Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18510
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Camilo
Reijers De Oliveira
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
FC Akhmat, Russia
Represented by Sila International Lawyers
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Camilo Reijers De Oliveira, Brazil
Represented by Ccla Advogados
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Gremio- RS, Brazil
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18510
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties on the present case are the following:
-
The Russian club, FC Akhmat (hereinafter: the Club or the Claimant);
The Brazilian player, Camilo Reijers De Oliveira (hereinafter: the Player or the
Respondent);
The Brazilian club, Grêmio – RS (hereinafter: the New Club).
2.
On 8 August 2023, the Club and the Player entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 8 September 2023 until 31 May 2026.
3.
According to clause 8 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of RUB
20,000.
4.
On the same date, the parties signed an annex to the Contract and agreed on additional
payments (quoted verbatim):
“I. Clause “Special conditions” of the Contract shall read:
1. The Player undertakes to properly fulfill his obligations as set forth in the Contract, make all
efforts to increase personal professionalism and try his best to achieve the best sportive
results for the Club, whereas the Club shall try its best to increase the interest in sportive
achievements of the Club.
2. The Club shall pay the Player during the Contract the monthly salary in the amount which is
equivalent of:
•
•
•
€31.850 (Thirty one thousand eight hundred fifty Euro) net plus Personal Income Tax in
accordance with the tax legislation of the Russian Federation from 08th August 2023 till
31st May 2024;
€33.550 (Thirty three thousand five hundred fifty Euro) net plus Personal Income Tax in
accordance with the tax legislation of the Russian Federation from 01st June 2024 till 31st
May 2025;
€35.250 (Thirty five thousand two hundred fifty Euro) net plus Personal Income Tax in
accordance with the tax legislation of the Russian Federation from 01st June 2025 till 31st
May 2026.
3. In accordance with clause 11 of the Contract parties specially agree that in the case of
employment injury or other injury (sport injury) or if the Player is temporarily disabled, the
Club is obligated to pay to the Player full monthly salary without any reduction.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18510
4. The monthly salary for the previous month will be paid until the 15th day of next month.
Official salary listed in Paragraph 8.1. of the Contract shall be included in the abovementioned monthly salary. The Player’s monthly salary is paid in Russian rubles according to
the Russian legislation.
5. The Club shall pay to the Player the personal bonus in the amount which is equivalent of
€250.000 (Two hundred fifty thousand Euro) net plus Personal Income Tax in accordance with
the tax legislation of the Russian Federation before 18th August 2023.
6. The Club shall pay to the Player the personal bonus in the amount which is equivalent of
€100.000 (One hundred thousand Euro) net plus Personal Income Tax in accordance with the
tax legislation of the Russian Federation before 01st September 2023.
7. The Club shall pay to the Player the bonuses for the matches which will be won by the Club
team or in which there will be a draw. The conditions are specified in the rules of the Club.
8. The Club shall reimburse (shall pay) the Player an “economy-class” airfare to the place of
residence and back by optimal route 2 (two) times a season.
9. The Club provides the Player with accommodation and board in a 5-star Hotel in Grozny at
Club’s own costs.
10. The Club has the obligation to pay the Personal Income Tax regarding the abovementioned
equivalent amounts, in accordance with the tax legislation of the Russian Federation. The
Club herewith guarantees that the amounts provided under clauses 2., 5. and 6. to be paid
to the Player is the net amount in Russian rubles in accordance with official exchange rate of
the Russian Federation Central Bank on the date of accrual, by transferring to the bank
account of the Player.
II. This Annex comes into effect on 08th August 2023 and is valid till the end of the Contract.”
5.
On 17 December 2024, the Club informed the Player of the following (quoted verbatim):
“After vacation you had to arrive at a meeting place of the football team in Calista
Hotel, Belek Turkey on 10 January 2025 not later than 18:00.
You are the only player who did not arrive and did not provide us with a written
explanation for your absence.
There is a serious violation of the employment contract, the absenteeism without a
valid reason, for this period wages are not paid and a disciplinary fines are assessed.
RFC Akhmat kindly ask you to arrive at football team location in Belek Turkey asap or
immediately provide the club with the written explanations for your absence”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18510
6.
On the same day, the Player replied that because of the war, the situation is very difficult
and asked for his understanding.
7.
On 15 January 2025, the Club sent another letter to the Player reiterating the content of its
first letter and requesting explanations regarding his absence. Specifically, the Club stated
the following (quoted verbatim):
“Republican Football Club Akhmat legally represented by the CEO Mr. Akhmed Aidamirov,
hereinafter to be called RFC Akhmat, informs that you haven’t arrived to the first winter training
camp of the club’s football team.
After vacation you had to arrive at a meeting place of the football team in Calista Hotel, Belek
Turkey on 10 January 2025 not later than 18:00. You are the only player who did not arrive and
did not provide us with a written explanation for your absence.
There is a serious violation of the employment contract, the absenteeism without a valid reason,
for this period wages are not paid and disciplinary fines are assessed.
You are the professional football player, the player of line-up squad, and RFC Akhmat is counting
on you very much.
