Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17821
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Richairo
Juliano Zivkovic
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
CLAIMANT:
Richairo Juliano Zivkovic, Netherlands
Represented by Tim Wilms
RESPONDENT:
CRVENA ZVEZDA, Serbia
Represented by Davor Radić
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17821
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this case are:
-
The Dutch player, Richairo Juliano Zivkovic (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
-
The Serbian club, Crvena Zvezda (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
On 30 August 2021, the Player and the Club concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Employment Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2024.
3.
On 22 July 2022, the Player and the Club concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter:
the Termination Agreement) according to which the parties decided to mutually terminate
the Employment Contract.
4.
According to art. 3 of the Termination Agreement the Player was entitled to EUR 377,600
net payables in instalments. Moreover, in the event of the Club’s failure to pay, the Player
was entitled to a penalty of 12% per annum over the full outstanding amount (cf. art. 4 of
the Termination Agreement).
5.
Art. 7 of the Termination Agreement read as follows:
“In the event of a dispute, The Parties shall attempt to resolve it by mutual agreement,
otherwise the Football Tribunal of FIFA shall be competent in accordance with the provisions
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
The parties agree that a dispute between them exists also if the Club is in default of paying to
Players United Management B.V (‘PUM’) on or before July 27, 2022 an amount of EUR
41,046,30 regarding the representation services provided by PUM. PUM and the Club have
agreed in a separate agreement that such payment will take place ultimately on 27 July 2022.
On the claim of PUM article 4 of this Agreement is equally applicable, In the event the Player
will have to submit the claim of PUM to FIFA, this claim shall be deemed to have been
transferred by assignment to the Player, to which assignment the Club hereby agrees in
advance.”
6.
On the same date, 22 July 2022, the Club and the company named Players United
Management B.V. (hereinafter: PUM) also concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter:
the PUM Termination Agreement) regarding the Player’s services under the Contract.
7.
Arts. 3 and 4 of the PUM Termination Agreement read as follows:
“Article 3
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17821
Due to the fact that the Professional Player Contract is terminated before the agreed period
of validity. the Intermediary irrevocably declares to release the Club from payment of the nondue part of the claim provide for by Art. 2 of this Agreement and the Club shall not have any
obligations to the Intermediary for non-due installments, except as is provided for in this
agreement.
The Parties agree that the duties of the Club towards the [PUM], on the day the representation
agreement is terminated entail EUR 41.046,30. payable ultimately on 27 July 2022.
Article 4
The parties will make an effort to resolve possible disputes amicably and if those attempts
fail, the dispute will fall under the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal of FIFA and will be
settled in accordance with article 6 of the termination agreement between the Club and the
Professional Player.”
FIFA proceedings (case FPSD-7243)
8.
On 22 August 2022, the Player lodged a claim before FIFA against the Club requesting the
following relief, quoted verbatim:
“(a) The Player has requested your Chamber primarily to decide to grant the Player the total
amount of EUR 418,640.30 (EUR 377,600 + EUR 41.046,30), increased with a penalty of 12%
per annum, which also includes a part of the not yet due payables (not yet due is an amount
of EUR 120.000 for termination fee). The breach of Crvena Zvezda justifies that the full amount
agreed upon will be paid to the Player as a lumpsum.
(b) However, if your Chamber should decide not to grant the full amount to the Player, his
claim as per the date of this letter is EUR 298,646.30, to be increased with a penalty of 12 %
per annum, as follows:
- Loyalty fee: EUR 120,000
- Termination fee: EUR 120,000
- Performance bonus: EUR 17,600
- Assigned PUM Claim: EUR 41,046.30”
9.
On 17 October 2022, the Club filed a counterclaim against the Player, requesting the
following relief, quoted verbatim:
“1. The counter-claim of the Respondent-Claimant, FK Crvena Zvezda, is admissible and
accepted.
2. The Claimant-Respondent, Richario Zivkovic, has to pay to the Respondent-Claimant the
amount of EUR 225,171.90 as breach of Termination agreement with mutual consent on 22
July 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2022 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17821
3. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4. 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 Claimant-Respondent shall be restricted on any football related activity up until the
due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months.
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 six months.
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Respondent-Claimant in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players.
6. This decision is rendered without costs.”
10. On 12 April 2023, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of the Football Tribunal passed a
decision for which the grounds were notified to the parties on 2 June 2023 (hereinafter: the
FIFA Decision). The operative part of the FIFA Decision provided the following (cited
verbatim):
“1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, RICHAIRO ZIVKOVIC, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, CRVENA ZVEZDA is rejected.
