Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18997
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Boris Pavlov
Tyutyukov
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Boris Pavlov Tyutyukov, Bulgaria
Represented by Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Fudbalski Klub Radnicki Nis, Serbia
Represented by Jovan Rudic
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18997
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 January 2025, the Bulgarian player Boris Pavlov Tyutyukov (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Serbian club Fudbalski Klub Radnicki Nis
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract), which was valid from 18 January 2025 to 31 May 2026.
2.
Clause 3 entitled the Player to EUR 3,055/month (EUR 430 net basic salary + EUR 2,625
experience-related fee), payable by the 5th of the following month; a EUR 30,000 signing
bonus (EUR 20,000 on signing; EUR 10,000 by 30 June 2025); plus club bonuses/benefits,
quoted verbatim:
“1) In consideration for the Player’s obligations towards the Club, the parties hereto have
agreed upon a net monthly salary in the amount of 430 euro (which may not be lower
than the minimum net wage per employee in the Republic of Serbia according to the
latest official data published by the relevant authority) payable into the Player’s current
account . and not subject to changes unless by an annex to this Contract. Payment of the
salary for the previous month shall be effected no later than by 5. of the current month.
2)The parties hereby also set forth the following special fees: For the player’s experience,
a monthly fee in the amount of 2625e, which is paid in dinars at the middle exchange
rate of the NBS on the day of payment.
For signing the contract, the player will be paid a one-time fee according to the following
dynamics:
30,000e upon signing the contract;
10,000 euros until June 30, 2025.
All fees are paid in dinars at the middle exchange rate of the NBS on the day of payment.
3)The parties hereby also set forth the following special bonuses: success-based fees for
the results achieved at national and international competitions, bonus for participation
in international matches, etc :
4) The amaunt of special bonuses referred to in Article 3 hereof is subject to changes and
the parties hereto agree that the amount of such bonuses may be changed in accordance
with Club regulations. Any change of the amount of a bonus shall be valid without
execution of an annex to this Contract and the amounts of bonuses set forth by Club
regulations shall apply.
5) Upon signing hereof, the Club shall provide to the Player the Club Bonus Rules and
Disciplinary Regulations. The Player shall sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the Club
Rules and Regulations.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18997
3.
On 6 April 2025, through counsel, the Player sent a default notice to the Club for unpaid
salary (part of January; February and March 2025 in full), granting 15 days (until 21 April
2025) for full payment. He also protested his exclusion from full first-team training since 24
March 2025, demanded explanations, and requested reintegration by 8 April 2025.
4.
On 8 April 2025, the Club acknowledged arrears, promising the Player to pay January and
February in 5–7 days and March “like all other players.” It claimed the Player trained
regularly, did not address segregation allegations, and raised retroactive claims.
5.
On 11 April 2025, the Player reiterated to the Club that salaries for January–March 2025
must be fully paid by an extended deadline of 22 April 2025; he maintained that exclusion
from training persisted and rejected the Club’s retroactive claims.
6.
Also on 11 April 2025, the Club paid the Player an amount of RSD 50,380 and RSD 155,590,
both referenced “PO UGOVORU”.
7.
On 15 April 2025, the Club paid the Player an amount of RSD 236,082, “PO UGOVORU”.
8.
On 22 April 2025, the Club paid the Player an amount of RSD 358,178.90, “PO UGOVORU”.
9.
On 23 April 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract, citing failure to fully pay
within the extended 15‑day period and continued unjustified exclusion from full first‑team
training since 24 March 2025.
10. The Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he remained unemployed after the
termination of the Contract. In addition, pursuant to the information retrieved from FIFA
Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), on 21 July 2025, the Player was registered
with the Bulgarian club, Maritsa 1921, as an amateur.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 23 April 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
12. The Player argued that he had terminated the Contract on 23 April 2025 with just cause,
pursuant to art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations), because the Club had persistently failed to pay his salaries in
full and had engaged in abusive conduct toward him.
