Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18266
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Marco Ludivin Majouga
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Vratsa, Bulgaria
Represented by Biser Mehandzhiyski
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Marco Ludivin Majouga, France
Represented by Linda Aouadi
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18266
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 February 2023, the Bulgarian club Vratsa (hereinafter: the Claimant / CounterRespondent or the Club) and the French player Marco Ludivin Majouga (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counterclaimant or the Player) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 7 February 2023 until 10 June 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of
EUR 750 net, payable by the twentieth of the following month.
3.
In addition, the Contract read as follows:
“IV. RIGHT AND OBLIGATION OF THE PARTIES
IV.1. OF THE CLUB:
[…]
IV.1.3. To take out a mandatory insurance in the name of the [PLAYER] against occupational
accident and diseases for an insurance compensation not less than BGN 20 000.00 for each
sports year of competition or for part thereof.
[…]
IV.1.6. To ensure qualified specialist to the [PLAYER] for performance of the scheduled matches
and trainings.
[…]
IV.1.8. To ensure the [PLAYER] within sports medicine and sports therapeutic service within
sufficient quantities. […]”
4.
Lastly, the Contract stipulated the following:
“[…] The player’s contract can be terminated unilaterally if the player or another football club
plays to the club’s account the amount of 250,000 euros / two hundred fifty thousand euros / ,
which represents the buy-out price of the player. […]”
5.
On 9 January 2024, the representative of the Club, Mr. Tihomir Aleksov (hereinafter: Mr.
Aleksov), sent the following correspondence to the Player’s agent via WhatsApp (quoted
verbatim):
“The motion for Marco is
EUR 3000 net
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18266
EUR 200 goal
200 euro assist
200 euros per apartment”
6.
On the same day, i.e., 9 January 2024, the Player’s agent replied to Mr. Aleksov as follows
(quoted verbatim):
“[…] thank you for the feedback I talk about it with Marco and I will get back to you on the other
hand Marco told me that the club had to pay him a debt when do you think it will be paid?”
7.
On 10 January 2024, the Club and the Player concluded an additional agreement
(hereinafter: the Additional Agreement) regarding their employment relationship, which
read as follows:
“[…] Art. 1. The term of the contract is extended by 1 (one) year from 10.06.2024 to 10.06.2025.
Art. 2. The player’s contract can be terminated unilaterally if the player or another football club
pays to the club’s account the amount of 180 000 euros / one hundred and eighty thousand
euros/, which represent the buy-out price of the player.
Art. 3. The present Annexe enters into force as from the date of its signing.
Art. 4. All other conditions agreed in the Employment contract remains in force.
Art. 5. Each of the Parties confirms and acknowledges that it has read and understood the
present Agreement, and that this Agreement is signed voluntarily of its/his own free will and by
its duly authorized representative. In case of differences between the Bulgarian and English
texts, the priority is the Bulgarian one.
This additional agreement (annex) is an integral part of the contract of employment […]”
8.
On the same day, i.e., 10 January 2024, the Club and the Player allegedly concluded an
annex (hereinafter: the Annex) regarding their employment relationship, which read as
follows:
“[…] FOOTBALL CLUB ‘ASSOCIATION PFC – BOTEV – VRACA’, representing by Tihomir Asenov
Aleksov – Executive Director,, [sic] hereinafter refereed [sic] to for the sake of brevity as the ‘CLUB’
and
Marco Ludivin Majouga […] in his capacity of FOOTBALLER – PROFESSIONAL PLAYER, hereinafter
referred to as the ‘FOOTBALLER’
conclude this annex to the contract […], between the same parties for the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18266
1. This annex is valid for a period from 01.01.2024. until 10.06.2025.
2. The CLUB is obliged to pay the FOOTBALL PLAYER, to [sic] the monthly the [sic] amount of
2250 euro (two thousand two hundred and fifty euros) net until 10.06.2025.
3. The Club is obliged to pay the Footballer housing costs per month in the amount of 200 euros.
/two hundred euros/ for the entire period of the contract.
4. The CLUB is obliged to provide flight tickets Sofia – France – Sofia
5. The club obliget [sic] to pay the player 200 euros per assist and 200 euros per goal. […]”
9.
The Player submitted an unsigned version of the Annex, the execution of which was
disputed by the Club.
10. On 17 January 2024, Mr. Aleksov sent via WhatsApp the following correspondence to the
Player’s agent (quoted verbatim):
“Will he sign? If he doesn’t sign, tell me. I can’t wait any longer.”