3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, CRVENA ZVEZDA, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the amount of EUR 377,600 as outstanding amount plus 12% interest p.a. as
from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
- On the amount of EUR 80,000 as from 28 July 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 16 August 2022
- On the amount of EUR 17,600 as from 16 September 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 26 August 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 26 September 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 26 October 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 26 November 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 26 December 2022
- On the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 26 January 2022
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17821
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/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.
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.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.”
11. Regarding the Player’s request of EUR 41,046.30 pursuant to art. 7 of the Termination
Agreement and art. 3 of the PUM Termination Agreement (hereinafter: the PUM Debt), the
DRC indicated the following:
“In continuation, the Chamber took note that the club further argued that FIFA has no
competence to deal with the request of the player regarding the payment of his agent’s fee.
In this context the DRC highlighted the provisions of clause 7 of the termination agreement,
which indeed mentions that the agent’s claim of EUR 41,046.30 will become part of the
player’s claim and assigned to him when the club fails to pay the amount in time. However,
in this regard the Chamber held that though the contractual provision in the termination
agreement makes reference to the said assignment of the claim to the player, the player failed
to provide corroborating documentary evidence i.e., letter of assignment to proof [sic] that
the claim was indeed assigned to him from PUM, accordingly the Chamber decided to reject
this part of the player’s claim.”
CAS proceedings (CAS 2023/A/9734)
12. On 17 June 2023, the Club appealed the FIFA decision before the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS) and requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17821
“In light of the aforementioned, the Appellant FK Crvena Zvezda respectfully requests the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CASTAS) to issue an Award as follows:
1. The Appeal filed by FK Crvena Zvezda against Richario Zivkovic regarding the decision
pronounced by the FIFA Dispute Resolution chamber on 6 September 2022 is upheld.
2. To establish that article 3 of the Termination Agreement on 22 July 2022 is null and void
and without any effect between Claimant[s] and Respondent;
3. To establish that all the claims of the Respondent must be rejected;
4. The decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 12 April 2023 is annulled and the
claim of Richario Zivkovic is rejected.
5. To charge all the costs of this proceeding to Luis Pablo Diony [sic] and to grant a
contribution to the legal fees of the Appellant of CHF 12,000.
In addition, in the case the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CASTAS) does not accept the
abovementioned primary appellate request of the Appeal, the Appellant FK Crvena Zvezda
then petitions for an alternative (additional) request respectfully seeking that the Court of
Arbitration for Sport issue an Award as follows:
1. The Appeal filed by FK Crvena Zvezda against Richario Zivkovic regarding the decision
pronounced by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 12 April 2023 is upheld.
2. The claim of Richario Zivkovic in the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 12
April 2023 is rejected and counter-claim of the FK Crvena Zvezda is accepted which means
that Richario Zivkovic has to pay to the FK Crvena Zvezda the amount of EUR 225,171.90 as
breach of Termination Agreement with mutual consent on 22 July 2022 plus 5% interest p.a.
as from I 6 September 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3. To charge all costs of this proceeding to Richario Zivkovic and to grant a contribution to
the legal fees of Appellant of CHF 12,000”.
13. On 7 August 2023, the Player filed his reply brief at CAS. In addition to his request for the
CAS to dismiss the Club’s appeal, the Player insisted on his entitlement to the PUM Debt,
as follows:
“(i) Dismissing the appeal of FK Crevena [sic] Zvezda.
(ii) Upholding the Decision of the FIFA DRC of 12 April 2022.
(iii) Adding to the awarded claim of Zivkovic the assigned amount of EUR 41,046.30 to be
increased with interest of 12% as from 27 July 2022.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17821
(iv) Condemning FK Crevena [sic] Zvezda to pay all costs of this proceeding and condemning
FK Crevena [sic] Zvezda to pay a contribution towards the costs of Zivkovic for legal fees and
other expenses of at least CHF 12,000.”
14. It is however noted that the Player has not formally appealed the FIFA Decision.
15. On 23 September 2023, a hearing was held between the parties.
16. On 29 January 2024, CAS notified the award issued by its Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter: the
CAS Award), the operative part of which provided the following:
“1. The appeal filed by FK Crvena Zvezda against the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber of passed on 12 April 2023 is dismissed.
2. The decision rendered by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 12 April 2023 is
confirmed.
3. The counterclaim filed by Richario Živković is dismissed.
4. The costs of the present arbitration proceedings, to be determined and served to the parties
by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by FK Crvena Zvezda in the proportion of 90% and by
RicharioŽivković in the proportion of 10%.
