFA was not competent to hear the present
claim. Alternatively, the Respondent requested an extension of the deadline to submit its
reply to the claim.
27. On the same day, the FIFA General Secretariat granted an extension to the Respondent
until 17 February 2025 to submit its answer to the Claim.
28. On 17 February 2025 – within the stipulated deadline – the Respondent filed its reply and
counterclaim, requesting, preliminarily, for the DRC to conclude that it has no jurisdiction
to hear the present dispute, and, subsidiarily, to order the Claimant to pay compensation
for breach of contract.
29. In its counterclaim, the Respondent firstly argued that FIFA was not competent to hear the
present claim, as it had lodged a claim against the Player in December 2024 before the
Albanian NDRC. As such, the Respondent invoked the principle of lis pendens and requested
for the present dispute to be dismissed on grounds of admissibility.
30. As to the merits, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had been in breach of contract
as he had abandoned his position at the Club prematurely. In particular, the Respondent
argued that he had suddenly left on 10 October 2024, later revealing that this was due to
“family-related issues.”
31. As a result of the Player’s unauthorised absence, the Respondent argued that the default
notice of the former was sent in bad faith, as he had not preformed any work for the
salaries which he was claiming.
32. Based on the above, the Respondent argued that, not only had it complied with its financial
obligations, but further, emphasised that the Claimant was the party in breach of the
Contract. Hereby, the Respondent purported that it had indeed provided the Claimant with
accommodation and food, and further, that it had granted him access to the Club’sdoctor,
but that no medical services had ever been requested by the Claimant.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17743
33. As for the allegation of the Claimant that he had not been provided with a work permit, the
Respondent briefly argued that it had not received the adequate documentation from the
Claimant to initiate this process, reminding him thereof in its letter dated 31 October 2024,
that was responded on 28 November 2024.
34. As a result, the Respondent argued that the termination of the Contract by the Claimant
was without just cause, and that the latter was liable to pay compensation to the
Respondent.
35. The Respondent formulated the following request for relief:
- EUR 100,000 as compensation for breach of contract, based on the compensation
clause contained in art. 16 of the Contract;
- Subsidiarily, EUR 3,600 as compensation, based on the residual value of the Contract
- Sporting sanctions on the Player;
- CHF 5,000 as legal costs;
c. Procedure before the Albanian NDRC
36. On 21 March 2025, the Albanian NDRC rendered a decision in the claim lodged before it by
the Club in December 2024.
37. On 27 May 2025, the FSFH allegedly notified the parties to the present dispute of the
decision rendered on 21 March 2025 by its NDRC.
38. On 2 August 2025, the FSFH contacted the Association of Football Federations of Azerbaijan
(AFFA), notifying it of the decision against the Claimant and requesting its cooperation in
enforcing the decision, in particular requesting payment of the ordered amount and “the
imposition of a sporting sanction before the competent national and international football
authorities, including a ban on participation in official matches and the accrual of daily interest
and fines for non-compliance”. Moreover, the FSFH invoked provisions of the FIFA
Disciplinary Code and stated that the AFFA was obligated to cooperate with the
enforcement of its decision, failing which it would risk itself to be held liable “for obstructing
the implementation of disciplinary measures.”
39. On 15 October 2025, the AFFA communicated to FIFA the decision by the FSFH dated 21
March 2025 and purportedly notified to the parties on 27 May 2025.
d. Reply of the Claimant to the counterclaim
40. On 13 October 2025, the Claimant replied to the counterclaim.
41. The Claimant firstly argued that, as the Respondent’s counterclaim was filed on the last day
of the deadline set by FIFA, it was filed late and should therefore be deemed as
inadmissible.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17743
42. As to the jurisdiction of FIFA, the Claimant argued that FIFA should retain jurisdiction as the
dispute has an international dimension, the NDRC of Albania was not officially recognised
by FIFA as compliant in line with the FIFA NDRC Recognition Principles, and lastly, as the
jurisdiction clause referring to the Albanian NDRC was included as a standard form clause
and not bilaterally negotiated, thus constituting forced arbitration.
43. As to the merits, the Claimant emphasised once again that the Respondent failed to pay
any salary whatsoever, provide accommodation, food and medical care, and did not assist
him with the obtention of a work and residence permit.
44. Hereby, the Claimant confirmed that his departure from Albania was not unlawful, but
rather a result of the Respondent’s failure to comply with its contractual obligations.