11. On 19 January 2024, the Player’s agent responded to Mr. Aleksov as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“[…] I validate this for you this evening and tomorrow he signs […]
why the salary is 2250? and not 3000”
12. On the same day, i.e., 19 January 2024, Mr. Aleksov answered as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Under contract it takes 750 euros and annex 2250 becomes 3000 […]
On the first contract remains the salary 750 […]
And now the annex adds up to 3000”
13. On 22 January 2024, the Player’s agent sent a message to Mr. Aleksov (quoted verbatim):
“for the contract it’s good he can sign […]”
14. On the same day, i.e., 22 January 2024, Mr. Aleksov answered as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Send him to the stadium […]
That he doesn’t answer me. […]
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18266
Did you talk to him?”
15. On the same day, i.e., 22 January 2024, the Player’s agent answered as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“Yes he doesn’t answer me. […]”
16. On 5 February 2024, the Player’s agent wrote to Mr. Aleksov (quoted verbatim):
“you can send me a double sign of marco’s extension because neither he or I have a copy”
17. On 12 February 2024, Mr. Aleksov provided the Player’s agent via WhatsApp with a PDF
document, to which the Player’s agent requested to be sent everything.
18. On the same day, i.e., 12 February 2024, Mr. Aleksov sent the following correspondence to
the Player’s agent (quoted verbatim):
“The salary annex he has it in it”
19. On 6 June 2024, the Player left Bulgaria for France.
20. On 19 June 2024, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] I am informed that today Wednesday, June 19, 2024, you were not presented at the Club
training camp in Vratsa for the pre-season preparation–morning training at 9am, despite the
plane ticket provided by the Club (Attachment 2) without any duly notification of the reason for
your absence.
I also note that you are in violation of art.IV.2.1, IV. 2.3, IV.2.4, IV.2.5, IV.2.8, IV.2.9, IV.2.11, IV.2.12,
IV.2.13, IV.2.14 of the employment contract.
In light of the above and basis of Art.193, p. 1 of the Labor Code I kindly request you to submit
your written explanations at the club office in the city of Vratsa on the occasion of the described
violation by Friday, 21 June, 2024indicating / attaching/ evidence for the facts and statements
you described.
Failure to provide explanations within the specified period will be considered a refusal to provide
explanations on your part.
I hereby invite you to reintegrate immediately to the club’s first team preseason preparation.
Tomorrow morning training is scheduled for 9 am at the club stadium in the city of Vratsa.
Moreover, the unreasonable absences of a player from the training and the team without any
prior permission for such absence will be considered as an abusive conduct by the player and
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18266
as a just cause for the Club to terminate the contract with all the consequences for you of such
termination (see Article 14, p.2. of FIFA RSTP).
I am positive you will continue to respect your contractual duties and immediately reintegrated
to the club’s first team preseason preparation.
We kindly thank you for your valuable cooperation on the present matter. We remain on your
disposal for a further communication. […]”
21. On 24 June 2024, the Club imposed a disciplinary penalty on the Player due to his
unreasonable and unauthorised absences from training on 19 June 2024.
22. On an unspecified date, the Player was informed via WhatsApp by the landlord of his
apartment that the Club made irregular payments for the rent.
23. On 20 December 2024, the Player was asked via WhatsApp by the landlord of his apartment
to vacate the apartment as soon as possible, due to unpaid rent in the amount of BGN
4,500.
24. On 24 December 2024, the Player informed Mr. Aleksov that he has not received any
salaries.
25. At a later date in December 2024, the Player informed Mr. Aleksov that the Club owed him
the monthly salaries from August to November, that he had no money and that he no
longer had an apartment as the Club was not paying the rent.
26. On 3 January 2025, Mr. Aleksov confirmed via WhatsApp that the Player’s apartment is the
obligation of the Club.
27. On 12 January 2025, the Club issued a document stating that the Player was absent from
training from 6 January 2025 to 12 January 2025.
28. On the same day, i.e., 12 January 2025, the Club sent the following correspondence to the
Player:
“[…] Dear Sir,
It has come to my attention that from Monday, January 6, 2025, to Sunday, January 12, 2025,
you failed to attend the Club's training camp in Vratsa for pre-season preparation, missing 10
training sessions according to the training plan. This is despite the Club providing you with a
plane ticket (Attachment 2). Furthermore, you have not provided any notification or valid
explanation for your absence.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18266
Your actions are in violation of Articles IV.2.1, IV.2.3, IV.2.4, IV.2.5, IV.2.8, IV.2.9, IV.2.11, IV.2.12,
IV.2.13, and IV.2.14 of your employment contract.