13. He maintained that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations – substantive and
formal – had been fully satisfied. Substantively, the Club had failed to pay at least two
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18997
monthly salaries on their respective due dates, namely the salaries for February and March
2025, as well as part of the January 2025 salary. Formally, he had placed the Club in default
on 6 April 2025 and had granted a 15‑day deadline to fully settle all overdue amounts;
however, the Club had only submitted partial payments on 11, 15, and 22 April 2025, which
still left EUR 59 outstanding for January, EUR 613 for February, and EUR 3 for March at the
expiry of the extended deadline on 22 April 2025. He submitted that, according to
consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(hereinafter: CAS), partial payment within the notice period had not constituted
compliance, and the Club’s reduction of the arrears below two monthly salaries had not
required him to restart the default procedure.
14. Moreover, the Player submitted that abusive conduct within the meaning of art. 14 par. 2
of the Regulations had occurred independently of the overdue payments and had
reinforced his just cause to terminate. According to his account, from 24 March 2025
onward the Club had excluded him from full first‑team training, limiting him to warm‑ups
or partial drills before assigning him to a separate small group of players. He added that
he had been omitted from the match squads for 2, 7, and 22 April 2025. Despite repeated
written requests, the Club had not provided any explanation for this treatment. The Player
asserted that such conduct had been deliberate, unjustified, and designed to isolate him,
undermine his professional standing, and pressure him into either terminating or
renegotiating the contract. He therefore considered this behaviour to fall squarely within
the notion of “abusive conduct” under art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations, and as a separate
ground supporting his decision to terminate the Contract with just cause.
15. Regarding the consequences of termination, the Player submitted that he was entitled to
all outstanding remuneration up to 23 April 2025, which totalled EUR 675 net, reflecting the
unpaid balances of the January, February, and March salaries.
16. He further claimed compensation for breach of contract pursuant to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of
the Regulations, calculated on the basis of the residual value of the Contract from April
2025 to May 2026, amounting to EUR 42,770 net. Because his termination had resulted
from overdue payables, and given what he considered to be egregious circumstances, he
requested additionally six-monthly salaries, i.e., EUR 18,330 net.
17. Finally, he requested 5% annual interest on all outstanding salaries and the compensation
amount, in accordance with established jurisprudence.
18. The Player requested the following relief:
“51. On these grounds, the Claimant respectfully asks the Football Tribunal to:
1. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant outstanding amounts of EUR 675 net, plus
interest of 5% p.a. until full payment as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18997
(a) On EUR 59 as of February 6, 2025;
(b) On EUR 613 as of March 6, 2025;
(c) On EUR 3 as of April 6, 2025.
2. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract of
EUR 42,770 net, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of April 23, 2025, until full payment.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
19. On 27 May 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the claim and lodged a counterclaim
against the Player.
20. In its response, the Club rejected the Player’s claim in full and maintained that although the
claim was procedurally admissible and the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter:
DRC) was competent, the Player’s substantive allegations were unfounded. The Club argued
that the applicable law could not be limited exclusively to the Regulations, because art. 3
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules)
required national law to be applied whenever FIFA rules contained gaps, especially
concerning matters such as currency conversion and allocation of payments.
21. The Club asserted that the Player’s description of facts was largely inaccurate. It accepted
only that a valid Contract existed, that written correspondence occurred between 6 and 23
April 2025, and that several payments were made in dinars following the Player’s default
notice. It maintained that all remaining factual allegations made by the Player – including
claims of segregation, exclusion from training, and non-payment – were incorrect.
22. With regard to the allegation of abusive conduct, the Club denied that the Player had ever
been excluded from first‑team training. It argued that the Player had provided no evidence
to support such a claim and therefore had not met the burden of proof under art. 13 par.
5 of the Procedural Rules. To reinforce its position, the Club relied on notarized statements
from the head coach, Siniša Dobračinović, and from players Andreja Stojanović and
Yamkam Basile A. Mbouri, all of whom stated that the Player trained regularly with the first
team, had never been segregated, and suffered no discriminatory or abusive treatment.
These witnesses further described the Player’s work ethic and performance as poor and
explained that his limited playing time was a sporting decision rather than punishment.