Hereby, the Claimant argued that the WhatsApp communications on file affirm that he was
the injured party in the present dispute.
45. As a result, the Claimant insisted that he had a just cause to prematurely terminate the
Contract, therefore rendering the counterclaim of the Respondent without merit.
46. Therefore, the Claimant reiterated his initial request for relief.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17743
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
47. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 January 2025 and submitted
for decision on 30 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
b. Admissibility
48. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that, prior to analysing the merits of
the case at hand, it was necessary to examine its admissibility.
49. The Single Judge firstly noted that the Respondent has argued that, as a claim had already
been lodged before the Albanian NDRC in December 2024 – a claim which was ongoing
during the time the current proceedings were pending – FIFA did not have jurisdiction (sic)
as a result of the principle of lis pendens applying. The Respondent hereby emphasised that
the Albanian NDRC was competent to hear the dispute brought before it – instead of FIFA
– not least as the Player had not objected to the jurisdiction of the Albanian NDRC in the
proceedings before it, including as part of its submission the correspondence which
(allegedly) remained unanswered by the Player in which the FSFH invited the parties to
nominate arbitrators and informing the same parties of the date of the NDRC hearing.
50. The Single Judge was also observant that after the parties had submitted their respective
submissions to the file, FIFA eventually became aware of the decision lodged before the
Albanian NDRC by means of a correspondence by the AFFA, in which the latter was
requested to assist with its enforcement against the Player, both in terms of the financial
consequences and the imposition of sporting sanctions.
51. At this stage, the Single Judge considered important to address several points. On one
hand, the principles of Res iudicata and Lis Pendens, which was invoked by the Respondent,
is dependent on whether or not the decision-making body sought prior to FIFA “meets the
minimum procedural requirements for hearing that case” (cf. Edition 2023 of the Commentary
on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players p. 456).
52. Hereby, the Single Judge underscored that the claim brought before FIFA by the Player, as
well as the counterclaim of the Club, in which FIFA’s competence to entertain the claim as
to its merits, were both submitted after 1 January 2025 – the date as from which the lack
of recognition of an NDRC in accordance with the FIFA NDRC Recognition Principles
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17743
precludes a party from invoking its jurisdiction at the expense of FIFA’s pursuant to art. 22
RSTP.
53. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge observed that according to the content of the
Commentary on the RSTP:
“(…) if both parties recognise the jurisdiction of the national body by failing to contest it, the DRC
will recognise any decision passed by the national body, even if that body does not comply with
the procedural standards. In other words, a party that has recognised (or failed to contest) a
national body’s competence to hear a specific case – either by lodging its claim with the national
body or merely by submitting a response to the substance of the claim without contesting the
national body’s jurisdiction – will not be allowed to claim that the national body concerned does
not meet the minimum standards provided for by article 22 paragraph 1b) (and FIFA circular
no. 1010), or to ask the DRC to reconsider the case on that basis.”
54. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that an argument could be raised that, as the Player
an argument could be raised that, as the Player – based on the evidence submitted by the
Respondent, the motivated decision of the Albanian NDRC received by FIFA via the AFFA,
which indicates that the Claimant did not participate in the proceedings and a decision was
rendered against him in absentia, and the Claimant’s lack of any substantial position as to
his conduct in the NDRC proceedings, that the latter has effectively waived his opportunity
of claiming that the Albanian NDRC does not meet the procedural standards required by
the NDRC Recognition Principles, or hypothetically Circular 1010.
55. As a result, the Single Judge deemed that the admissibility of the present case rests on the
question whether or not the Player has indeed tacitly acknowledged the Albanian NDRC’s
jurisdiction.
56. Hereby, the Single Judge considered that the act (or omission) of such an objection requires
an abstract analysis as to whether the proceedings therein were conducted in such a way
as to safeguard minimum procedural requirements, such as the right to a fair trial, the right
to be heard, and general principles of due process and the rule of law.
57. In other words, the Single Judge questioned whether it can be concluded that the Claimant
has indeed acknowledged the NDRC’s jurisdiction in the claim brought before it, and thus
validly waived his right to challenge the same NDRC’s competence during the present
proceedings.
58. The Single Judge hereby emphasised that such analysis is without prejudice to:
- The recognition (or not) of the NDRC of Albania in accordance with the FIFA NDRC
Recognition Principles; and
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17743
- The lawfulness, procedural integrity and legal effect and enforceability of the decision
rendered by the Albanian NDRC, which, as suggested by the evidence on file, has
become final and binding in the meantime.
59. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that several inconsistencies become clear when
analysing the evidence pertaining to the decision rendered by the Albanian NDRC in the
claim brought before it by the Club.
60. Firstly, the Single Judge noted from the wording of the decision that the Claimant had not
participated in the proceedings at all, despite being allegedly “continuously notified at the
address specified in the contract concluded between the parties”. It appears that this
statement is inconsistent with the reality that the Claimant’s email address in the Contract
does not correspond to that indicated in the FSFH’s letters dated 11 December 2024 and
23 January 2025 respectively.
61. In particular, the email in the Contract is y*****[email protected], whereas the email to
which the FSFH’s correspondences were sent is y*****[email protected]. Moreover, for the
sake of completeness, neither of these email addresses correspond to the email address
with which the Claimant was registered on the Legal Portal for the sake of the present claim
(a*******@yahoo.com). Although this does not necessarily indicate that the email address
used by FSFH is incorrect, it also does not confirm its validity.
62. In any event, the Single Judge deemed that the above at least raised doubts as to the proper
notification of the claim before the Albanian NDRC to the Player, and as a result, the NDRC’s
observation of the Claimant’s right to be heard.
63. Having said this, the Single Judge also noted that the correspondence on file suggests that
the Albanian NDRC’s proceedings did not include any exchange of written submissions. The
Single Judge observed that two procedural steps – namely:
- The naming of the arbitrators sitting on the panel, once the case is eventually
submitted for a formal decision of the NDRC; and
- The communication of the date of the hearing, which was, pursuant to the wording
of the NDRC’s decision, held in the Claimant’s absence.
64. Moreover, the Single Judge closely analysed the correspondence by the FSFH reveals that
the Club’s claim before the NDRC was never even communicated in writing, e.g. as an
enclosure to any of its emails, to the purported address of the Player.
65. Therefore, the Single Judge noted that in addition to being communicated to an email
address which cannot be confirmed to be the Claimant’s, the lack of any written
submissions suggests a further deficit in the Claimant’s access to justice and right to be
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17743
heard. More specifically, aware of the Claimant’s departure from Albania as a result of the
premature termination of the Contract and the signature of a New Contract, the apparent
lack of an opportunity to make written submissions appeared to create both procedural
and logistical constraints on the Claimant in meaningfully participating in the proceedings
before the Albanian NDRC.
66. Lastly, and equally as notably, the Single Judge noted that the Albanian NDRC’s decision
was seemingly based on a request for relief by the club of EUR 6,400 as compensation for
breach of contract, plus 5% interest per annum as from 28 October 2024. In the Single
Judge’s opinion, this is revealed in the written statement of FSFH confirming the existence
of pending proceedings before the NDRC, submitted to FIFA as part of the Club’s
counterclaim. However, ultimately, the NDRC passed a decision ordering the Claimant to
pay EUR 15,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
67. Without prejudice to the correctness or procedural integrity of the NDRC decision, the
above appears to contravene the principle of ne iudex eat ultra petita partium, which once
again raises doubts as to the question whether or not the Claimant’s basic rights have been
respected in the course of these proceedings.
68. Without prejudice to the correctness or procedural integrity of the NDRC decision, the
Single Judge considered the above appears to contravene the principle of ne iudex eat ultra
petita partium, which once again raises doubts as to the question whether or not the
Claimant’s basic rights have been respected in the course of these proceedings.
69. The Single Judge underlined that it should be conceded at this stage that the Player’s
procedural conduct in the present case is not ideal. In particular, with the notification of
the claim before the Albanian NDRC being uncertain, the Single Judge assumed that the
latter became – at the latest – aware of these proceedings at the time the Respondent
disclosed them as part of its response and counterclaim before FIFA (i.e., 30 January 2025
and 17 February 2025).
70. The Single Judge also noted that the Claimant did challenge the jurisdiction of the Albanian
NDRC in the proceedings before FIFA, however, on grounds not directly related to the
Albanian NDRC proceedings themselves – instead, generically arguing that the dispute has
an international dimension, and that the Albanian NDRC has never been recognised by FIFA
as compliant with the relevant regulatory requirements.