In light of the above and based on Article 193, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Code, I kindly request
that you submit your written explanation at the Club office in the city of Vratsa by Monday,
January 13, 2024. Please ensure to include or attach evidence supporting the facts and
statements provided in your explanation.
Failure to submit your explanation within the specified period will be interpreted as a refusal to
provide one.
You are also hereby instructed to immediately rejoin the Club’s first team for pre-season
preparation. The next training session is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. tomorrow at the Club stadium
in the city of Vratsa.
Please be advised that any unreasonable absence from training or the team without prior
permission will be considered abusive conduct and may constitute just cause for the Club to
terminate your contract, as outlined in Article 14, Paragraph 2 of FIFA RSTP, with all associated
consequences.
I trust that you will honor your contractual obligations and promptly rejoin the first team for
pre-season preparation. […]”
29. On 13 January 2025, the Player answered the latest correspondence from the Club as
follows:
“[…] Hello,
I would like to explain the reason for my absence from training between January 6, 2025, and
January 12, 2025.
I am currently without housing, as can be attested by the attached documents, because my
landlord does not wish to renew my lease. The reason for this is that you have not paid the rent,
which, as stated in my contract, is your responsibility (see Annex 3).
I informed the sports director, Tigomir Aleksov, of my situation. However, no real solution has
been offered to me, and the discussions have been mere speculation, given the numerous
promises that were not kept.
Should I remind you of the email sent on June 20, 2024?
Furthermore, regarding my unpaid wages, this has resulted in several months of consecutive
delays, which are to my detriment (see Annex 2). Below is a summary of the amounts owed to
me:
- August: Annex 500 €
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18266
- September: Annex 1,125 €
- October: Annex 2,250 €
- November: Annex 2,250 € + Bank 750 €
- December: Annex 2,250 € + Bank 750 €
Total: 9,875 €.
In addition, according to Annex 5 of my contract, the employer, BOTEV VRATSA, is obligated to
pay goal and assist bonuses. However, the goal bonuses for the match on March 13, 2024,
against HEBAR, for the 2023/2024 season, have not been paid, totaling [sic] 200 €.
Finally, according to Annex 4, the club is responsible for covering the following flight expenses:
- Sofia to Paris on June 6, 2024,
- Sofia to Toulouse on June 1, 2024,
- Sofia to Toulouse on December 15, 2024, totaling [sic] 895.98 €, but this has not been done.
While I am under contract, it is important to remind you that the obligations are mutual, and
the BOTEV VRATSA club must also fulfill its commitments. Attached, you will find my
conversations with Tigomir Aleksov, where I repeatedly request that you meet your obligations
so that a return can be considered.
Since trust has been broken for several months, a FIFA procedure will now be initiated against
the BOTEV VRATSA club. […]”
30. On 14 January 2025, the Club imposed a disciplinary penalty on the Player, which read as
follows:
“[…] IMPOSING: Disciplinary Penalty – Warning for Termination
[…]
Reasons for imposing the penalty:
1. The absence of Mr. Majouga during the period from January 6, 2025, to January 12, 2025,
from the Club’s training camp in Vratsa, resulting in missing a total of 10 training sessions
as per the approved training schedule.
2. The lack of notification or valid explanation for the absence.
3. The written explanation submitted by Mr. Majouga on January 12, 2025, was thoroughly
reviewed and deemed unjustified by the Club’s management.
4. This is the second similar breach of contractual obligations by Mr. Majouga within the
past six months.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18266
Due to the absence of Mr. Majouga and the inability to serve this order personally, and
considering that the request for written explanations, along with the player’s response, has been
acknowledged and confirmed via email, this order has been duly sent to the player via email.
The penalty is imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code and is consistent
with the disciplinary measures outlined in the employment contract of the employee.
This order has been personally delivered to Mr. Majouga, who is obliged to acquaint himself
with its contents and sign it to confirm receipt. […]”
31. On the same day, i.e., 14 January 2025, the Club sent the following correspondence to the
Player:
“[…] Dear Mr. Majouga,
With reference to the disciplinary order issued to you, imposing a penalty of Warning for
Termination, you are hereby instructed to rejoin the Club's first team no later than January 15,
2025.
Failure to comply with this directive and to rejoin the team within the specified deadline will be
considered a sufficient legal basis for the Club to terminate your employment contract in
accordance with Article 190, Item 2 of the Labor Code of Bulgaria.