5. FK Crvena Zvezda shall pay to Richario Živković an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand
Swiss francs) as contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred by the latter
in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.”
17. Regarding the Player’s “counterclaim” for the PUM Debt, the CAS Award indicated the
following:
“93. On the contrary, the Sole Arbitrator notes that the Player, by submitting his request for
relief, also requested to be granted an additional amount beyond the amounts granted by
the FIFA DRC in the Appealed Decision, corresponding to the agent fee, based on a letter of
assignment by PUM.
94. As already mentioned above, the same request was dismissed by the Appealed Decision
based on the fact that the Player, at that time, "failed to provide corroborating documentary
evidence i.e. letter of assignment to proof that the claim was indeed assigned to him from
PUM".
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17821
95. In other words, the Player requested more than the confirmation of the Appealed Decision,
while he failed to appeal such decision.
96. Such request cannot be considered or decided by the Sole Arbitrator as it is not admissible
in accordance with the CAS Code. In this regard, the Sole Arbitrator recalls that Article R55 of
the CAS Code does not allow to file counterclaims or cross-appeals with the answer to the
appeal. If a potential respondent wants to challenge part or all of a decision and request
more than the confirmation of such decision, it must file an independent appeal with the CAS
within the applicable time limit for appeal.
97. The Sole Arbitrator underlines that counterclaims are not admissible anymore as from
the 2010 revision of the CAS Code, in appeal arbitration proceedings before CAS: "[i]t must be
noted that, since 2010, counterclaims are no longer possible in appeal procedures. This
means that, if a potential respondent wants to challenge part or all of a decision, it must file
an independent appeal with the CAS within the applicable time limit for appeal”
(MAVROMATI/REEB, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, 2015, p. 249 and 488, with
references to CAS 2010/A/2252, para. 40, CAS 2010/A/2098, paras. 51-54, CAS 2010/A/2108,
paras. 181- 183; see also CAS 2013/A/3432 paras. 54-57 with reference to a decision of the
Swiss Federal Tribunal).
98. Accordingly, the Player’s requests for relief which go beyond a request for the confirmation
of the Appealed Decision and which are not relating to the costs in connection with the present
procedure are inadmissible”.
18. On 29 February 2024, and following request for enforcement by the Player, the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee notified the Club that a ban from registering new players
internationally had been imposed, due to the Club’s failure to pay its financial obligations
pursuant to the FIFA Decision, as confirmed by the CAS Award. The amount was eventually
paid and the proceedings closed.
Deed of assignment
19. Allegedly in parallel to the CAS proceedings, on 2 August 2023, the Player and PUM agreed
on a deed of assignment (hereinafter: the Deed of Assignment). The Deed of Assignment
confirmed the assignment from PUM to the Player of the PUM Debt, including all further
costs, interests, fines and/or other amounts due in this respect.
20. On 27 November 2024, the Player put the Club in default, requesting EUR 52,588.68
corresponding to the PUM Debt and applicable interests, by 11 December 2024.
21. On 12 December 2024, the Player reiterated his request for the amount of EUR 52,588.60
by 18 December 2024.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17821
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 16 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
23. The Player requested the payment of EUR 41,046.30 (i.e., the PUM Debt) pursuant to art. 7
of the Termination Agreement and art. 3 of the PUM Termination Agreement.
24. The Player further mentioned that FIFA had jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter. In
particular, he mentioned the following, quoted verbatim:
“despite the fact that your Chamber previously in your decision of 12 April 2023 discussed
the PUM-Claim, the Player and PUM have now on 2 August 2023 agreed on a deed of
assignment (Annex 8). This document – agreed after the previous proceedings before your
Chamber – provides corroborating documentary evidence that proofs [sic] that the claim
was indeed assigned to the Player by PUM. Due to this new circumstance (i.e. agreement of
the deed of assignment), the Player now has a valid claim on Red Star Belgrade in relation
to the assigned PUM-Claim. For the avoidance of doubt, it is emphasized that the deed of
assignment was also concluded after the moment that the appeal term to appeal against
the decision of the FIFA DRC of 12 April 2023 before CAS expired”.
25. As to the substance, the Player mentioned that:
“[…] it cannot be disputed that there is a claim of EUR 41.046,30 on Red Star Belgrade. This
payment has been clearly agreed in the PUM Termination Agreement (art. 3) and been
confirmed – together with the assignment of the claim to the Player – in the Player
Termination Agreement (art. 7). In addition, it has also been clearly agreed in art. 7 and 4
of the Player Termination Agreement that a contractual penalty of 12% per annum is due
by Red Star Belgrade over the claim in the event of non-payment. As a consequence, the
claim of the Player can and shall be allowed by your Chamber.