71. The Single Judge mentioned that a more diligent approach, in her opinion, would have
been to argue that he was not properly notified, as the evidence on file suggested, or
challenging the jurisdiction of the Albanian NDRC in those proceedings specifically, via an
email to the relevant contact address of the FSFH, or engaging legal representation so as
not to be absent in the hearing (the date of which he would have, once again, learned by
means of the Respondent’s submissions on the present file), or lastly, challenging – or at
least enquiring as to the outcome of the decision rendered by the NDRC.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17743
72. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge could not ignore the apparent procedural
incongruencies which the proceedings before the Albanian NDRC appear to represent, to
the extent that the Claimant’s lack of an objection therein at the time these proceedings
were ongoing would entail that he did not “contest the NDRC’s competence”, as described in
p. 456 of the RSTP Commentary.
73. Hereby, the Single Judge considered that the jurisprudence of the CAS becomes relevant in
shedding light as to the Claimant’s objection (or not) to the NDRC’s jurisdiction. In the award
with reference CAS 2014/A/3483 CFR Cluj v. Ferdinando Sforzini & FIFA, the relevant Panel
has found that the player’s right to be heard was not respected as:
- It could not be demonstrated that he was “offered the possibility to present his case,
thus ensuring fair (…) proceedings in which his right to be heard was respected”. (cf. par.
59 of the award);
- “(…) the Panel considers in the present case to have no evidence on record that the
ratification of the [NDRC] was effectively notified to the Player. For any decision to become
final and binding in the meaning of res iudicata it is, however, essential that such decision
is effectively notified to the parties or addressees of such decision. (…) There is no evidence
in the file regarding the proper summoning of the Player and as such the Panel is not
convinced that the Player’s right to be heard was respected. Therefore, the Panel comes to
the conclusion that the decision [of the NDRC] had no res iudicata effect binding the FIFA
DRC” (cf. par. 70-72 of the award);
- As a result, the Panel found in that award that the decision of the Albanian NDRC did
not constitute a res iudicata effect to the extent of rendering the claim before FIFA
inadmissible.
74. The Single Judge was of the opinion that the above award presents a clear parallel to the
present claim before FIFA. The Respondent is invoking a decision by an NDRC to prevent
FIFA from hearing the same claim as to its merits; whereas the same decision by the NDRC,
based on the evidence on file, suggests that the Player’s right to be heard was not respected
– once again, without prejudice to the hypothetical enforceability of the decision within the
confines of the FSFH’s regulatory framework.
75. As a result of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the principle of res iudicata is not
applicable to the present case, and that the dispute at stake had to be heard as to its merits.
76. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17743
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Azerbaijani
player and an Albanian club.
77. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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.
c. Burden of proof
78. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
79. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i.
Main legal discussion and considerations
80. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the termination of the Contract
81. The Single Judge firstly noted that according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract
with just cause due to outstanding remuneration. In particular, he argued that the
Respondent had failed to remit two monthly salaries at the time that the Contract was
prematurely terminated – i.e., the salary for September 2024 and October 2024.
82. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Claimant had terminated the Contract
without just cause, and that the latter had been in breach of his obligations. In particular,
it argued that he had abandoned his position without authorisation, and that, as a result
of not having performed any work following his departure, he was not entitled to any
remuneration. As a result, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was liable to
compensate the former for the damages caused by his breach of contract.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17743
83. As a preliminary remark, the Single Judge noted that, the Claimant has not challenged the
contents of the WhatsApp correspondences on file – rather, in his reply to the
counterclaim, confirmed their authenticity, arguing that they confirm the lawfulness of the
premature termination.
84. The Single Judge considered important to recall the timeline of the case in order to establish
the breaches of contract (if any) by the parties and set out a basis for establishing the
lawfulness of the premature termination:
- On 16 September 2024, the parties signed the Contract.
- On 12 October, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant had missed one training
session and had left another session prematurely.
- On 27 October 2024, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he had to depart
Albania due to a personal matter.
- On 28 October 2024, the Claimant informed the Respondent, the other players and
the technical staff that he would leave Albania and “not return anytime soon”.
- On 30 October 2024, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, informing him
that he had been absent without authorisation as from 10 October 2024, and
requested him to return by no later than 5 November 2024. Furthermore, the
Respondent requested the Claimant to provide a bank account in order to make
outstanding payments to the latter. Hereby it is important to note that the Respondent
stated that the Claimant failed to provide a bank account in Albania in order to be able
to transfer his salary. Should the Claimant not return by 15 November 2024, the
Respondent would deem the Contract terminated unilaterally without just cause.
- On 9 November 2024, the Claimant communicated with the Club’s president and
requested an amicable resolution of the situation so that he could return home.