Furthermore, should you fail to fulfill [sic] your contractual obligations, the Club reserves the
right to initiate a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal for termination of the contract without
just cause on your part. Such action will be pursued with all resulting consequences, including
but not limited to compensation claims and any sanctions provided under the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players.
We trust that you will act responsibly to resolve this matter promptly and fulfill [sic] your
obligations to the Club. […]”
32. On 31 January 2025, the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract, on the following
grounds:
“[…] 1. Unauthorized Absence: You failed to report to your designated workplace and absented
yourself from the club’s official training camp in Vratsa from January 6 to January 12, 2025, in
violation of the approved training schedule.
2. Failure to Provide a Justified Explanation: Despite being formally invited to provide a written
explanation (letter dated January 12, 2025), your response was deemed unsubstantiated and
insufficient.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18266
3. Prior Disciplinary Warning: You were previously sanctioned with a “Warning of Dismissal” on
January 14, 2025, with explicit instructions to return to work by January 15, 2025.
4. Continued Contractual Non-Compliance: You failed to resume your duties by the stated
deadline and have remained absent without any formal explanation or prior notification to the
employer until January 31, 2025.
Your prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes a severe breach of employment obligations
[…]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
33. On 18 February 2025, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Club
34. In its claim, the Club argued that it terminated the Contract with just cause on 31 January
2025 due to the Player’s failure to fulfil his contractual obligations.
35. In this respect, the Club argued that the “buy-out” clause inserted in the Additional
Agreement is valid and that the Player is not entitled to any remuneration for January 2025
as he was absent without justification during the entire month, despite multiple warnings
and formal notices.
36. Accordingly, the Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. Declare that the Respondent, Mr. Marco Ludivin Majouga, has unilaterally terminated the
employment contract with the Claimant without just cause, in violation of Article 17 of the FIFA
RSTP.
2. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of:
a) EUR 4,000, representing the residual value of the Contract; and
b) EUR 180,000, representing the buyout clause stipulated in the Contract.
3. Grant the Claimant interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the aforementioned amounts,
starting from 31 January 2025 until full payment is made.
4. Impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent for early termination without just cause,
in accordance with Article 17.3 of the RSTP.
5. Confirm that the Respondent forfeits any claim to salary for January 2025.
6. Order the Respondent to bear all procedural and legal costs associated with this claim.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18266
7. Provide any further relief deemed appropriate under the circumstances.”
b. Reply of the Player and counterclaim
37. In his reply, the Player stated that, in addition to the Contract and the Additional
Agreement, he concluded the Annex with the Club, which the Club omitted to mention in
its claim.
38. In view of the wording of the Annex, the Player argued that his monthly salary amounted
to EUR 3,000. In this respect, the Player stated that the Club never provided him with a
signed copy, despite his request.
39. In this context, the Player argued that the Club failed to fulfil its contractual obligations,
pointing out his outstanding remuneration of EUR 9,125, that the Club did not provide him
with accommodation during their employment relationship, and that it never reimbursed
him his flight tickets to France and his medical expenses.
40. With respect to his outstanding remuneration, the Player provided the following
breakdown:
•
EUR 500 for the month of August 2024;
•
EUR 1,125 for the month of September 2024;
•
EUR 2,250 for the month of October 2024;
•
EUR 2,250 for the month of November 2024; and
•
EUR 3,000 for the month of December 2024.
41. Having stated the above, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without
just cause on 31 January 2025. Accordingly, the Player lodged a counterclaim against the
Club and submitted the following requests for relief (Freely translated from French):
“•REJECTS in their entirety all claims brought by PFC Botev Vratsa against the player Marco
Ludivin Majouga, both in terms of compensation and disciplinary measures;
•RECOGNIZES that the employment contract was terminated unilaterally and without just cause
by the club, in violation of Articles 17 et seq. of the FIFA RSTP;
•NOTES the existence of serious and repeated breaches of contract attributable to the club, in
particular the non-payment of wages and bonuses, the lack of accommodation, and the failure
to cover medical and travel expenses;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18266
•DECLARES that the player's absences are fully justified by the club's breaches and cannot give
rise to any sanctions;
•DEMANDS that the club pay the player the following:
◦Unpaid wages: €9,125
◦Unpaid travel expenses: €895.98
◦Bonus: €200
◦Damages to be assessed in compensation for material, moral, and image damage suffered:
€20,000
◦€13,000 representing the residual value of the contract
•ORDERS the club to pay the player's legal and procedural costs;
•ORDERS the Club to pay the sum of €8,000 in legal and procedural costs;
•ACKNOWLEDGES that there was no disciplinary or sporting misconduct on the part of the
player;
•AWARDS the Respondent, the player, interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the above
amounts, from January 31, 2025, until full payment;
•IMPOSES sporting sanctions on the Claimant for early termination without valid cause, in
accordance with Article 17 of the RSTP;
•PROVIDES any other compensation deemed appropriate in the circumstances and in favour of
the Respondent.”