23. The Club added that photographs from training on the day of its 8 April 2025 reply, which
the Player allegedly omitted, showed him training with the squad. It also challenged the
reliability of “Exhibit C10” submitted by the Player, noting that it did not prove exclusion
from the 22 April 2025 match. In contrast, the Club submitted match protocols showing
that the Player had been listed in the squad for numerous matches in February, March,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18997
and April 2025. In light of this, the Club argued that the Player had never been subjected to
abusive conduct and that art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations could not apply.
24. On the issue of overdue payables, the Club contended that the Player’s allegations were
based on incorrect currency conversion and improper allocation of payments. It explained
that under clause 3 of the Contract, all amounts had to be paid in dinars at the National
Bank of Serbia’s (hereinafter: NBS) middle exchange rate on the date of payment.
Accordingly, the Club recalculated all payments made on 11, 15, and 22 April 2025 using
the official exchange rates and concluded that it had paid the Player a total of EUR 6,826,
not the EUR 6,820 claimed by the Player.
25. It further argued that the Player had unilaterally and incorrectly allocated these payments
to the salary months of January, February, and March 2025. Since FIFA regulations did not
regulate allocation of payments, the matter had to be governed by Serbian Law –
specifically art. 312 of the Law on Obligations – which required payments to be allocated in
the order of maturity unless the debtor specified otherwise. Based on this rule, the Club
submitted that the Player’s allocation method was legally impermissible.
26. The Club also accused the Player of concealing significant financial facts relating to
accommodation. It explained that, following long‑standing club practice, it paid EUR 1,500
directly to the Player’s landlord for three months’ rent and additionally reimbursed the
Player for his EUR 500 deposit through three monthly payments of EUR 150. Statements
from two teammates supported the existence of this verbal arrangement. According to the
Club, these accommodation amounts were to be deducted from the Player’s salary and
were essential for determining the actual balance between the parties.
27. Taking into account salary payments, accommodation payments, deposit reimbursements,
and the official exchange rates, the Club calculated that it had paid a total of EUR 8,776 on
the Player’s behalf before the Player terminated the Contract. The Club contrasted this
amount with the Player’s accrued entitlement of EUR 7,489.67 and concluded that it had in
fact overpaid the Player by EUR 1,286.33. As a result, the Club argued that no overdue
salaries existed at the time of termination and that the conditions of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had not been met. It therefore insisted that the Player had no just cause to
terminate the Contract.
28. The Club further described the Player as having acted in bad faith from the beginning of
the contractual relationship. It alleged that he sought to leave the Club “at any cost,”
evidenced by his default notice, his insistence on filing a claim over negligible amounts, and
his dissatisfaction with life in the city and his sporting performance. The Club also accused
the Player of failing to return Club property – namely, a custom tracksuit and polo shirt
valued at EUR 400 – which breached the Contract and further illustrated his unprofessional
conduct.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18997
29. Finally, the Club argued that, as the Player had terminated the Contract without just cause,
it had suffered sporting and financial damages. It calculated its positive interest under art.
17 of the Regulations to include salary payments, the signing bonus, accommodation costs,
future salary obligations, and additional damages for disruption to team dynamics and
sporting performance. The total loss asserted by the Club amounted to EUR 116,546.926,
for which it requested compensation, interest, return of Club equipment, and the
imposition of sporting sanctions (a four‑month ban).
30. The Club requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“83. On these grounds, the Respondent-counterclaimant asks the Football Tribunal to:
1. Reject the claim of Claimant-counterrespondent Boris Pavlov Tyutyukov from Bulgaria
2. Accept the counterclaim of the Respondent-counterclaimant FK Radnicki Nis
3. Order the Claimant-counterrespondent to pay the Respondent-counterclaimant
outstanding amounts of EUR 116.546,926 net, for breach of contract plus interes of 5%
p.a. Until full payment as follows:
a) on EUR 30.000,00 as of 31 January 2025
b) on EUR 1.500,00 as of 1 February 2025
c) on EUR 450,00 as of 26 May 2025
d) on EUR 1.758,006 as of 12 April 2025
e) on EUR 2.013,92 as of 16 April 2025
f) on EUR 3.055,00006 as of 23 April 2025
g) on EUR 52.770,00 as of 23 April 2025
h) on EUR 25.000,00 as of 23 April 2025
4. Order the Claimant-counterrespondent to return the blue and black tracksuit
“Masitta“ and white polo t-shirt “Masita“. If the items have been lost or destroyed, the
Claimant-Respondent may be released from this obligation by paying EUR 400,00 plus
interest of 5% p.a. as of 23 April 2025 to the Respondent-Counter-Claimant.