- On 13 November 2024, the Respondent extended the deadline for the Claimant to
return until 18 November 2024.
- On 14 November 2024, the Claimant replied to the Respondent, emphasising that he
had not been paid since the beginning of the Contract, as well as not being provided
with accommodation, food and access to medical services within the Club.
- On 16 November 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment and
requested two monthly salaries – i.e., September 2024 and October 2024, granting 15
days to remedy the alleged breach. Therein, the Claimant provided his bank account
details.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17743
- On 28 November 2024, the Respondent reiterated that it was unable to pay the
Claimant unless he provided a bank account located in Albania, and further argued
that it had complied with its contractual obligations by providing a hotel room with
food included therein, and that the Player did have access to the Club’s doctor, but
that he did not require any medical services up to that point. Lastly, the Respondent
herein stated that the Claimant had left Albania on 28 October 2024 – and not on 10
October 2024 (contrary to what it previously argued).
- On 5 December 2024, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
85. Based on the above, the Single Judge drew the following conclusions:
- Firstly, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent not only did not challenge the nonpayment of any amounts that were stipulated in the Contract, but further, that the
Claimant had left Albania on 28 October 2024. Assertions to the contrary (namely that
the Claimant had left on 10 October 2024) represent contradictions in the
Respondent’s own narrative and would infringe on the well fundamental principle of
venire contra factum proprium.
- Furthermore, the Respondent has argued that the Claimant had not fully completed
two training sessions, but did not further elaborate this point, nor did it appear to
take any action subsequent thereto, aside from sending an isolated letter requesting
an explanation.
86. As a result, based on the evidence on file, the Claimant had rendered services for around
one and a half months, without receiving any remuneration. At this point, the salary of
September 2024 had already fallen due as it was due on 10 October 2024.
87. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent did not provide any evidence
to corroborate its allegation that it had provided accommodation and food for the
Claimant. Although, it had indicated this in its correspondence and the present
counterclaim, no evidence documenting a hotel reservation, or anything corroborating that
food was provided as part of the Claimant’s alleged hotel stay was filed in support of the
present claim or communicated to the Claimant.
88. Equally, regarding the Claimant’s work permit, the Respondent once again provided no
evidence of having complied with its obligation as an employer in facilitating this. The
Respondent not only acknowledged that this was outstanding in its correspondences to
the Claimant on 31 October and 2 November 2024, but in any event, given that the Contract
was concluded on 16 September 2024, this gives rise to the conclusion that the Claimant
had effectively been performing services without a valid work permit or residence permit
for nearly two months.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17743
89. With this established, the Single Judge stressed it must be conceded that the circumstances
of the Claimant’s departure are dubious and indeed suggest an inconsistent behaviour by
the latter – i.e., on one hand, he appears to have been keen to terminate the Contract due
to personal circumstances, whereas there are also indications in the correspondence on
file that the Respondent had hired a new coach and that the Claimant felt excluded from
his sporting plans.
90. Lastly, though the Single Judge noted that the Claimant did communicate to the
Respondent, the remaining players and the technical staff that he would take an absence
without an anticipated return date to tend to his personal affairs, she noted that there was
no unilateral, definitive termination letter on file. Indeed, the parties mutually
acknowledged even from that point onwards in their respective default letters that the
Contract was still in force.
91. In any event, the Player’s inconsistent behaviour aside, what can be undisputedly
established is that the Respondent had not complied with its financial obligations,
therefore giving rise to the legal principles of exceptio non adimpleti contractus, respectively.
ex turpi causa non oritur actio – i.e., in the absence of payment of the contractually stipulated
remuneration for work performed by the Claimant, the Respondent is not in a position to
claim that the Claimant was in breach of his obligations.
92. Furthermore, the Single Judge determined that the above equally shows that the
Respondent indeed failed to corroborate that it had complied with its obligations.
93. At this point, the Single Judge recalled the context of the situation where:
- At the time the Claimant put the Respondent in default pursuant to art. 14bis of the
Regulations (i.e., 16 November 2024), the latter had not complied with one full
monthly salary, and nearly half of another salary (pro-rata), as well as failing to provide
accommodation, food and administrative requirements for the performance of
services, with a 15-day deadline in place for the Respondent to comply.
- The Respondent did not challenge the non-payment of these amounts, did not
rectify the other above-established breaches, nor did it provide a valid justification for
this.