c. Club’s reply to the Player’s counterclaim
42. In its reply to the counterclaim, the Club categorically denied the existence of the Annex
and stated that the only valid and binding legal documents entered into with the Player are
the Contract and the Additional Agreement. Accordingly, the Club argued that it was under
no obligation to provide the Player housing or to reimburse travel expenses.
43. In addition, the Club argued that it has fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the
Player under the Contract and the Additional Agreement.
44. With respect to the Player’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, the Club
contested the evidence provided, as it does not bear the signature or stamp of a medical
practitioner, does not include a formal diagnosis or treatment plan, was issued
retroactively, and does not establish a causal link between its alleged conduct and the
player’s psychological state.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18266
45. Lastly, the Club reiterated its initial claim, noting that it terminated the Contract with just
cause due to the Player’s prolonged and unjustified absence and persistent failure to
perform his contractual obligations.
46. Having stated the above, the Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. Declare that the unsigned annex relied upon by the Respondent is legally void and without
effect;
2. Declare that the only valid annex is the one signed by both parties on 10 January 2024;
3. Confirm that the Respondent, Mr. Marco Ludivin Majouga, unilaterally terminated the
employment contract without just cause, in breach of Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP;
4. Confirm that the Club suffered sporting prejudice, as defined in Article 17.1 RSTP;
5. Reaffirm the enforceability of the contractual buy-out clause in the amount of EUR 180,000;
6. Dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety;
7. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation in the total amount of EUR 184,000,
broken down as follows:
a) EUR 4,000, representing the residual value of the contract;
b) EUR 180,000, representing the buy-out clause as per the valid annex;
8. Grant the Claimant interest at a rate of 5% per annum, applicable from 31 January 2025 until
full settlement of the awarded amount;
9. Impose a sporting sanction of four (4) months suspension on the Respondent for termination
without just cause, pursuant to Article 17.3 of the FIFA RSTP;
10. Confirm that the Respondent forfeits any right to claim salary for the month of January 2025;
11. Order the Respondent to bear all procedural and legal costs incurred by the Claimant in
connection with these proceedings;
12. Confirm that English shall be the official language of the proceedings, in accordance with
Article 9(1) of the FIFA Procedural Rules;
13. Grant any further relief the Tribunal may deem appropriate under the circumstances.”
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18266
d. Replica of the Player
47. In his replica, the Player reiterated his initial position and argued that the Annex is valid
and legally binding on the Club, as acknowledged by its president in a conversation dated
19 January 2024. In addition, the Player referred to another conversation with the president
on 3 January 2024 to argue that the Club was under the obligation to provide him with a
monthly housing allowance of EUR 200.
48. The Player’s requests for relief were the following (Freely translated from French):
“•REJECTS in their entirety the club's allegations and claims;
•DECLARES that the appendix produced by Mr. MAJOUGA on January 10, 2024, is valid and
admissible;
•NOTES the existence of serious and repeated breaches of contract attributable to the club, in
particular the non-payment of salaries and bonuses, the lack of accommodation, and the failure
to cover medical expenses and travel costs;
•ORDERS the club to compensate the player in the amount of:
◦Unpaid salaries: €9,125
◦Unreimbursed airfare: €895.98
◦Bonus: €200
◦Damages to be assessed in compensation for material, moral, and image damage suffered:
€20,000;
◦€13,000 representing the residual value of the contract;
•ORDERS the club to pay the player's legal and procedural costs;
•ORDERS the Club to pay the sum of €8,000 in legal and procedural costs;
•ACKNOWLEDGES that the player committed no disciplinary or sporting offense;
•AWARDS the defendant, the player, interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the above amounts,
from January 31, 2025, until full payment;
•IMPOSES sporting sanctions on the plaintiff for early termination without valid cause, in
accordance with Article 17 of the RSTJ;
•PROVIDES any other compensation deemed appropriate in the circumstances and in favor of
the defendant.
•In any event, DISMISSES the Club's further or contrary claims.”