RFC Akhmat kindly ask you to arrive at the football team location in Belek Turkey asap
or immediately provide us with the written explanations in case you do not plan to arrive
at the football team location”. (emphasis added)
8.
On the same day, the Player and the Club had the following conversation:
Player: “Hermano, usted sabe mi decision ya hablé tiene tiempo, mi familia está con miedo
después de drones de avión. Club no va me ayudar, entonces tengo que esperar.”
“Brother, you know my decision. I already spoke about it a while ago. My family is scared after
the drone incident. The club won't help me, so I have to wait.” (Freely translated into English)
Club: “En que hermano el club no ayuda? ¿Y ya tiene decisión tomada de que no vas a volver
hermano?”
“How is the club not helping, brother? And have you already decided that you're not coming
back, brother?” (Freely translated into English)
Player: “Mandamos opción de empréstimo é club no respondió.”
“We sent a loan request, but the club didn't respond.” (Freely translated into English)
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18510
9.
On 17 January 2025, the Player sent the following letter to the Club (quoted verbatim):
“[...] we inform you that the only reason for his absence is the escalation of the conflict between
Russia and Ukraine and especially the tragic repercussions on targets close to the Club's
headquarters, in the city of Grozny, Chechnya. As you are aware, Camilo lives in the city with his
wife and his son, who is 1 year and 7 months old. Since last December, it has been reported by
several news outlets around the world, that Grozny has been the target of several attacks in the
war.
These events include the mistakenly shooting down of a commercial airplane by the Russian air
defense system and drone attacks. Camilo was obviously aware of the war between Russia and
Ukraine when he accepted to sign with the Club, but he trusted the Club’s information that
Chechnya was not involved and would not suffer repercussions from the conflict. Unfortunately,
this is not what has been observed in the last month. This is a humanitarian situation and the
Player does not want to put his family in risk. The right to a safe environment for a professional
to perform his professional activity is widely recognized by the Lex Sportive as an employers’
obligation.
The prominent risk to the Player´s and his family´s physical, mental, and moral well-being in
addition to the unsafe conditions for him to perform his activities has been increased since he
accepted the Club´s offer and now it cannot be neglected. Previous examples have shown how
clubs and federations must protect players when they face significant risks due to situations of
war or violence.
These cases reinforce the idea that the player’s safety must always be a priority and the need to
take measures to preserve the player’s and his family’s physical and mental integrity in extreme
circumstances. Such situations underline the responsibility of clubs and international bodies to
ensure a safe environment for players, and how, when life and limb are at stake, it is crucial to
act swiftly and justly.
On the other hand, Camilo has been a dedicated player since the beginning of this contract;
he is one of the Club’s most important players and he has always been among the starters,
with excellent statistics It is not the Player´s intention to terminate his employment
agreement nor to harm the Club, however, he will not return to perform his activities
until it is safe for him and his family.
It is a difficult situation, and an extremely important decision had to be made by him. On one
side there is the safety of him and his family, and the risk to their lives. On the other side there
is his reputation as a football player and the risk of the continuation of his career.
In this sense, the Player asks the Club to take into account all these facts and to find an amicable
solution (i) to suspend his contract until the war is over and loan him to another club
outside Russia or Ukraine; (ii) or to consider transferring him definitively to another club
outside Russia and Ukraine.” (emphasis added)
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18510
10. On 20 January 2025, the Club sent the following letter to the Player (quoted verbatim):
“The information you provided is not considered by all other football players of the football team
and their families as a situation that is dangerous for continuing to work as part of the football
team, which is confirmed by the appearance of all football players of the football team (including
citizens of such countries as Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, Serbia, Bosnia, Tunisia, France, etc.) at
the location of the club in Grozny to fly to training camps, as well as directly to Belek in Turkey,
i.e. except for you alone.
Accordingly, this situation does not give you any grounds or rights to suspend your
employment contract. Since you are a highly professional player of the main football team
and in connection with the difficult situation in which the club finds itself in the Russian Premier
League, you would undoubtedly be of great help in achieving further success for the club in the
championship.
Therefore, your absence and your answer that you do not intend to perform your duties
until it becomes safe, to do so make it clear to us that you are not going to help the club
in the future and the club cannot count on you, and, no matter how it sounds, this is
actually a unilateral termination of the employment contract without a justified reason.”
(emphasis added)
11. On 21 January 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s latest correspondence as follows
(quoted verbatim):
“Reference is made to your letter nr. 16/01, dated 20th January 2025, by means of which it was
made clear that the Republican Football Club Akhmat Grozny does not take into account any
argument raised by the Player and that it will not seek any alternative solution to the problem.
We also note that the Club considers the Player’s employment contract terminated and
will deal with this matter in FIFA Tribunal.
We are deeply disappointed with the content of the Club's response, but given this manifestation,
the Player has no alternative but to take all necessary measures to protect his rights, including
the right to continue his life and his career safely”.
12. On 31 January 2025, the Club sent the following letter to the New Club (quoted verbatim):
“RFC Akhmat learned from the media and the Internet that the professional football player Mr.
Reijers de Oliveira Camilo, born 23.02.1999, is at your club and undergoing a medical
examination in order to conclude an employment contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18510
The player Mr. Reijers de Oliveira Camilo is a professional player of the lineup squad of the
football team, registered with RFC Akhmat in accordance with his employment contract valid
from 08 August 2023 to 31 May 31 2026 inclusive.