- On 5 December 2024, after more than 15 days elapsing after the communication of
the default notice, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
94. Based on the above, the Single Judge concluded that the formal requirements of art. 14bis
of the Regulations were not met, as less than two full monthly salaries had fallen due at
the time of termination.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17743
95. The Single Judge recalled that the Claimant had duly complied with the procedural
requirements set out under art. 14bis of the Regulations. Faced with the Respondent’s
failures, the Claimant placed the Respondent in default on 16 November 2024, granting a
15‑day deadline to remedy the non‑payment of a salary and a half, as well as the absence
of accommodation, food, and the necessary administrative documents for lawful
employment. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant waited in good faith for the full
period to elapse, during which the Respondent neither remedied the breaches nor
provided any explanation. The termination occurred only once the deadline had expired,
on 5 December 2024. In this respect, the Single Judge nevertheless observed that the strict
quantitative threshold under art. 14bis—namely the non‑payment of at least two monthly
salaries—was not formally met.
96. However, the Single Judge referred to art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations which provides that:
“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.”
97. In line with this provision and the well‑established jurisprudence of the FIFA Football
Tribunal, the Single Judge stressed that a premature termination may arise in the event of
a substantial or repeated breach of contract by the counterparty and that a unilateral
termination constitutes an ultima ratio measure, to be taken only where no more lenient
means remain available to preserve the employment relationship.
98. Against this background, the Single Judge considered that the breaches committed by the
Respondent were not isolated or minor but rather cumulative and substantial in nature,
affecting core elements of the employment relationship. In particular, the Respondent’s
failure to pay the agreed remuneration, to provide accommodation and basic living
conditions, and to secure the necessary work and residence permits demonstrated a
pattern of conduct incompatible with the requirements of good faith and contractual
stability. The Single Judge held that, taken together, these circumstances created a
situation in which the Claimant could no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected
to continue the contractual relationship, thereby meeting the threshold for just cause.
99. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the
Contract on 5 December 2024. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the
counterclaim lodged by the Club against the Player.
ii.
Consequences
100. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17743
101. The Single Judge observed that part of the salary of September, as well as the salaries of
October and November 2024 were outstanding at the moment of termination.
102. As to the months of September, the Single Judge noted that the amount of 14 days between
17 and 30 September 2024 were owed by the Club amounting to EUR 186.66. Therefore,
the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant such amount.
103. The Single Judge further noted that the salary for October 2024 amounting to EUR 400 was
outstanding. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to award the full amount.
104. Lastly, the Single Judge observed that despite being paid after the termination of the
Contract, the Player already had performed his work in the month of November 2024. In
this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the salary for November as outstanding
amounting to EUR 400.
105. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
986.66.
106. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
107. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract 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 Judge recalled
that clause 16 par. 3 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“The Club has the right to terminate the contract at any time without any financial, legal or
moral obligations towards the Player in case that the last has violated the Club regulation and/or
is not efficient in official matches. If the Player breakes the contract unilaterally before the term,
he shall pay to the club a penalty 100.000 Euro.”
108. The Single Judge noted that the above-mentioned clause, imposed obligations only to the
Player towards the Club in case of termination of the Contract. Therefore, the Single Judge
noted that this clause was not proportional nor reciprocal.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17743
109. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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).
110. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 2,800 (i.e., EUR 400 times seven as from
December 2024 until June 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
111. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Single Judge as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
112. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Azeri club Shafa FC. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately AZN 3,000 per
month until 31 May 2025 and to AZN 3,500 monthly as from 1 June 2025 until 31 May 2026.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of AZN 21,500, that is, AZN 3,000 times six between December 2024 and May 2025
plus AZN 3,500 for the month of June 2025. Consequently, the Single Judge determined
that the overlapping period between the two contracts, the mitigated amount is equivalent
to approximately EUR 10,910.
113. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
114. In this respect, the Single decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
EUR 1,200, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player under the prematurely
terminated contract.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17743
115. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 1,200 to the Claimant (i.e., EUR 2,800 minus EUR 10,910 plus EUR 1,200), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
iii.
Compliance with monetary decisions
116. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
117. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
118. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
119. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
120. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
e. Costs
117. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17743
118. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
119. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17743
IV.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Amil Yunanov is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, KF Bylis is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, KF Bylis, must pay the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 986.66 as outstanding remuneration.
- EUR 1,200 as compensation for breach of contract.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/ CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17743
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. 24