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18266
e. Duplica of the Club
49. In its duplica, the Club reiterated its position and argued that the Player’s correspondence
dated 15 June 2025 is unsolicited and must be disregarded.
50. Lastly, the Club submitted the following requests for relief:
“1. Declare that the Respondent, Mr. Marco Ludivin Majouga, unilaterally terminated his
employment contract without just cause, in breach of Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP;
2. Order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Claimant in the total amount of EUR
184,000, broken down as follows:
a) EUR 4,000 – residual value of the Contract (based on net salary of EUR 750 and time remaining
until 10 June 2025);
b) EUR 180,000 – contractual buy-out clause amount, voluntarily agreed by both parties in the
valid annex dated 10 January 2024;
3. Impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent, specifically a four-month restriction from
playing in official matches, in accordance with Article 17.3 of the RSTP;
4. Grant interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the full amount of EUR 184,000, starting from 1
February 2025 until full and final payment is made;
5. Confirm that the Respondent forfeits any right to claim salary for the month of January 2025,
due to his prolonged and unjustified absence;
6. Dismiss in full the Respondent’s counterclaim, including any allegations based on the
unsigned annex, housing or medical damages;
7. Declare that the only valid annex to the employment contract is the one signed by both parties
on 10 January 2024;
8. Confirm that English shall be the official language of the proceedings, in accordance with
Article 9(1) of the FIFA Procedural Rules;
9. Order the Respondent to bear all legal and procedural costs incurred by the Claimant, and
determine such costs ex aequo et bono, as appropriate;
10. Grant any further relief the Tribunal may deem appropriate under the circumstances.”
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18266
f. Unsolicited correspondence from the Player
51. On 15 June 2025, the Player filed unsolicited correspondence. Consequently, the
aforementioned correspondence has been disregarded according to art. 11 par. 4 of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), which
states that submissions and evidence filed outside the relevant time limit shall be
disregarded.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
52. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 18 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 4 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules
is applicable to the matter at hand.
53. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Bulgarian club and a French player.
54. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
55. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18266
c. Merits of the dispute
56. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
57. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the contractual basis of their employment relationship as well as
the justice of the early termination of the Contract.
58. On one hand, the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the Club, it terminated the
Contract with just cause due to the Player’s failure to fulfil his contractual obligations. In
this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the Club categorically denied the existence of
the Annex as a valid and legally binding document concluded between with the Player.
59. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the Player’s position that the Annex
formed an integral part of his employment relationship with the Club and that the latter
terminated the Contract without just cause. On this point, the Chamber took note of the
Player’s assertion that the Club owed him remuneration and never provided him with
accommodation or reimbursed his flight tickets and medical expenses.
60. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish the contractual
basis governing the parties’ employment relationship, as well as the circumstances of the
termination of the Contract and the consequences thereof.
a) Did the Player and the Club conclude the Annex?
61. The Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence, which dictates that, in
order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the
consent of both the employer and the employee (usually manifested by the signature to
the relevant agreement), it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment
contract, such as the name of the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the
employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
62. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the signature of a contract by both parties is an
important element in order to establish its validity, essentially because this is the easiest
way to demonstrate mutual consent. However, the Chamber stressed that having an
unsigned specimen of a contract does not automatically mean that it is not valid and legally
binding between the parties, because this shall be established on a case-by-case basis and
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18266
considering the entirety of the facts of the case and the evidence at the disposal of the
deciding authority.
63. In continuation, the Chamber recalled the content of 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. With this in mind, the Chamber deemed that it was up to the
Player to prove that the Annex, on which his counterclaim is based, indeed existed. In this
regard, the Chamber emphasized that a particularly high standard of proof was required,
given that the alleged Annex was not signed and therefore the mutual consent to its terms
would have to be proved otherwise.
64. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber highlighted
that the Player failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the conclusion of the Annex
with the Club. More specifically, the Chamber underscored that the Annex remained
unsigned by both parties and that the Player failed to present conclusive evidence
regarding the negotiations between the parties prior to the alleged conclusion of the
Annex. In fact, the Chamber observed the lack of evidence on file demonstrating how the
Player received the Annex from the Club or that the Player returned a signed copy to the
Club.
65. The Chamber further determined that the WhatsApp messages, taken alone, were
insufficient to establish the exact terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties, let
alone to prove their mutual consent. Specifically, the Chamber noted that some of the
messages exchanged between the Player’s agent and Mr. Aleksov suggested that the Player
had not signed the document and/or the parties were still negotiating the financial terms.