After the winter break, the player did not arrive at RFC Akhmat location in Grozny, Russia or at
the football team's training camp in Turkey.
RFC Akhmat requested the player several times to come to RFC Akhmat to continue working
under his employment contract, but the player did not do so.
The player does not intend to continue his professional activities with RFC Akhmat, which is
essentially a unilateral termination of the contract without a justified reason. On the contrary,
RFC Akhmat was and still interested in the player’s services. RFC Akhmat is aware that the player
was induced by the third club to terminate his contract without just cause, and now we have a
clear picture of the situation.
In connection with the above RFC Akhmat will request FIFA to make your club jointly and severally
liable for the compensation for early termination of the employment contract, and also to apply
sanctions for inducement the player to terminate his contract.”
13. On 11 February 2025, the New Club announced the arrival of the Player in its official
website.
14. On 17 February 2025, the Club sent a letter to the Player and the New Club and requested
a compensation for breach of contract in order to resolve this matter amicably. In
particular, the Club requested the following amounts (quoted verbatim):
“1. Remaining value of the Contract:
-current season: (EUR 33,550 x 4) + (EUR 33,550 x 21/ 31) = EUR 156,927;
-2025/2026 season: EUR 35,250 x 12 = EUR 423,000;
-total remaining value: EUR 579,927.
2. Non-amortized amount of the sign-on bonus:
-FC Akhmat duly paid to the Player EUR 350,000 for signing of the Contract on the agreed terms,
so that he would work until 31 May 2026 (1026 days in total);
-the Player worked520 days out of 1026 including the day of terminating the Contract without
just cause, i.e., 10 January 2025;
-non-amortized amount of the sign-on bonus: EUR 350,000 x 506 / 1026 = EUR 172,612.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18510
3. TOTAL: EUR 752,539”
15. On 5 February 2025, the Player and the New Club signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the New Contract) valid as from 3 February 2025 until 31 December 2027.
16. According to the New Contract, the Player’s monthly salary corresponded to BRL 112,000
as from 3 February 2025 until 31 December 2025, BRL 120,000 as from 1 January 2026 until
31 December 2026 and 132,000 as from 1 January 2027 until 31 December 2027.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 10 March 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
18. The Club lodged the present claim with FIFA for compensation for breach of contract.
19. The Club argued that the Player’s conclusive behaviour led to a de facto termination of the
Contract without just cause by the Player. In this regard, the Club provided the following
sequence of events that took place as from December 2024:
-
On 8 December 2024, the Club played its last match before the winter break in the RPL;
-
After the match of 8 December 2024, all the players were informed that on 10 January
2025, the team shall gather in Belek (Turkey) for the first training camp, and on 17
December 2024, they were notified of 2 possible options to get to Turkey;
-
On 10 January 2025, the Club’s first team gathered in Belek (Turkey), while the Player
was the only person missing without the Club’s authorization and without even
explaining the reasons for his absence;
-
On 11 and 15 January 2025, the Club sent two notices to the Player requesting him to
join the team or provide his written explanations;
-
On 17 January 2025, the Player informed the Club that:
-
he was absent because of “the escalation of the conflict between Russia and
Ukraine and especially the tragic repercussions on targets close to the Club's
headquarters […];”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18510
-
the escalation of war is a “humanitarian situation”, and the conditions of
work are “unsafe” in Grozny;
-
“he [would] not return to perform his activities until it [was] safe for him and
his family;”
-
he would like the Contract to be suspended “until the war is over” and to be
loaned to a different club or to be definitively transferred to a different
club;
-
No further correspondence followed from the Player, and on 20 January 2025, the Club
acknowledged the Player’s unwillingness to further perform his duties which de facto
constituted the Player’s unilateral termination of the Contract;
-
On 21 January 2025, the Player informed the Club that he would take all the necessary
measures to protect his rights, “including the right to continue his life and his career safely;”
-
On 2 February 2025, the Player removed himself from the team chat in WhatsApp;
-
On 11 February 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with FC Gremio.
20. In view of the above facts as stated by the Club, the latter considered that the Player made
a clear decision not to return to the Club. For the Claimant, the alleged escalation of the
conflict was just an excuse to leave the Club. The Club further underlined that the Player
refused to go to Turkey, invoking the risk for his life and health, whereas all the events
stated in his correspondences took place in Gronzy, Russia and not in Turkey.
21. In this regard, the Club alleged that the Player de facto terminated the Contract on 20
January 2025, i.e. the date when he failed to arrive to the training camp in Turkey.
22. In addition, the Club argued that the Player’s termination was without just cause. The Club
invoked the following reasons:
(i)
The Player was supposed to arrive to Turkey and not to Russia. According to
the Club, there was no risk whatsoever to the Player’s and his family’s safety
in Belek, Turkey.
(ii)
Nothing prevented the Player to arrive to Turkey for the training camp and,
at the same time, discuss in person any possible “alternative solution to the
problem.” There was more than a month before the team would go back to
Russia from Turkey.