The Player is also – in addition to the Claim of EUR 41.046,30 and contractual 12% penalty
per annum – entitled to legal interest from 27 July 2022 until the moment of payment. The
Player considers 5% p.a. common and reasonable.”
26. The Player requested the following relief:
“i. Order Red Star Belgrade to pay to the Player within 14 days after your decision is
rendered, on the bank account as mentioned in the Bank Account Registration Form (Annex
9) an amount of in total EUR 41,060.30 net, increased with the contractual penalty of 12%
p.a. and with 5% interest p.a. or another amount of interest considered reasonable by your
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17821
Chamber or, alternatively, order Red Star Belgrade to pay to the Player an amount including
penalty and interest as considered appropriate by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber;
And
ii. Order that if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of the decision, the Red Star Belgrade shall be banned from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and that the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the
event that full payment (including all applicable penalty and interest) is still not made by the
end of one entire and consecutive registration period after the transfer ban has been
imposed;
and
iii. Order that the 45-day time limit shall not be paused by a valid request for the grounds
of the decision or by an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
27. In its reply, the Club considered the claim inadmissible.
28. The Club first mentioned that more than two years had elapsed since the event triggering
payment of the requested amount as per the Termination Agreement and the PUM
Termination Agreement. Moreover, it mentioned that during the previous claim (FPSD7243) and the CAS proceedings (CAS 2023/A/9734), the Club never accepted this request
and always objected. Consequently, the Club argued that the claim is inadmissible.
29. Second, the Club claimed that FIFA does not have jurisdiction, considering that it consists
of a claim between an agent and a club. In particular, it argued that, quoted verbatim:
“the club FK Crvena Zvezda is opinion [sic] that FIFA has no jurisdiction to hear this dispute.
This is because in nature this is dispute between agent and football club and not between
player and football club. The document under the name “Deed of assignment on 2 August
2023” that player write with his agents PUM is a retroactive document without any legal effect
for the club FK Crvena Zvezda because that document player never submitted in the previous
procedure before FIFA Football Tribunal (Ref. No. FPSD-7243) and before the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2023/A/9734). […] from the claim and material documents in this
case file it is clear that this claimed amount did not belong to the player Richario Juliano
Zivkovic. It is amount for his agent PUM”.
30. Third, the Club argued that this claim is also procedurally flawed (and inadmissible) based
on the legal principle of res judicata. It alleged that:
“27. Res judicata is the legal principle that precludes a subsequent legal action involving the
same claim, demand, or cause of action to be redecided once it has been judged / decided on
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17821
the merits. The res judicata principle avoids the occurrence of two contradicting decisions,
which would be contrary to public policy. Res judicata exists when there is (i) an identical
claim from a substantive point of view; (ii) the same parties were involved in the proceedings;
and (iii) the matter was resolved based on the same facts and evidence at the time of the first
judgment. This is the so-called triple identity test (see, CAS 2020/A/6912 Cristian Nasuti v. AEK
Athens FC & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 22 February
2021).
28. The procedural concept of res iudicata is composed of two elements. First the
„Sperrwirkung“ (prohibition to deal with one matter = ne bis in idem), the consequence of
such effect being that if one matter (with res iudicata) is brought again before one judge, the
latter is not allowed to look at it and must dismiss the matter (so far) as inadmissible.
Secondly, the „Bindungswirkung“ effect (binding effect of one decision), according to which
one judge in a second procedure is bound to the outcome of the matter decided in res iudicata
(see, CAS 2018/A/5500 Lao Toyota Football Club v. Asian Football Confederation, award of 12
June 2018).
29. As a result of the above, the Claimant’s claim in this case is inadmissible (alternatively, it
must be dismissed and/or rejected), considering that the identical legal matter has already
been decided by the decision of FIFA DRC on 12 April 2023 in the case Ref. No. FPSD-7243”.
31. The Club requested the following relief:
“1. The claim of the Claimant, Richario Juliano Zivkovic, is inadmissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
or alternatively,
1. The Football Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a claim of the Claimant, Richario Juliano
Zivkovic.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
32. The Player provided the following rejoinder.
33. Regarding the statute of limitations, he mentioned that the event that gave rise to the
dispute was the conclusion of the Deed of Assignment dated 2 August 2023 and, since the
statement of claim in this procedure was filed within two years after the signature of the
Deed of Assignment, his claim is not time-barred.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17821
34. Moreover, the Player mentioned that even if it were to be assumed that the event that gave
rise to the dispute was the breach of the PUM Termination Agreement on 27 July 2022 – as
alleged by the Club – this prescriptive period was interrupted by the actions of the Player.