5. In the event that the Claimant-Counterrespondent fails to pay the stated amounts
within the 30 day from the date of the decision, a ban on playing official matches for a
period of 4 months shall be imposed.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the Player
31. On 12 June 2025, the Player submitted his reply to the counterclaim.
32. In his rejoinder, the Player maintained that his unilateral termination of the Contract had
been executed with just cause under art. 14bis and 14 par. 2 of the Regulations, and he
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18997
rejected the entirety of the Club’s counterclaim. He argued that the counterclaim was
factually incorrect, internally inconsistent, and legally baseless, especially given the Club’s
failure to comply with its core contractual obligations – most importantly, the timely and
full payment of his salary. He contended that the Club’s litigation position contradicted its
own contemporaneous correspondence, particularly its 8 April 2025 email, in which the
Club had explicitly acknowledged outstanding salaries and made no reference to
accommodation deductions, rent offsets, or overpayments.
33. The Player highlighted several contradictions between the Club’s current narrative and its
earlier admissions. He argued that the Club’s April 8 letter had acknowledged arrears, failed
to deny his claims regarding exclusion from first‑team training, and made no mention of
rent or deposit payments supposedly deducted from salary. He stated that the Club’s new
allegations were introduced only during the proceedings and therefore amounted to ex
post facto litigation constructs intended to avoid responsibility. The Player maintained that
the contemporaneous record showed that the Club had not contested the unpaid salaries
or offered any justification for his segregation from the squad, and that this alone
undermined the credibility of the Club’s counterclaim.
34. Regarding the salary calculations, the Player accepted the Club’s corrected conversion of
the dinar payments using official NBS exchange rates, bringing the total paid to EUR 6,826.
He accordingly amended his claim and withdrew the previously asserted shortfalls for
January and March 2025. However, he maintained that EUR 612 from the February 2025
salary remained unpaid by the expiry of the default notice period, and he requested this
amount together with 5% annual interest. He stressed that even with the corrected
calculations, the Club had still failed to pay at least two monthly salaries in full, thus
satisfying the substantive element of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
35. The Player rejected the Club’s argument on the allocation of payments. He stated that the
Club had not indicated the purpose of any payment at the time it was made, merely
marking transfers as “per contract.” As a result, under Swiss Law (cf., Art. 86(2) of the Swiss
Code of Obligations, hereinafter: SCO), which he argued applied subsidiarily to FIFA
matters, he was entitled to allocate payments as he deemed appropriate. He explained
that he had allocated the payments chronologically: first to January, then to February, and
finally to March. He insisted that the Club’s reliance on Serbian Law was misplaced and
that, in any event, the outstanding balance clearly corresponded to February. More
importantly, the allocation issue did not change the fact that more than two monthly
salaries remained unpaid in full within the 15‑day deadline, meaning just cause existed
regardless of how payments were sequenced.
36. The Player also forcefully rejected the Club’s claim that alleged rent and deposit payments
could be offset against salary. He emphasized that the Club had never mentioned these
alleged deductions in its response to the default notice, that the Contract contained no
clause authorizing any deduction for accommodation, and that salary deductions must be
agreed in writing under FIFA and CAS jurisprudence. He argued that the Club had provided
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18997
no proof of any agreement, no competent evidence of salary deductions, and no
documentary record – such as payslips or contemporaneous communications – linking rent
payments to his remuneration. He categorically denied that any verbal offset agreement
had ever existed, characterizing the Club’s position as an unsubstantiated attempt to
retroactively reframe non‑salary expenses as salary payments.