(iii)
The Player was not in Grozny when the drone attacks took place and
surprisingly, he was the only one who did not attend the training camp and
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18510
decided to leave the Club.
23. In view of the above, the Club considered that the real reason behind the termination was
not the alleged “escalation of the conflict”, and the Player did not have any grounds
whatsoever to terminate the Contract.
24. According to the Club, the real reason behind the termination was that the Player wanted
to change clubs, which was implicitly confirmed in the email to the Club where he
requested to be sent on loan. In addition, the Club argued that the fact “that the Player,
being in Brazil from mid-December 2024, signed the contract with the Brazilian club (FC Gremio)
on 11 February 2025 speaks for itself.”
25. However, the Club alleged that even if the Dispute Resolution Chamber agreed that the
Player breached the Contract due to the “escalation of the conflict between Russia and
Ukraine” and not because he wanted to change Clubs, the Player in any case did not have
just cause to terminate the Contract and this event could not be considered as force
majeure.
26. Specifically, the Club argued that at the time that the Player decided to sign the Contract
with the Club, the war had already been ongoing for almost 1,5 years. Therefore, the Player
cannot invoke the escalation of the conflict to terminate his Contract as he was well aware
of the situation before signing. The Club also underlined the fact that in his
correspondence, the Player explicitly stated that he “was obviously aware of the war between
Russia and Ukraine when he accepted to sign with the Club […].”
27. In view of the above, the Club concluded the following:
-
The Player was the only person from the Club’s team who considered the drone
attacks in December 2024 as a threat to his life and safety.
-
The Player refused to arrive to Turkey where even theoretical risk for his life and
safety due to the drone attacks never existed.
-
In line with the FIFA’s established jurisprudence in similar matters, the escalation of
the military conflict, of which the player was well aware when signing the Contract,
is neither a force majeure nor a just cause for him to terminate the Contract.
-
The Player was well aware of the military conflict between Russian and Ukraine when
he voluntarily signed the Contract in August 2023.
-
The Player, being an experienced professional, should have assessed the possible
risks of signing the Contract with the Russian club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18510
-
Any attempts of the Player to justify his contractual breach by the escalation of the
pre-existing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine contradict the principle of
venire contra factum proprium.
28. Therefore, in view of all the above, the Club concluded that the Player did not have just
cause to terminate the Contract.
29. Having established the above, the Club moved to the calculation of the compensation for
the alleged breach of contract and considered the following:
-
the term of the Contract (if not terminated prematurely) was set until 31 May
2026;
-
the Player’s monthly salary until 31 May 2025 is EUR 33,550 net, and from June
2025 until 31 May 2026 – EUR 35,250 net;
-
the Contract was effectively terminated by the Player on 10 January 2025, thus,
the salaries from 11 January 2025 until 31 May 2026 form the residual value of
the Contract.
30. Therefore, according to the Club, the basic amount of compensation due to the Club shall
be calculated as follows:
-
Current season: (EUR 33,500 net x4) + (EUR 33,500 net x 21/ 31) = EUR 156,927 net ;
-
2025/2026 season, i.e. from June 2025 to 31 May 2026: EUR 32,250 net x12 = EUR
423,000 net;
-
Basic remaining value of the Contract: EUR 579,927 net.
31. In addition, the Club argued that the sign-on bonus was not amortized due to the unilateral
termination of the Contract as the Player only worked 520 days out of 1,026 days that he
was supposed to work until the expiration of the Contract. Consequently, the Club asked
that the non-amortized sign-on fee paid to the Player shall be included in the compensation
(EUR 350,000 net x 506/ 1,026= EUR 172,612 net).
32. In view of the above, according to the Club the total amount of compensation shall be
calculated as follows:
-
EUR 579,927 net+ EUR 172,612 net= EUR 752,539 net.
33. In continuation, the Club alleged that Gremio shall be held jointly and severally liable. The
Club argued that the Player’s negotiations with Gremio appeared in the news in January
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18510
2025, on 2 February 2025, the Player removed himself from the Club’s team group chat on
WhatsApp and on 11 February 2025 Gremio announced the Player’s signing.
34. In this regard, the Club alleged that Gremio induced the Player to terminate his Contract
based on the following reasons:
-
Considering that more than a year was left before the expiry of the Contract, FC
Gremio did not wish to pay any transfer fee to the Club.
-
As from mid-December 2024, during the winter break in Russia, the Player resided
in Brazil (the country where FC Gremio is located and registered).
-
In the Player’s response, the demand to transfer him to a different club was present.
-
In late January 2025, according to the information in the open sources, the Player
had extensive contacts with FC Gremio regarding his future employment.
-
On 2 February 2025, the Player removed himself from the Club’s team group chat on
WhatsApp.
-
On 11 February 2025, despite having received the Club’s warning and having been
notified of the possible consequences, FC Gremio concluded the contract with the
Player.
35. Furthermore, the Club argued that the breach occurred within the protected period and
therefore sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the Player.
36. Finally, the Club requested the following relief:
-
“The claim of the Claimant, Republican Football Club Akhmat, Russia, is accepted.