66. Similarly, the Chamber was not convinced that the Annex had ever been duly executed.
Although the Player claimed salaries for the period from January to July 2024 – thereby
implying that he had received payment in accordance with his own understanding of the
alleged agreement – he failed to submit any bank statements, receipts, or other
documentary evidence demonstrating that, for any period of time, he indeed received a
monthly salary of EUR 3,000.
67. Accordingly, in the absence of further evidence provided by the Player, the Chamber
decided, that the Player did not meet his burden of proof to establish the conclusion of the
Annex. The Chamber therefore held that only the Contract and the Additional Agreement
shall be considered as the contractual basis of the present dispute.
b) Did the Club have just cause to terminate the Contract?
68. At this point, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only
a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-18266
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment
of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
69. In addition, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Regulations, in general, just cause
to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can
no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship
(cf. art. 14 of the Regulations). The Chamber emphasized that the foregoing is in line with
the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS).
70. With the above principles in mind, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber deemed
important to establish the following facts:
•
On 24 June 2024, the Club imposed a disciplinary penalty on the Player due to his
unreasonable and unauthorised absences from training on 19 June 2024.
•
On 12 January 2025, the Club formally notified the Player of his unauthorized
absence from the pre-season training camp between 6 and 12 January 2025, despite
having received a flight ticket. The Club cited multiple breaches of the Contract and
demanded a written explanation by 13 January 2025, warning that a continued
absence could lead to the termination of the Contract.
•
On 13 January 2025, the Player answered the latest correspondence from the Club,
noting that his absence is due to the fact that he is currently without housing
because of the Club’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations. Accordingly, the
Player requested the Club to comply with its contractual obligations, including the
payment of his rent, outstanding remuneration totalling EUR 9,875, bonuses, as well
as the reimbursement of travel expenses totalling EUR 895.98.
•
On 14 January 2025, the Club imposed a disciplinary penalty on the Player, noting
that his absence from training between 6 and 12 January 2025 was unjustified and
unauthorised, and that it was his second similar breach of the Contract in six
months. Accordingly, the Club instructed the Player to rejoin the first team by 15
January 2025, warning him that failure to comply with this instruction would justify
the termination of the Contract.
•
On 31 January 2025, the Player did not resume his obligations under the Contract,
thus the Club unilaterally terminated its employment relationship with the Player
on the basis of his prolonged and unauthorized absence.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-18266
71. In view of the foregoing facts, and having carefully examined the case file, the Chamber
concluded that both the Club’s and the Player’s positions regarding the alleged breach of
contract were to be rejected. In other words, the Chamber found that neither the Player
nor the Club could succeed in their respective claims for compensation for breach of
contract. The Chamber’s reasoning in this respect is set out below.
72. As a point of departure, the Chamber considered that the following elements supported
the Club’s position that the Player had lost interest in pursuing the Contract, as well as
prompted the termination:
•
The Chamber first took note that it remained undisputed between the parties that
the Player was absent from the Club’s training sessions on 24 June 2024 and from 6
January 2025 until the termination of the Contract on 31 January 2025.
•
In this respect, the Chamber considered that a prolonged absence of 26 consecutive
days in January 2025 could, in principle, be deemed as a substantial breach of the
Contract, capable of triggering the consequences of an unlawful termination.
•
In fact, the Chamber was of the opinion that, on 31 January 2025, i.e., after the
Player’s prolonged absence of 26 consecutive days, the Club could have reasonable
grounds to assume that the Player was no longer interested in resuming his duties.
In this regard, the Chamber deemed relevant to point out the following wording in
the Player’s correspondence dated 13 January 2025:
“[…] Since trust has been broken for several months, a FIFA procedure will now be
initiated against the BOTEV VRATSA club. […]”
73. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber was not convinced that the Club’s conduct
was appropriate or compliant with the applicable Regulations, nor, in particular, that the
Club had respected the principle of ultima ratio:
•
The Chamber first emphasized that the disciplinary process led by the Club
appeared procedurally flawed and disproportionate with the principle of ultima
ratio. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that during the Player’s absence of 26
consecutive days in January 2025, the Club sent the Player only two notices in quick
succession, on 12 January 2025 and 14 January 2025, and thereafter remained silent
from 15 January 2025 until the termination of the Contract on 31 January 2025.