35. The Player stated, quoted verbatim:
“As acknowledged by the Respondent, a previous statement of claim was filed by the Player
in 2023 before the FIFA DRC, followed by proceedings before the CAS. Under Article 135(2) of
the Swiss Code of Obligations, the initiation of proceedings before either a court or an arbitral
tribunal constitutes an interruption of the limitation period. Consequently, a new limitation
period commenced as of the date of the interruption according to article 137 of the Swiss
Code of Obligations. Therefore, the claim now under consideration was filed within the
renewed period and must be deemed admissible. Based on the above, CAS jurisprudence and
the applicable Swiss legal framework, the limitation period was validly interrupted. Since the
current claim was filed within the resulting new time frame, it must be considered admissible.
Accordingly, the Respondent’s objection should be dismissed and the claim assessed on its
merits“.
36. Regarding FIFA jurisdiction, the Player stressed that:
“[it] concerns a claim of him related to the termination of his employment. The claim was
assigned by Players United Management B.V. (“PUM”) but the claimed amount arises directly
from the Player Termination Agreement of 22 July 2022 (see: Annex 3 of the Statement of
Claim). The Parties (i.e. the Player and the Respondent) explicitly had the intention as part of
the termination agreement between them that the claim would become a claim of the Player
if not paid in time and that the claim could then be claimed by the Player before the FIFA DRC.
It clearly follows from article 7, second and third paragraph of the Player Termination
Agreement, that the claim of EUR 41.046,30 is not a claim between a club and an agent, but
a claim that has been assigned to the Player and therefore a claim from a player on a club
that can be claimed before the FIFA DRC.”
37. Additionally, the Player claimed that art. 7 of the Termination Agreement contains a clear
jurisdiction clause, under which the parties expressly agreed to submit any dispute,
including non-payment of the PUM Debt, to the FIFA Football Tribunal. Finally, and in so far
as relevant, the Player disputed that the Deed of Assignment is a retroactive document
without any legal effect for the Club, because that document was never submitted in the
previous procedure before FIFA or CAS. Furthermore, the Player claimed that the Club was
aware of this document as it had already been brought to the Club’s attention on 7 August
2023. Therefore, the Player insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction.
38. Finally, as to the principle of res judicata, the Player mentioned the following, quoted
verbatim:
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17821
“while it is true that previous proceedings (FIFA DRC case Ref. No. FPSD-7243, confirmed by
CAS Award (CAS 2023/A/9734) involved the same parties and were related to payment claims,
the current claim concerns different facts and circumstances which is sufficient to be heard
again and be decided upon in this procedure before the FIFA DRC. As a result, the triple
identity test for res judicata (see e.g. CAS 2020/A/6912 Cristian Nasuti v. AEK Athens FC &
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 22 February 2021) – identity
of parties, claim, and facts – is not met.
Although the Chamber previously discussed the PUM Claim in its decision of 12 April 2023, it
is important to note that on 2 August 2023, after those proceedings concluded, the Player
and PUM entered into a Deed of Assignment. This agreement confirms that the claim was
validly transferred from PUM to the Player and provides new and decisive evidence in support
of the Player’s entitlement.
5.5. This assignment represents a new fact that did not exist during the earlier proceedings
and therefore could not have been raised or considered. Moreover, the Deed of Assignment
was concluded after the moment that the appeal term to appeal against the decision of the
FIFA DRC of 12 April 2023 before CAS expired. As such, it could not have been presented or
considered in the previous proceedings, and therefore cannot give rise to res judicata.
[…]
Thus, res judicata requires – amongst others - that the previous matter was solved based on
the same facts and evidence at the time of the first judgment (see e.g. CAS 2020/A/6912).
However, this matter includes new facts and circumstances. Therefore res judicata is not
applicable and it does not prevent the FIFA DRC from dealing with this matter and providing
a decision on the merits of the claim of the Player.
5.8. The Player emphasizes that also due to the bad faith of the Respondent and its behaviour
– i.e. due the fact that the Respondent continues to deny to comply with clear and valid
payment obligations and forces the Player to initiate a number of legal proceedings – the
defences of the Respondent (including the defences discussed in this written submission
above) – shall already be rejected by the FIFA DRC. The Player is of the opinion that the
(procedural) behaviour of the Respondent cannot be overlooked and already justifies
rejection of its (formal) defences.
5.9. Therefore, the objection of res judicata is unfounded and must be dismissed. The claim
is admissible and the FIFA DRC can decide on this claim.