-
The Respondent 1, Camilo Reijers de Oliveira, Brazil, has to pay to the Claimant EUR
752,539 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 11 January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
-
The Respondent 2, FC Gremio Foot-ball Porto Alegrense, Brazil, is jointly and severally
liable for payment of the aforementioned amount”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
37. In its reply, the Player disputed the Club’s interpretation of the facts.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18510
38. The Player alleged that in December 2024, when the Player was in Brazil on vacation, two
serious incidents occurred as consequence of the war between Russia and Ukraine,
namely:
-
The drone attacks targeting Grozny on 16 December 2024;
The downing of a commercial airliner approaching Grozny by a Russian missile.
39. The Player alleged that he refused to return to the Club after his vacation due to these two
incidents that according to him put his and his family’s lives in danger.
40. For that reason, the Player argued that he tried to propose alternative solutions to the Club
but the latter was irresponsive and unwilling to find a solution to the Player’s situation.
41. The Player also alleged that at the time of signing the Contract, he relied on information
provided by the Club showing that the region where the Club was located would not be
affected by the war.
42. Furthermore, he contended that the Club ignored all the proposed alternatives, refusing to
change position and failing to offer any viable solutions to ensure the Player and his family’s
safety. In this regard, the Player argued that other clubs, in particular clubs from Ukraine
have relocated to neighbouring countries in order to ensure the players’ safety.
43. The Player argued that the Club was only training in Turkey during the preseason and
would later return to Russia. Therefore, he “was not seeking to protect himself and his family
merely during the training period, but rather for the remainder of the season.”
44. In addition, the Player denied having terminated the Contract and argued that it was the
Club that considered the Contract as terminated as it stated in the correspondence of 20
January 2025. According to the Player, “the termination of the contract was a unilateral
decision made by the Club, which contradicts any subsequent allegation that the Player
unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause.”
45. Consequently, the Player argued that the Club cannot seek to hold the Player responsible
for a decision it independently took and communicated in its correspondence of 21 January
2025.
46. In addition, according to the Player, the fact that the Player signed with another club after
the termination of the Contract is irrelevant in determining the just cause of the
termination. The Player consistently sought to find a solution but the Club showed that it
did not want to reach a solution.
47. The Player further underlined that “since the termination of the contract was a decision made
by the Club, any attempt to hold the Player or his new club responsible for an alleged breach is
entirely unfounded”.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18510
48. In view of the above, the Player rejected any financial claim based on alleged damages as
it was the Club that unilaterally terminated the Contract, as stated in its correspondence of
6 March 2025.
49. The Player finally argued that the Club has no valid claim against the Player for an allegedly
unilateral termination of the Contract without just cause.
50. In addition, the Player argued the following regarding the force majeure and the principle
of rebus sic stantubus:
-
The ongoing war constitutes a force majeure event under FIFA and Swiss law, making
it materially impossible to fulfill his contractual obligations.
-
The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus applies, allowing for contract termination due to
drastic and unforeseeable changes in circumstances.
-
He signed the contract in good faith, relying on the Club’s assurances of safety, which
have since proven inaccurate.
-
The escalation of hostilities in Grozny, including drone strikes and the downing of a
commercial aircraft, created serious and unforeseeable risks.
-
His absence is justified by the need to protect himself and his young family, who lived
with him in Grozny.
-
CAS jurisprudence supports the protection of personality rights, including health,
safety, and family life.
-
His risk perception differs from other players due to his background in a peaceful
country.
-
The decisions of other players to remain or request loans are irrelevant.
-
Each contract is personal and bilateral, and enforcement must consider individual
risk assessments.
-
The Club cannot impose a generalized expectation that all players remain in a conflict
zone, especially when family safety is at stake.
51. Furthermore, the Player argued that his fundamental rights had been violated by the Club:
-
The Club had a duty to ensure safe working conditions, which it failed to
uphold given the proximity of acts of war to its training facilities.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18510
-
The Club’s assurances that “there would be no problems” were either false or
negligent, especially in light of the subsequent escalation of conflict.
-
Negligence does not require actual harm; mere exposure to serious and
foreseeable risk in a conflict zone is sufficient to establish a breach of duty.
-
Living in Grozny with his wife and young child heightened the severity of the
threat, making the situation intolerable.
-
The right to protect one’s family is enshrined in international law (e.g., UDHR
Article 16.3, ICCPR Article 23.1), and prevails over contractual obligations when
life and safety are at risk.
-
The Club violated the Player’s personality rights under Article 328 of the Swiss
Code of Obligations, which requires employers to protect employees’ physical
and mental integrity.
-
International conventions (e.g., UDHR Article 3, ICCPR Article 6.1, ILO
Convention No. 155) affirm the right to life and safety, including the right to
withdraw from dangerous work environments.
-
CAS jurisprudence confirms that personality rights include health, physical
integrity, professional development, and economic fulfillment, and that
employers must actively protect these rights.
-
The Club’s failure to fulfill its duty of care constitutes just cause for the Player
to terminate the Contract in order to safeguard his fundamental rights.
52. The Player also alleged that the Club was acting in an abusive way and did not want to
cooperate with the Player as it gave false assurances about safety, creating legitimate
expectations that were not fulfilled, and cannot shift responsibility onto the Player for
relying on those assurances. In addition, the Player claimed that the Club failed to offer
viable alternatives to ensure the Player’s safety and rejected all proposals and attempted
to force the Player to remain in an unsafe environment.