37. On the issue of just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations, the Player reiterated that the
Club had not fully paid at least two monthly salaries by the expiry of the 15‑day default
notice, and that partial payments or unilateral reclassification of non-salary benefits could
not cure the breach. He relied on consistent DRC and CAS jurisprudence confirming that
the failure to fully pay two monthly salaries within the notice period – regardless of partial
payments – constituted just cause. He also emphasized that reducing the outstanding
amount below two salaries after the deadline did not affect the validity of termination.
38. The Player further argued that he had just cause under art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations due
to his exclusion from full first‑team integration. He recalled that beginning 24 March 2025,
he had been systematically segregated from tactical sessions and match preparations,
confined to warm‑ups or small‑group exercises, and excluded from match squads. He
noted that the Club never responded substantively to his written complaints and never
denied the specific allegations contemporaneously. He supported his account with the
affidavit of teammate Iliya Yurukov and updated match protocol evidence showing
omission from the April 2, 7, and 22 squads. He argued that the Club’s vague denials, lack
of justification, and reliance on undated photographs could not rebut his specific, repeated,
and contemporaneously raised complaints. He added that CAS jurisprudence had
recognized that exclusion from tactical training – even when a player attended warm‑ups
– was sufficient to constitute abusive conduct under art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations.
39. The Player also rejected the Club’s characterization of his conduct, including the claims that
he lacked motivation or failed to attend certain sessions. He noted that these allegations
were never raised at the relevant time, were unsupported by evidence, and appeared only
after the default notice, making them procedurally unreliable. He added that under exceptio
non adimpleti contractus (art. 82 of the SCO), a player was not required to perform when
the club was in breach, meaning that even if he had missed sessions, the Club’s prior
non‑payment relieved him of his duty to perform.
40. With respect to the Club’s counterclaim for EUR 116,546.93 in compensation and the
request for sporting sanctions, the Player maintained that these requests were wholly
inadmissible. He explained that a club in breach could not claim compensation under art.
17 of the Regulations, and that the Club had provided no objective evidence of actual
damage. The alleged sporting loss, reputational harm, and claimed value damage were
speculative and unsupported. He also emphasized that only FIFA, not clubs, had standing
to request sporting sanctions, as CAS had confirmed repeatedly.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18997
41. In conclusion, the Player asked the DRC to reject the counterclaim in full, reaffirm that his
termination of 23 April 2025 had been carried out with just cause under art. 14bis and/or
14 par. 2 of the Regulations, and uphold his financial claims including the updated
outstanding salary of EUR 612 with interest and compensation of EUR 42,770.
42. The Player requested the following relief:
“87. On the basis of the facts, legal arguments, and evidence set out above, the Player
respectfully requests the DRC to:
1. Reject the Club’s Counterclaim in its entirety, to the extent it is admissible.
2. Confirm that the Player’s termination of the Contract on April 23, 2025, was effected
with just cause under Article 14bis and/or Article 14(2) RSTP.
3. Uphold the Player’s claims as submitted in the Statement of Claim, including:
(a) An order for the Club to pay the amended outstanding salary amount of €612 net,
together with interest at 5% per annum from March 6, 2025, until the date of full
payment, as acknowledged in paragraphs 14–16 of this Response,
(b) An order for the Club to pay compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
€42,770 net, plus interest at 5% per annum from April 23, 2025, until the date of full
payment, in accordance with Article 17(1) RSTP, and
(c) Any other relief to which the Player is entitled under FIFA regulations.”
d. Final comments of the Club
43. On 25 June 2025, the Club submitted comments on the Player’s latest submission.
44. The Club rejected all allegations advanced by the Player in his rejoinder and maintained
that the Player had acted inconsistently and in bad faith throughout the proceedings. The
Club argued that the Player’s claim relied on misrepresentations of facts, omissions of key
evidence, and shifting legal theories. It emphasized that the Player had originally asserted
arrears for three months, only to later reduce his claim to EUR 612 for February 2025, which
the Club characterized as a strategic retreat rather than a good‑faith amendment. The Club
insisted that it had always acted in accordance with the Contract and its financial
calculations, and that it had no outstanding salary debt at the time of termination.