•
In addition, the Chamber considered that the Club failed to conduct a thorough and
fair disciplinary process, as the Player was given extremely short deadlines to
respond to serious allegations, which does not allow sufficient time to prepare a
proper defence or gather supporting evidence.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-18266
•
Most strikingly, the Chamber noted that the Club failed to respond or refute the
Player’s claims in his correspondence dated 13 January 2025 regarding its alleged
contractual breaches, which undermined the fairness of the disciplinary
proceeding. On the contrary, the Chamber pointed out that the Club simply rejected
the Player’s explanation for his absence, imposed a disciplinary penalty on him and
gave him an unreasonable deadline of 24 hours to resume his duties.
•
In continuation, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player did provide the Club
a convincing and valid explanation for his absence in his correspondence dated 13
January 2025, which was disregarded by the Club without any substantiation. In this
respect, the Chamber observed that, in December 2024, the Club was already aware
of the Player’s housing situation and that he had outstanding remuneration, as he
was continuously requesting Mr. Aleksov to fulfil the Club’s contractual obligations,
to no avail. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in December 2024, the Player
informed the Club that it owed him the monthly salaries from August to November
and that he no longer had an apartment as the Club was not paying the rent.
Regarding the Player’s housing situation, the Chamber examined the evidence on
file and concluded that, even though the Contract did not stipulate any provisions in
this regard, it appeared that the Club had assumed a de facto obligation to provide
the Player with an apartment. As a matter of fact, the Chamber recalled that, on 3
January 2025 Mr. Aleksov confirmed to the Player via WhatsApp that his apartment
was the obligation of the Club. The authenticity of this message was not contested
by the club. Furthermore, the Chamber stressed that the Player provided sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that he was subsequently evicted from an apartment
provided by the Club.
• For the sake of completeness, the Chamber deemed important to point out that the
prior disciplinary penalty imposed by the Club on the Player on 24 June 2024 for a
single day of absence does not establish a pattern of misconduct from the Player 7
months later, particularly in the absence of escalating disciplinary measures.
74. Having stated the above, the Chamber concluded that the behaviour of the Club, in
particular in January 2025 with the expedited disciplinary proceeding against the Player,
suggested a predetermined intent to terminate the Contract rather than following a
genuine disciplinary proceeding with lenient measures imposed on the Player.
75. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber considered that, whereas it was
unimpressed by the Player’s prolonged evidence, the Club did not undertake all reasonable
steps to terminate the Contract in line with the principle of ultima ratio. In other words, the
Chamber found that the Club did not have just cause on 31 January 2025 to terminate the
Contract, as it could not require compliance with the Contract, when it itself was in breach
of its financial obligations and its de facto obligation to provide accommodation for the
Player.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-18266
76. In this context, by looking closely at the behaviour of the Club and the Player, it appeared
to the Chamber that neither of them could be held solely responsible for the noncontinuation of their employment relationship, as neither could benefit from its own
shortcomings. In fact, the Chamber pointed out that the evidence on file indicated that
there was no communication between the Club and the Player for more than 15
consecutive days prior to the termination of the Contract on 31 January 2025.
77. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Club and the Player mutually departed from
the Contract on 31 January 2025. As a result, the Chamber decided that no compensation
for breach of contract was payable in the present matter and that any award should be
limited to the financial entitlements accrued prior to the termination date.
ii. Consequences
78. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the outstanding
remuneration of the Player at the time of the termination of his employment relationship
with the Club.
79. In light of its previous finding regarding the conclusion of the Annex, the Chamber recalled
that only the Contract and the Additional Agreement shall be considered as the contractual
basis of the present dispute. Consequently, the Chamber ruled that the Player’s claims for
bonuses and reimbursement of flight tickets cannot be upheld, as they exclusively were
based on the Annex.
80. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Player’s outstanding remuneration under
the Contract on 31 January 2025, coupled with his specific requests for relief, corresponded
to the monthly salary of December 2024 (EUR 750), which the Chamber decided to award
the Player in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. For the
sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to highlight that the player’s salary for January
2025 is not due, in view of the Player’s uncontested absence in that month.
81. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award him interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from the date of the termination (i.e., 31
January 2025) until the date of effective payment.
82. Lastly, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for moral damages based on the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. In fact, the
Chamber observed that the Player did not provide any evidence or justification regarding
the alleged moral damages suffered, or their quantification.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-18266
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
83. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
84. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
85. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
86. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
87. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-18266
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Vratsa, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Marco Ludivin Majouga, is partially
accepted.
3.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent / Counterclaimant the
following amount:
- EUR 750 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 January 2025
until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counterclaimant 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 Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Respondent /
Counterclaimant 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.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-18266
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. 26