5.10. Finally, the Player points out that the Respondent did not dispute that there is a clear
payment obligation based on the Player Termination Agreement of the by the Player claimed
amounts. As a consequence of which, the Player requests the FIFA DRC to confirm the payment
obligation and order the Respondent to pay the requested amounts and grant the other
requests.”
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17821
39. The Player requested the following relief:
“For the foregoing reasons, the Player requests the FIFA DRC to:
i. Dismiss the Respondent’s objections regarding the statute of limitations, jurisdiction and
otherwise;
ii. Declare the claim admissible and within the FIFA DRC’s competence to decide; and
iii. Proceed with a full examination of the merits of the claim and accept the claims of the
Player.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
40. The Club also submitted its final comments in response to the Player’s rejoinder.
41. Regarding the statute of limitations, its position remained unchanged. The Club added the
following, quoted verbatim:
“6. From all previous proceedings between the Parties, it is clear that Club never accepted
this payment to the Player on behalf article 7 [sic] of the Termination Agreement. The Player
after FIFA and CAS dismiss this part of his request, in which he requested this same payment,
he signed with agent another document (agreement) in which Club was not party and send
now this claim against Club. This behavior of the Player represents an abuse or rights and
procedural powers for the purpose of provoking litigation where the Player requesting
money that does not belong to him.
7. Also, the other CAS case that Claimant mentioned in its submission (i.e., case no. CAS
2021/A/2919, para 67.) speaks in favour of the Respondent and not Claimant because from
this case file (and all previous cases before) it is clear that in the period from 27 July 2022
(obligation from the article 7 of the Termination Agreement) from 27 July 2024, the agent of
the Claimant (Players United Management B.V.) did not send any claim against Respondent
regarding this payment of the amount of EUR 41,046.30. Because of that, the Claimant “lose”
his right to request this amount from this new claim that he sent via FIFA Legal Portal on 16
January 2025 because from the exhibits that Claimant delivered with his claim it is evident,
as follows:
• on 27 November 2024, the Claimant sent to the Respondent first time a letter (by email) in
which he informed him about “alleged” Deed of assignment which document Claimant first
time sent to Respondent by that email.
[…]
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17821
8. As we mentioned in our previous Answer, this document “Deed of assignment with date
“02 August 2023” is fictitious contract and concluded just for the purpose of this proceeding.
This is all because if that document was concluded and signed on the date “2 August 2023”
why Claimant did not deliver to the case file during CAS proceeding in the case no. CAS
2023/A/9734 because under principle “de novo” any party during CAS proceedings can
deliver any new document.
9. Based on the above, for this case it is not applicable article 137(1) of the Swiss Code of
Obligations because in the period from 27 July 2022 until 27 July 2024 the statute of
limitation was not interrupted because on 27 November 2024 the Claimant deliver to the
Respondent the Deed of assignment which was when statute of limitation performed. That’s
why the article 135(2) of the Swiss Code of Obligations is not applicable (like Claimant
propose in its paragraph 3.5 and 3.6 of his submission) because in this previous case the
Claimant as player requested this same amount and FIFA/CAS dismiss/reject his request
with explanation that player can not request this payment. And now, in January 2025, the
Claimant prepared and signed fictitious document with date “2 August 2023” and send new
claim against Respondent in which he requested again the same payment?! This is not a
good faith, and this request of the Claimant must be dismiss/reject in full.
10. The Claimant “forgets” that previous proceeding before the CAS in the case no. CAS
2023/A/9734 was not some new ordinary proceeding between the parties. That was appeal
proceeding that arises from the FIFA DRC decision in the case no. FPSD-7243 which means
that proceeding started from the claim that Claimant sent to the FIFA DRC and that deadline
we must look as well dates from the article 7 of the Termination Agreement.
11. Therefore, this claim of the Claimant must be dismissed because it was sent after two
years period and because of that statute of limitation is performed for this dispute.”
42. Regarding FIFA jurisdiction, the Club added that it was not made aware of the Deed of
Assignment on 7 August 2023 and that no evidence in this respect was ever provided. The
Club therefore insisted on its position that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction
over this case.
43. Finally, the Club also insisted on its allegations regarding the principle of res judicata.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
44. 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 16 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 26 November 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17821
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.
45. 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 – in principle – competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Dutch player and a Serbian club.
46. The Chamber then observed that the Club challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA to adjudicate
the present matter, arguing that the dispute essentially concerns a claim between an agent
and a club and therefore falls outside the scope of FIFA’s jurisdiction.
47. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the parties to the present proceedings are a player
and a club. It further observed that the Claimant (i.e., the Player) claims entitlement himself
to the PUM Debt. The Chamber also underlined that the PUM Debt was expressly
acknowledged by the parties in the Termination Agreement, which not only contains a clear
jurisdiction clause in favour of FIFA but is also connected to the employment relationship
previously existing between the Player and the Club.
48. Consequently, and without prejudice to any subsequent assessment regarding the
admissibility of the claim and the Player’s standing to sue (within the merits), the Chamber
considered that the claim, as submitted, falls within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations. It therefore confirmed that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate
on this matter.
49. 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. Admissibility
50. The Chamber recalled that the Club disputed the admissibility of the Player’s claim
considering the statute of limitations and the legal principle of res judicata.
51. In order to assess each of these issues, the Chamber described hereinafter the relevant
facts of the case:
Date
22 July 2022
Facts
The Termination Agreement and the PUM Termination
Agreement were concluded
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17821
27 July 2022
22 August 2022
12 April 2023
2 June 2023
17 June 2023
3 August 2023
7 August 2023
27 November 2024
12 December 2024
16 January 2025
The PUM Debt in the amount of EUR 41.046,30 fell due (cf., art.
3 of the PUM Termination Agreement and art. 7 of the
Termination Agreement)
The first claim under ref. FPSD-7243 was initiated
The FIFA Decision was passed
The grounds of the FIFA Decision were notified
The Club appealed FIFA Decision before CAS
The Player and PUM concluded the Deed of Assignment
- The Player provided his position within the CAS
proceedings.
-
Reportedly, the Club was made aware of the Deed of
Assignment, which is contested
The Player requested the PUM Debt and provided the Club with
a copy of the Deed of Assignment
The Player requested again the PUM Debt
The present proceedings were initiated at FIFA
52. Having thoroughly reviewed the events and the case file, the Chamber concluded that the
Player’s claim was procedurally flawed on several grounds.
53. First, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations according to which a claim
must be lodged within two years as from the occurrence of the “event giving rise to the
dispute”.
54. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to the Commentary to the Regulations
(Edition 2023, p. 477): “the two-year time limit will only be respected if a complete claim in line
with the requirements of the Procedural Rules is submitted to FIFA within this timeframe. Any
exchanges between the parties, specifically including attempts to reach an amicable settlement,
default notices, warnings, notices that a claim will be submitted if the payment is not received
by a specific date, or any other similar communications between the parties outside of a formal
procedure and investigation based on a relevant claim, will not, in principle, interrupt the
limitation period.”
55. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the PUM Debt was originally due on 27 July
2022. Accordingly, the two-year limitation period would normally have expired on 27 July
2024 i.e., before the present claim was lodged.
56. The Chamber then noted that the Player filed an earlier claim (FPSD-7243) on 22 August
2022, and that a decision from the Football Tribunal was passed on 12 April 2023, the
grounds of which were notified to the parties on 2 June 2023. The Chamber further recalled
that the FIFA Decision established that the Player had no standing to claim the PUM Debt.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17821
57. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that neither the Regulations nor the Procedural
Rules provide that the filing of a claim by a party with no standing – such as the one at hand
- constitutes an event capable of interrupting or restarting the limitation period under art.
23 par. 3 of the Regulations.
58. The Chamber additionally highlighted that the Player did not file an appeal against the FIFA
Decision, thereby precluding any reassessment by the CAS.
59. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the filing of case FPSD-7243 did not interrupt
the limitation period applicable to the present claim, nor did it result in a suspension or
extension of such period.
60. As a result, the Chamber found that the limitation period for lodging the present claim
indeed expired on 27 July 2024, i.e., two years after the PUM Debt became due.
61. Since the present claim was filed after the expiration of the statutory two-year time limit,
the Chamber established that the claim is inadmissible pursuant to art. 23 par. 3 of the
Regulations.
62. Next, the Chamber also proceeded to analyse whether the present claim was affected by
the general legal principle of res judicata, as claimed by the Club. The Chamber at this point
recalled that the Player considered that the case contained new facts, as the Player and
PUM concluded the Deed of Assignment after the deadline to appeal the FIFA Decision
before CAS, thereby constituting a new (and decisive) event.
63. Having established the above, the Chamber initially recalled that the principle of res
judicata ensures that whenever a dispute has been defined and decided upon, it becomes
irrevocable, confirmed, and deemed to be just – res judicata pro veritate habetur. In
particular, the Chamber underlined that this principle applies whenever three elements
are concurrently present, namely:
-
The same persons - eadem personae;
-
The same object - eadem res;
-
The same cause - eadem causa petendi.