53. Regarding the just cause for the termination of the Contract, the Player alleged that “In the
present case, the outbreak and escalation of armed conflict near the Club’s facilities directly
endangered the safety of the Player and his family, constituting a violation of the Player’s
personality rights and giving rise to just cause for the termination of the Employment Agreement.
Armed attacks near the training ground, along with the increased regional instability, created a
clear and objective impediment to the continuation of the contractual relationship.”
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18510
54. Regarding the alleged joint liability of the New Club, the Player argued that he made
genuine and good-faith efforts to resolve the situation with the Club before the termination
of the Contract, including proposing reasonable alternatives to ensure safety.
55. However, the Club refused to negotiate with the Player and ultimately terminated the
Contract on 20 January 2025. The Player then lawfully signed with a new club, and this
subsequent move does not imply any inducement, as he only pursued new employment
after the termination. According to the Player, CAS jurisprudence confirms that posttermination events do not affect the legality of the initial act, and no evidence was
presented to suggest that the New Club played any role in the Player’s decision. The Club’s
attempt to hold the Player or his New Club liable is therefore unfounded, as the termination
was initiated by the Club itself and the Player acted within his rights.
56. Regarding the request for compensation, the Player argued that, even if FIFA’s Football
Tribunal was to find a breach of contract and award compensation to the Club, the amount
should be significantly reduced. Since the Contract does not contain a compensation
clause, any compensation must be based solely on actual damages suffered, in line with
the “positive interest” principle under Article 17.1 of the RSTP.
57. The Club failed to prove any concrete damage beyond the residual value of the Player’s
contract, which CAS jurisprudence consistently treats as a financial saving rather than a
loss. Therefore, the only legitimate damage that may be considered is the non-amortized
portion of the sign-on bonus, amounting to EUR 172,612.
58. Finally, the Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“Based on all the foregoing, the Respondent respectfully submits the following request for
relief to the FIFA Football Tribunal:
i. “To admit the Response submitted by the Player;
ii. To reject the Club’s claim in its entirety;
iii. To acknowledge that the Player would have had just cause to terminate the
Employment Agreement;
iv. To declare that no compensation or sporting sanctions are due;
v. To order the Claimant to bear the costs of the proceedings and any fees
incurred by the Player;
vi. Alternatively, in the event the Player is found liable to pay compensation,
to reduce the amount to EUR 172,612 (one hundred and seventy-two
thousand six hundred and twelve euros); and
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18510
vii. Lastly, to order that all further communications be addressed to the
Player’s legal representatives at the following e-mail address: […]”.
c. Reply of the Second Respondent
59. The New Club alleged that it was only on 7 February 2025 that the Player provided the
necessary documentation to it, showing that his employment relationship with the
Claimant has been terminated.
60. In this regard, the New Club argued that the Club did not object to the transfer of the Player
as it did not oppose it through TMS and did not reject the issuance of the ITC.
61. In view of the above, the New Club requested the following relief:
“1 - No se imponga ningún tipo de sanción financiera ni deportiva a Grêmio, en virtud de que
no participó, ni directa ni indirectamente, en la terminación contractual entre el Demandante
y el Atleta. Grêmio siempre ha actuado de buena fe y en cumplimiento de las reglas de la
FIFA.
2 - Que, en caso de que considere procedente la imposición de alguna medida, la misma
recaiga exclusivamente sobre las partes directamente implicadas en el conflicto, a saber, el
Demandante y el Demandado 1 (el Atleta).”
Freely translated:
“1 - No financial or sporting sanction should be imposed on Grêmio, given that it did not
participate, either directly or indirectly, in the contractual termination between the Claimant
and the Player. Grêmio has always acted in good faith and in compliance with FIFA rules.
2 - That, in the event any measure is deemed appropriate, it should fall exclusively on the
parties directly involved in the dispute, namely, the Claimant and Respondent 1 (the Player).”
(Freely translated into English).
d. Replica of the Claimant
62. In its replica, the Club disputed the allegations of both respondents.
63. First, the Club argued that the Player terminated the Contract by his conclusive behaviour.
64. In particular, the Club alleged that the Player decided not to return and join the team in
Turkey as of 10 January 2025, ignoring the repeated requests and refusing to join the pre-
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18510
season camp in Turkey, which was considered by both parties a safe location. The Club
highlighted that the Player’s correspondences and statements show that he had no
intention to fulfil his obligations.
65. Secondly, the Club claimed that the principle of rebus sic stantibus doctrine shall not apply
to the present case for the following reasons:
-
The Player signed the Contract 1,5 years after the war began and he was the
therefore fully aware of the risks and the situation in Russia;
-
The escalation of the conflict did not affect the Club’s schedule or participation
in official matches of the Russian Premier League;
-
FIFA and CAS jurisprudence confirm that the risk of an escalation and attacks was
foreseeable ((CAS 2021/A/7826, CAS 2024/A/10279, 2024/A/10280 &
2024/A/10281 and DRC decision of 15 November 2023 ref. FPSD-11614).
