Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18795
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Bobir Abdixolikov
BY:
Michele Colucci (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Bobir Abdixolikov, Uzbekistan
Represented by SILA International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
Ordabasy, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18795
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 January 2023, the Uzbek player Bobir Abdixolikov (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Kazakh club Ordabasy (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from its signature until 20 November 2023.
2.
On 31 August 2023, the club, the coaching staff and all its players (including the Claimant),
concluded a bonus agreement (hereinafter: the Agreement) establishing the bonuses
payable at the end of the 2023 season.
3.
In accordance with such Agreement, the Respondent undertook as follows:
“If the team takes 1st place in the Football Championship of the Republic of Kazakhstan among
Premier League clubs of the 2023 season, the Club undertakes to pay bonuses to the players of
the Main Team and the Coaching Staff in the amount of KZT 400,000,000 net.”
4.
In accordance with art. 1.2 of the Agreement, payment of the aforementioned bonus shall
occur by no later than 31 March 2024.
5.
No default notices or correspondence exchanged between the parties was submitted to
the file.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 31 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
7.
In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the
Agreement, as the relevant condition (winning the league) had been met, however, no
payment in respect of the relevant bonus had occurred.
8.
The Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
9.
As to the calculation of the bonus per se, the Claimant argued that the Agreement did not
specify any division of the stipulated amount, thus leading him to the assumption that the
total amount of KZT 400,000,000 should be divided by 27 – the number of signatories to
the Agreement.
10. Therefore, the Claimant understood that the Agreement constituted a collective scheme,
meaning that, by its nature, unless specified otherwise, it should be divided equally.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18795
11. The Claimant further invoked the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem, arguing that, due
to the lack of clarification regarding the division of the agreed amount, the meaning of the
provision shall be interpreted against the party drafting it. Therefore, the Respondent
should be prevented from benefiting from the vague wording of the clause.
12. In conclusion, the Claimant formulated the following request for relief:
-
KZT 14,814,814,81 net as outstanding remuneration;
Interest as from 1 April 2024.
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Respondent argued that it was not aware of the Agreement and that its
legal effects should be disregarded.
14. More specifically, the Respondent asserted that, in accordance with its internal regulations,
“major agreements” must be approved by the Board. As the Agreement is not included in
the Board’s records, the Respondent argued that the Agreement was purportedly not
concluded with its approval.
15. The Respondent acknowledged that the lack of awareness regarding the conclusion of the
Agreement from the Board’s perspective was per se not sufficient for undermining its
validity. However, the Respondent argued that conditional bonuses should be stipulated in
the employment contract, and players whose contracts included such bonuses received
those amounts duly.
16. The Respondent also argued that the players and technical staff of the club extended to 43
members, and that therefore the amount should be reduced to the amount of KZT
400,000,000 divided by 43, that is KZT 9,302,325.
17. In any event, the Respondent argued that the parties agreed to engage in pre-dispute
conciliation in the relevant contract, however, that no such conciliation had taken place. As
a result, the Respondent requested that the parties should be allowed to engage in such
conciliation before a decision by FIFA is rendered.
18. Moreover, the Respondent argued that no other player had contacted the former
regarding this Agreement, and that late payment interest from the due date of the amount
at stake, should it be awarded, is excessive and should only be applied as from the date of
the Football Tribunal’s decision.
19. Lastly, the Respondent requested that the present claim is consolidated with two parallel
claims brought by another player and by a coach, in respect of the same Agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18795
c. Replica of the Claimant
20. In his replica, the Claimant noted that the Respondent has not challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction
and only requested a suspension of the proceedings in order to find an amicable
resolution. In any event, the Claimant argued that he should not be precluded from lodging
a claim due to the above provisions, as this would constitute a limitation to access to justice.
21. Equally, the Claimant pointed out not only that the lack of the Respondent’s awareness
constituted no valid reason to render the Agreement null and void (as admitted by the
Respondent itself), but further that no copy of the internal regulations had been provided.
22. Lastly, the Claimant argued that the Respondent’s argumentation as to the calculation of
the bonus should be dismissed, given that only signatories to the Agreement are entitled
to benefit from its provisions, and, had the Respondent manifested a different intention, it
would have offered the terms of the Agreement to all 43 staff it has alleged are employed
by the club.
23. In conclusion, the Claimant insisted on its initial request for relief.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18795
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 31 March 2025 and submitted for
decision on 5 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
25. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
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 an Uzbek player and a Kazakh club.
26. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
28. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18795
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether or not the Respondent had met its financial
obligations vis-à-vis the Claimant.
30. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether or
not the Claimant was truly entitled to receive any bonus and in which amount – for the nonpayment of the amount remained undisputed in the case at hand.
31. Prior to entering his analysis, the Single Judge revisited the parties’ respective submissions.
On one hand, according to the player, the club failed to remit KZT 14,814,814,81 net,
corresponding to his proportion of the bonus under the Agreement. The Claimant provided
evidence of the condition being met and further argued that the amount should be
calculated based on the number of signatories at the basis of the Agreement
32. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Agreement was not signed by its
Board, and that it had no knowledge of its existence. Subsidiarily, the Respondent argued
that the amount should be reduced to 1/43 to include all members of its staff and players,
as well as reducing the interest payable due to the fact that it was unaware of its signature.
33. At this stage, the Single Judge recalled that, pursuant to FIFA and CAS jurisprudence,
employees cannot be expected to be aware of, and bound by internal authority
arrangements and that, as long as a person who has apparent authority to make legal
agreements on behalf of the club (akin to a technical director making a valid employment
offer on behalf of a club, despite Board approval being – in theory – required), the relevant
club shall be bound by the actions of its representatives.
34. In the case at hand, the President has signed the Agreement, and further, the club’s stamp
is included. Moreover, the alleged lack of awareness by the club that the Agreement has
been signed was, in the Single Judge’s opinion, not a valid justification to undermine its
validity (as correctly acknowledged by the Respondent itself).
35. It follows that the Agreement was validly concluded and that it bears legal effects on its
parties.
36. As for the calculation of the bonus, the Single Judge deemed that the Respondent’s
argumentation shall be dismissed. In this respect, the Respondent has adduced no
evidence of the remaining members’ entitlement as to the bonus scheme, nor is there any
suggestion in the Agreement that the amount shall be payable to any other parties that are
not signatories thereto.
37. By its nature, being a collective scheme, only signatories thereto should, as the Single Judge
opined, be able to benefit from its contents.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18795
38. Therefore, the Single Judge established that the calculation of KZT 400,000,000 net divided
by 27 was accurate – i.e., KZT 14,814,814.81 net in favour of the Claimant.
39. At this stage, the Single Judge recalled that the amount remained unpaid without any valid
justification.
40. As a result, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided to award the Claimant overdue payables of KZT 14,814,814.81 net.
41. Furthermore, interest on the above amount was applicable, in line with the Claimant’s
request for relief and the standard approach of the Football Tribunal in this sense, as from
1 April 2024 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
43. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
45. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
46. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18795
d. Costs
47. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
48. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
49. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18795
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bobir Abdixolikov, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ordabasy, must pay to the Claimant KZT 14,814,814.81 net as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The 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.
5.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18795
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. 11