64. In this context, the Chamber went on to analyse the evidence on file and observed that
indeed a decision (i.e., the FIFA Decision) had been passed by a competent deciding body
(i.e., the DRC) on 12 April 2023, which was final and binding.
65. Regarding the first criteria, the Chamber noted that both the Player and the Club were
parties to the proceedings leading to the FIFA Decision as well as in the dispute at stake. As
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17821
a consequence, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the condition of the identity of
parties is fulfilled.
66. The Chamber then turned its attention to the criterion of the object of the matter in
dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging that the identity of the
subject matter is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant request are equivalent. In
this respect, the Chamber observed that the Player’s request for relief in the FIFA Decision
and the present claim is the same, moreover, such request is based on the same
contractual provisions of the Termination Agreement and the PUM Agreement.
67. The Chamber then addressed the third criterion. In this regard, the Chamber noted that
the only element invoked by the Player to distinguish the present matter from the previous
proceedings is the alleged Deed of Assignment concluded between the Player and PUM,
purportedly after the issuance of the FIFA Decision and following the expiry of the CAS
appeal deadline. The Chamber acknowledged that the wording of the FIFA Decision could,
at first glance, be interpreted as suggesting that the earlier claim was rejected solely due
to the absence of a formal assignment of credit from PUM to the Player. However, the
Chamber emphasised that the Termination Agreement already constituted, in substance,
an assignment of credit in favour of the Player. As such, the Chamber found that the
subsequent Deed of Assignment cannot be taken as a genuinely new legal element capable
of altering the cause of the claim.
68. Moreover, the Chamber held that: (i) the request for relief remains exactly the same; (ii) if
the Player disagreed with the interpretation made in the FIFA Decision, he should have
appealed said decision before CAS within the applicable time limit; and (iii) the execution
of a bilateral document between the Player and PUM, without any involvement of the Club,
cannot be held against the Club (as a non-signatory). Accordingly, the Chamber concluded
that the requirement of same cause of action is also fulfilled.
69. Therefore, as all three cumulative criteria, identity of parties, identity of object, and same
cause, are met, the Chamber held that the principle of res judicata applies to the present
case.
70. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the claim is also inadmissible based on res
judicata.
71. Finally, and as an obiter dictum on the merits of the case, the Chamber found it decisive
that:
-
the Player’s initial claim already included the PUM Debt, which is clearly owed to a
third party;
-
the Player did not appeal the FIFA Decision before CAS;
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17821
-
although the Deed of Assignment was allegedly signed on 3 August 2023, it was not
thoroughly assessed by CAS due to the inadmissibility of the Player’s counterclaim in
the CAS proceedings;
-
contrary to the Player’s allegations, there is also no evidence on file that the Club was
informed of the Deed of Assignment on 7 August 2023; and
-
the Player only notified the Club of the Deed of Assignment more than thirteen
months later, i.e. on 27 November 2024.
72. In light of the foregoing, and irrespective of its conclusions on admissibility of the claim,
the Chamber further wished to outline that the present claim raises clear concerns as to
the Player’s standing to sue in relation to amounts that originally corresponded to PUM, an
entity falling outside the ratione personae scope of jurisdiction of the DRC. The Chamber
highlighted that in the hypothetical case the Termination Agreement contained a valid
assignment of credit in favour of the Player and that the claim would be hypothetically
admissible, admitting the present claim would not only conflict with the FIFA regulatory
framework but would also jeopardise legal certainty and create the risk of facilitating
abusive attempts to introduce third-party claims before the Football Tribunal.
73. Moreover, ad arguendo, and even if one were to admit that the Player could rely on the
Termination Agreement to claim the PUM Debt, the Chamber considered that the Player’s
procedural conduct in handling this matter undermined the legitimate expectations of the
debtor, namely the Club, and is incompatible with the principle of venire contra factum
proprium.
74. By failing to appeal the FIFA Decision before CAS and subsequently withholding the Deed
of Assignment during the period in which an appeal could have been lodged, the Player
created a legitimate expectation on the part of the Club that the matter was no longer in
dispute. Moreover, such conduct raises concerns as to the Player’s observance of the
principle of good faith. As a result, the Chamber held that the Player is precluded from
altering his procedural position on the basis of an alleged new document that was neither
disclosed to nor accepted by the Club.
75. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s claim could not succeed from any
angle of analysis.
c. Costs
76. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17821
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17821
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Richairo Juliano
Zivkovic.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is inadmissible.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17821
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