-
The FIFA Regulations do not allow players to suspend or terminate their
contracts with the Russian or Ukrainian clubs if these contracts were concluded
or extended after 7 March 2022, further demonstrating that the risk was
foreseeable.
66. Third, the Club claimed that the Player’s fundamental rights were not breached.
Specifically, the Club asserted that the Player failed to prove any of his allegations regarding
the Club’s negligence, not providing safe conditions.
67. In addition, the Club referred to the witness statements (annexes 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the
statement of claim) claiming that it continued to ensure the players’ safety at the Club and
in Russia.
68. Fourth, the Club claimed that it did not act in an abusive manner as it offered the possibility
to negotiate the employment conditions if the Player returned to the training club in
Turkey. In addition, according to the Club, insisting on joining the camp in Turkey cannot
be considered coercion and the threats of sanctions were allegedly based on the FIFA
Regulations.
69. Fifth, the Club argued that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract for
the following reasons:
-
The armed conflict was ongoing and foreseeable when the Contract was signed;
-
The Player refused to join the team in Turkey and showed a contradictory
behaviour as on the one hand he claimed that he was afraid for his safety in
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-18510
Russia but on the other hand, he refused to join the team in Turkey which was
considered as a safe place for both parties.
-
His quick signing with a new club suggested that he intended to leave without
just cause.
70. Sixth, according to the Club, it correctly calculated the compensation based on art. 17 of
the Regulations.
71. Finally, the Club reiterate its request for relief.
e. Duplica of the Respondent
72. In its duplica, the Player argued that the Contract was terminated by the Club in its third
letter that explicitly stated that “this is actually a unilateral termination.” Prior to that letter,
the Player alleged that he remained open to dialogue with the Club proposing solutions
such as a loan, suspension or permanent transfer, which contradicts any intent to abandon
the Contract.
73. In addition, the Player alleged that he never sent a written notice of termination to the Club
and his correspondence only showed that he intended to preserve the employment
relationship under modified terms, but never to end it. Consequently, according to the
Player, he acted in good faith and he did not terminate the Contract.
74. The Player further argued that the events occurred in December 2024 (drone strikes and
the downed of a civilian aircraft near Grozny) made the continuation of the employment
relationship impossible. He also alleged that Swiss Law and CAS jurisprudence allow
contract adaptation or termination in cases like the one at hand.
75. Furthermore, according to the Player, when signing in August 2023, Grozny was presented
as safe and the war was distant until the December 2024 escalation which was
unforeseeable and materially altered the risk profile.
76. In this regard, the Player claimed that the Club breached its duty of care (art. 318 of the
Swiss Code of Obligations) and ignored the documented risks, dismissed concerns and
responded with ultimatums instead of negotiating with the Player the most appropriate
solution to ensure his safety.
77. Regarding his refusal to join the camp in Turkey, the Player argued that this argument is
irrelevant as attending the camp would not resolve the situation. In addition, he clarified
that he did not refuse to join the camp in Turkey but rather returning Grozny afterwards.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-18510
78. Finally, the Player repeated that the compensation requested is excessive and punitive and
if any amount is to be paid by the Player, it shall be limited to EUR 172,612 corresponding
to the non-amortized portion of the sign-on bonus.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-18510
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
79. 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 10 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
11 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
80. 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. a) 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 Russian club and a Brazilian player with the involvement of a Brazilian club.
81. 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
82. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
83. 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.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-18510
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
84. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute which party terminated the Contract and whether the Contract
was terminated with just cause.
85. Before entering into the merits of the case, the Chamber reiterated the following
undisputed facts:
-
The parties signed the Contract on 8 August 2023, i.e. a year and a half after the
war between Russia and Ukraine started.
-
In December 2024, drone attacks took place in Grozny (where the Club is located)
and a commercial airplane was downed in an area close to Grozny.
-
On 10 January 2025, the Player was supposed to be in Belek, Turkey for the team’s
training camp.
-
On 11 January 2025, the Club sent a letter to the Player asking him to report to
the Club immediately and justify his absence from the camp.
-
On the same day, the Player replied to the Club stating that he is too afraid to go
back to Grozny after the escalation of the war.
-
On 15 January 2025, the Club sent another letter to the Player reiterating the
content of its first letter and requesting explanations regarding his absence.
-
On 20 January 2025 (i.e. 9 days after the Player was supposed to be present to
the camp), the Club sent a letter to the Player informing him that he did not have
any grounds to suspend or terminate the Contract and his answer that he does
not intend to return to the Club “no matter how it sounds, this is actually a unilateral
termination of the employment contract without a justified reason.”
-
On 21 January 2025, the Player replied to the Club stating that he was
disappointed with the Club’s unwillingness to discuss the proposed alternative
options and that he took note that the Club considered the Contract terminated.
-
On 11 February 2025, the New Club announced the arrival of the Player in its
social media.
86. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that it has to address the following
questions:
- How was the Contract terminated?
- Did the Club have just cause to terminate the Contract?
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-18510
-
In the affirmative, did the Club substantiate the damages that it incurred from the
Player’s unlawful termination?