45. The Club reiterated that a verbal agreement existed between the parties regarding
accommodation: the Club would pay rent directly to the landlord and deduct those
amounts from the Player’s salary, while reimbursing the Player for the deposit. It argued
that this agreement had been undisputed until litigation began, and that multiple witness
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18997
statements – including those of the Club director, teammates, and the landlord – supported
its existence. It further claimed that the Player’s selective omission of the rent‑related
evidence demonstrated bad faith and an attempt to conceal facts. According to the Club,
once the rent deductions and the Player’s deposit reimbursements were accounted for, the
Club had actually overpaid the Player by EUR 1,286.33, meaning no outstanding salary
existed.
46. On the issue of payment allocation, the Club maintained that Serbian Law – not Swiss Law
– governed the allocation of payments due to the choice‑of‑law clause in the contract. It
asserted that, under the Serbian Law on Obligations, payments must be attributed
chronologically to the oldest debt unless the debtor states otherwise. The Club argued that
it had objected to the Player’s allocation method from its first submission, making the
Player’s reliance on the SCO incorrect. Even if Swiss Law applied, the Club argued that its
timely objection rendered the Player’s allocation invalid.
47. The Club also rejected all allegations of discriminatory or abusive conduct. It insisted that
the Player had never been excluded from training or marginalized, relying on numerous
witness statements from the head coach, players, the Club director, and new statements
supplied with these final comments. The Club also submitted Instagram posts purportedly
showing the Player training and smiling with the team, which it argued contradicted his
description of segregation and ill‑treatment. It reiterated that the Player had been included
in match protocols for many matches and that non‑selection for three key relegation‑battle
matches was due solely to poor performance, not discrimination. The Club dismissed the
Player's newly submitted affidavit from Iliya Yurukov as unauthenticated, unreliable, and
contradicted by the weight of its own evidence.
48. Moreover, the Club argued that even if any debt existed, the amount claimed by the Player
(EUR 612) represented only around one‑fifth of a monthly salary, which it argued could not
constitute a “substantial breach” sufficient to justify termination under CAS jurisprudence.
The Club cited CAS decisions finding just cause only where clubs owed several months of
salary or significant amounts. It maintained that its overall conduct, prompt responses, and
consistent payments demonstrated a clear intent to honor the Contract, while the Player’s
shifting positions showed a predetermined plan to leave the Club.
49. Regarding the Player’s reliance on exceptio non adimpleti contractus, the Club argued that
the principle did not apply because the Player himself had acknowledged that the Club had
paid him for professional services. The Club characterized the Player’s legal arguments as
contradictory and opportunistic – invoked only when convenient and later abandoned or
contradicted by the Player’s own statements. It argued that the Player’s conduct reflected
dissatisfaction with life in Niš and a desire – reportedly influenced by his partner – to force
an early exit without consequences.
50. Finally, the Club maintained its request for compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations,
asserting that the Player had terminated the Contract without just cause and that the Club
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18997
had suffered damages, including paid bonuses, salary advances, the residual value of the
Contract, sporting harm, and reputational damage. It reiterated its request for the return
of club equipment and, if return was impossible, payment of its value. The Club concluded
that the Player had systematically acted in bad faith, consistently concealed important
facts, contradicted himself throughout the proceedings, and attempted to manipulate the
process to justify an unwarranted termination. It urged the DRC to reject the Player’s
claims, uphold the counterclaim, and impose the requested financial and disciplinary
consequences.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
51. First of all, the DRC (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber) 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 23 April 2025 and submitted for decision on 10 March
2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 edition of the
Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
52. 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 (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 an Bulgarian player and a Serbian club.
53. 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
54. 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 TMS.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18997
c. Merits of the dispute
55. 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
56. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for breach of contract, and a counterclaim opposing the
same parties.
57. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player submitted that he terminated the Contract
on 23 April 2025 with just cause, primarily based on overdue payables under art. 14bis of
the Regulations. He argued that after a default notice on 6 April 2025 granting 15 days, the
Club only made partial payments on 11, 15 and 22 April 2025 and failed to fully comply by
the deadline, leaving at least EUR 612 outstanding from the February 2025 salary (after he
corrected exchange‑rate calculations). He further alleged abusive conduct under art. 14
par. 2 of the Regulations due to exclusion from full first‑team integration from 24 March
2025 and omission from match squads (2, 7, 22 April). He sought outstanding
remuneration, compensation (residual value), and interest; and he asked that the Club’s
counterclaim be rejected.
58. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club contested the claim in full and filed a
counterclaim. It confirmed the payments chronology but argued there were no overdue
salaries at termination when properly accounting for (i) NBS exchange rates in dinars and
(ii) a verbal accommodation arrangement under which rent paid by the Club (EUR 1,500)
and deposit reimbursements (EUR 450) were offset against the Player’s salary. It asserted
that, on this basis, it overpaid the Player by EUR 1,286.33 and that any remaining difference
(if any) would be attributable to March and be negligible. It denied any abusive conduct,
submitting coach/players’ statements and photos/Instagram posts, and described limited
playing time as a sporting decision. It sought dismissal of the claim, admission of the
counterclaim (including compensation and the return/value of equipment), and sporting
sanctions. The Club later reiterated these positions in final comments and supplied
additional statements.
59. In light of the above, the DRC recognised that its task was to decide on the following points
of contention:
(A) The Player’s just cause based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, including:
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18997
•
whether, upon expiry of the 15‑day default period, the Club still failed to
fully pay salaries due and, if so, whether such failure meets the
requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations despite later partial
compliance and currency/allocation disputes.
•
whether the Player’s attribution of April payments was permissible (Swiss
Law default vs Serbian Law imputation), and whether the NBS exchange
rates change the outstanding balance or its month of reference.
•
whether an alleged verbal agreement permitted the Club to deduct
rent/deposit from salary so as to extinguish wage arrears for purposes of
art. 14bis compliance (i.e., accommodation “offset”).
(B) If need be, the Player’s just cause based on abusive conduct, particularly whether
the evidence shows exclusion from full first‑team integration amounting to abusive
conduct under art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations.
(C) The consequences of the above conclusions.
60. The Chamber then proceeded with the assessment of each of these issues in turn.
A. ASSESSMENT UNDER ART. 14BIS OF THE REGULATIONS (OVERDUE PAYABLES)
61. First and foremost, the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed that on 6 April 2025
the Player placed the Club in default in writing, granting 15 days for full compliance (until
21April 2025, depending on counting), and that the Club made three rounds of payments
on 11, 15 and 22 April 2025.
62. The parties ultimately converged, for conversion purposes, on the NBS middle rate, which
yields a total of EUR 6,826 paid across the three value dates. In his rejoinder the Player
accordingly withdrew the residual amounts previously claimed for January and March 2025,
maintaining that EUR 612 remained due for February 2025. The Club’s position remained
that – once rent/deposit items and allocation per Serbian Law are accounted for – no
arrears existed (indeed, an overpayment), or alternatively that any difference would relate
to March and be de minimis.
63. The Club relied on art. 312 of Serbian Law on Obligations, arguing payments must be
imputed to the oldest due debt, absent a debtor designation, and that FIFA rules are silent
in this regard. The Player, for his part, relied on art. 86(2) of the SCO (subsidiary to FIFA
rules) to justify the creditor’s allocation in the absence of a debtor instruction, noting that
the Club’s transfers were referenced only “per contract”. The record shows no explicit
allocation in the transfer references and reveals that the Club first challenged the allocation
of the payments in litigation (as opposed to indicating allocation at the moment of
payment). In any event, even on the Club’s sequencing, the outstanding difference
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18997
persisted by the deadline (EUR 612 or 663, depending on the month), i.e., not full
compliance.
64. The Club argued that EUR 1,500 (rent to landlord) and EUR 450 (deposit reimbursements)
should offset salary because of a verbal agreement and Club practice, supported by
director/players’ statements and the landlord’s statement. The Player denied any such
written authorization to deduct wages, underscoring that the Contract contained no clause
permitting salary deductions for accommodation and that the Club did not
contemporaneously invoke such offsets in its 8 April reply to default. On the record, the
Club has produced no payslips or contemporaneous payroll breakdown reflecting an
agreed salary deduction; its own reply of 8 April 2025 acknowledged arrears without
mentioning offsets.