87. The Chamber firstly noted that the Club contended that the Player de facto terminated the
Contract through his conduct, as he refused to join the team at the Club’s training camp in
Turkey following the Christmas break. According to the Club, despite repeated requests,
the Player did not return and explicitly stated his intention not to do so.
88. In support of its position, the Chamber noted that the Club sought to draw a parallel with
the award CAS 2014/A/3707, arguing that the Player’s unauthorized absence and
statements regarding his unwillingness to return allowed the Club to reasonably conclude
that the Player had no intention of fulfilling his contractual obligations and, therefore, had
de facto terminated the Contract without just cause.
89. However, the Chamber observed that in the CAS award cited, the player had been absent
for a prolonged period, and the club had neither seen nor heard from him for several
months. By contrast, in the present case, the Chamber considered that although the Player
was absent, the parties remained in continuous contact during the nine days between the
Player’s initial absence and the Club’s letter declaring the Contract terminated.
90. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that an absence of nine days, coupled with
ongoing communication between the parties, cannot reasonably amount to a de facto
termination of the Contract by the Player as of the date he was expected to return.
91. Consequently, the Chamber decided that it was the Club that terminated the Contract on
20 January 2025, and not a de facto termination by the Player.
92. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to whether the Club had
just cause to terminate the Contract.
93. The Chamber recalled that, based on its well-established jurisprudence, and as confirmed
by CAS, a club considering the option of terminating a contract because of a player’s
unauthorized absence or because they have not returned to the club after an authorized
leave should respect the ultima ratio principle. In other words, less stringent disciplinary
measures should be applied first, before terminating the contract and the club must
request the player return to the club and set a reasonable deadline by which they must do
so (DRC decision of 11 April 2019; DRC decision of 21 April 2022).
94. In this regard, the Chamber reiterated the following undisputed facts:
-
The Player was expected to join the training camp in Turkey on 10 January 2025;
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-18510
-
On 11 January 2025, the Club sent to the Player a notice regarding his absence,
requesting him to “arrive at the football team location Belek Turkey asap or
immediately provide us with the written explanations for your absence”;
-
The Player replied the same day, explaining that his failure to report was due to
the escalation of the war, which he feared posed a risk to his and his family’s
safety.
-
On 15 January 2025, the Club sent another letter to the Player regarding his
absence and asked him “to arrive at football team location in Belek Turkey asap or
immediately provide us with the written explanations in case you do not plan to arrive
at the football team location”.
-
On the same day, the Player reiterated via WhatsApp the same explanation and
stated that he asked to be sent on loan but the Club did not reply to his request.
-
On 17 January 2025, the Player sent an official letter to the Club reiterating the
reasons for not returning to the Club and confirming he did not intent to
terminate the Contract. The Player asked the Club as an alternative solution to
“(i) suspend his contract until the war is over and loan him to another club outside
Russia or Ukraine; (ii) or to consider transferring him definitely to another club outside
of Russia and Ukraine.”
-
On 20 January 2025, the Club declared that the Player’s statements and conduct
amounted to a unilateral termination without just cause.
-
On 21 January 2025, the Player acknowledged the Club’s position that the
Contract was considered terminated.
95. In view of the above, the Chamber noted the following:
(i) the Club sent two notices requesting the Player to return “asap” or
“immediately provide the club with the written explanations in case you do not
plan to arrive at the football team location”;
(ii) the Player replied to both notices within the same day providing “written
explanations for [his] absence”, complying with the Club’s request.
(iii) the Player reiterated in his communications that he did not intend to
terminate his Contract and asked for alternative solutions.
96. Therefore, the Chamber decided that it had to assess whether the Club could have taken
more lenient measures before terminating the Contract.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-18510
97. The Chamber noted that the Club did send two notices to the Player asking him to return
“asap” or provide explanations about his absence without giving a specific deadline for the
Player to comply with either request. The majority of the Chamber observed that Player
indeed complied with the Club’s requests as he provided the necessary explanations to the
Club immediately.
98. Under the totality of the circumstances of the case, the majority of the Chamber considered
that there were more lenient measures to be taken by the Club, instead of abruptly
interrupting the Contract within a span of 9 days after its first communication to the Player
regarding his absences. This was considered particularly relevant for the majority of the
Chamber given that the Club neither established a clear deadline for compliance nor
insisted exclusively on the Player’s return, but instead offered an alternative- providing
explanations for his absence- which the Player promptly fulfilled.
99. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber considered that it is evident from the Player’s
communications that he did not intend to return to the Club “as long as it is not safe”. The
Chamber noted that the Player argued that the escalation of the war created safety
concerns for himself and his family and stated that he would not return until the war
ended. However, the Player was required to join the team in Turkey, where no such risks
existed. Furthermore, the DRC and CAS jurisprudence confirm that the escalation of the
war cannot justify termination by the Player, as the Contract was signed more than a year
after the conflict began, meaning the Player was fully aware of the associated risks when
concluding the Contract. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the majority
of the Chamber did not consider that this alone could amount to just cause for the Club to
terminate the Contract.
100. In view of the above, the majority of the Chamber considered that the Club’s termination
was premature and cannot be considered as a measure of ultima ratio that would justify a
termination under art. 14 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-18510
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Akhmat, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-18510
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. 28