65. The Chamber therefore considered that, for the purposes of art. 14bis of the Regulations,
only salary remuneration - i.e., the monthly amounts contractually due – counts toward
curing default. This means that unilateral netting with external/non‑salary items (housing)
that is not grounded in a clear written clause and not communicated at the time of payment
cannot be credited to cure the default notice. Accordingly, the DRC determined that the
accommodation items were not accepted as salary payments for the compliance of art.
14bis of the Regulations.
66. According to the Chamber, the Club argued that, by expiry of the deadline, any residue
(EUR 612/663) was well below two salaries and even below one month, invoking the
concept of substantial breach. The Player countered that art. 14bis of the Regulations par.
1 requires full payment within the notice period and that partial payments do not cure the
breach; jurisprudence has accepted that reducing arrears below two monthly salaries by
partial payments within the deadline does not oblige a player to restart the process.
67. In this respect, the Chamber accepted the Player’s argument that strict “full compliance”
with the default notice is required and that partial settlement within the 15‑day period does
not deprive the Player of just cause once two monthly salaries were overdue at the time of
default and not fully remedied by the deadline. Applying that approach to the present case:
where the default notice covered January (pro‑rata), February and March 2025 and where,
by the deadline, full payment had still not been achieved, the Chamber held that the Club
did not fully cure within the 15‑day period as required by art. 14bis of the Regulations.
68. Given (i) a valid written default with a ≥15‑day grace period, (ii) undisputed partial payments
that still left EUR 612 outstanding by the deadline (even after NBS conversion), and (iii) the
non‑acceptance of accommodation offsets as salary absent a clear written clause and
contemporaneous payroll treatment, the Chamber confirmed that the Club failed to “fully
comply” within the meaning of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations. Accordingly, the
Chamber decided that the termination of 23 April 2025 was with just cause under art. 14bis
of the Regulations.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18997
B. ASSESSMENT UNDER ART. 14 PAR. 2 OF THE REGULATIONS (ABUSIVE CONDUCT)
69. Given that the just cause was already established under art. 14bis of the Regulations, the
Chamber found no need to further examine the Player’s allegations concerning the
purported exclusion for the squad.
C. CONSEQUENCES
70. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
C.1. Outstanding remuneration
71. On the basis of pacta sunt servanda and clause 3 of the Contract, and in line with the finding
that the Club did not “fully comply” with the default notice within the 15-day period, the
Chamber decided that the Player was entitled to the unpaid balance of monthly salary
accrued up to the termination date (i.e., 23 April 2025).
72. The Chamber noted that, after both parties aligned the NBS middle rates for the April
transfers, the Player amended his claim and confirmed that only EUR 612 net remained
outstanding, corresponding to the February 2025 salary (i.e., EUR 3,055 − EUR 430 − EUR
2,013 = EUR 612).
73. The DRC therefore concluded that the Player was entitled to the EUR 612 net claimed, plus
5% interest p.a. from 6 March 2025 until the date of effective payment.
74. Furthermore, as the termination occurred on 23 April 2025, the Chamber also decided that
the full salary of April 2025 (EUR 3,055 net) should be awarded as outstanding
remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. from 23 April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
C.2. Compensation for breach of contract
75. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
76. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18997
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
77. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
78. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 39,175 net (i.e., EUR 3,055 times 15 months) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
79. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
80. The Chamber then observed that the Player did not secure new employment following the
termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
81. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR 39,175
net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
82. Lastly, 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 the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
C.3. Counterclaim
83. Because termination occurred with just cause, the Chamber determined that the Club was
not entitled to compensation, alleged (unproved) overpayments, or sporting sanctions.
Consequently, the DRC dismissed the Club’s counterclaim in full.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18997
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. 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
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-18997
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Boris Pavlov Tyutyukov, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Fudbalski Klub Radnicki Nis, must pay to the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 612 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 March 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,055 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 April 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 39,715 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
23 April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-18997
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-18997
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. 22