Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19657
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Lasha Dvali
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Lasha Dvali, Georgia
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
APOEL Nicosia, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19657
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 29 July 2022, the Georgian player Lasha Dvali (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent) and the Cypriot club APOEL Nicosia (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the First
Contract) valid as from 29 July 2022 until 31 May 2024.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 1.3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of EUR 20,000 net, payable from
31 August 2022 to 31 May 2023.
3.
According to Clause 2 of the First Contract:
“2.1. The present Contract is regulated by the provisions of the Standard Employment
Contract, as these have been agreed between the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the
Cyprus Footballer’s Union (PASP) and as these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of
the CFA Registration and Transfer of Players Regulations.
2.2. The terms of the Standard Employment Contract constitute an integral part of the
present Contract having full and direct implementation.
2.3. In case of conflict, the terms of the Standard Employment Contract shall take
precedence over the terms of the present Contract (…)”.
4.
In accordance with Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract —which is attached
to the Contract—:
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.
5.
Also on 29 July 2022, the Parties concluded the so-called “Supplementary Agreement”
(hereinafter, the First Supplementary Agreement), according to which the Club undertook to
pay the Player an additional sum of EUR 100,000 net in the following 5 instalments:
o EUR 20,000 net on 10 August 2022;
o EUR 20,000 net on 30 November 2022;
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 January 2023;
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 March 2023; and
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 May 2023.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19657
6.
Furthermore, Clause 2 of the First Supplementary Agreement provides the Player’s
entitlement to a monthly allowance of EUR 1,000 net.
7.
According to Clause 7 of the Supplementary Agreement:
“In case any dispute arises between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial bodies of
the Cyprus Football Association”.
8.
On 26 June 2023, the Parties renewed the First Contract and the First Supplementary
Agreement by signing a new employment contract and a new supplementary agreement
(hereinafter, the Second Contract and the Second Supplementary Agreement, respectively),
valid as from 26 June 2023 until 31 May 2025.
9.
In accordance with Clause 1.3 of the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay the
Player a monthly remuneration of EUR 20,000, payable from 31 August 2023 to 31 May
2024 and from 31 August 2024 until 31 May 2025.
10.
According to Clause 2 of the Second Contract:
“2.1. The present Contract is regulated by the provisions of the Standard Employment
Contract, as these have been agreed between the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the
Cyprus Footballer’s Union (PASP) and as these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of
the CFA Registration and Transfer of Players Regulations.
2.2. The terms of the Standard Employment Contract constitute an integral part of the
present Contract having full and direct implementation.
2.3. In case of conflict, the terms of the Standard Employment Contract shall take
precedence over the terms of the present Contract (…)”.
11.
12.
Pursuant to the Second Supplementary Agreement, the Club also undertook to pay the
Player an additional amount of EUR 200,000 net in the following 10 instalments:
o EUR 20,000 net on 10 August 2023
o EUR 20,000 net on 10 August 2024
o EUR 20,000 net on 30 November 2023
o EUR 20,000 net on 30 November 2024
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 January 2024
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 January 2025
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 March 2024
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 March 2025
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 May 2024
o EUR 20,000 net on 31 May 2025
Clause 2 of the Second Supplementary Agreement also provides the Player’s entitlement
to a monthly allowance of EUR 1,000 net, payable from 31 August to 31 May per season.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19657
13.
Clause 3.2 of the Second Supplementary Agreement further provided a bonus of EUR
25,000 net “In case the Player participates in the starting eleven or as a substitute (for at least
25 minutes per match) in 70% or more of the Cyprus Championship and APOEL FC wins the
Cyprus Championship”.
14.
According to Clause 7 of the Second Supplementary Agreement:
“In case any dispute arises between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial bodies of
the Cyprus Football Association”.
15.
On 19 May 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to
pay EUR 230,000 in outstanding remuneration.
II.
Proceedings before FIFA
16.
On 19 June 2025 the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
17.
In his claim, the Player asserted that, on 26 June 2023, the Parties signed the Second
Contract, under which he was entitled to a gross monthly salary of EUR 23,697 or EUR
20,000 net from 31 August 2023 until 31 May 2024, and from 31 August 2024 until 31 May
2025.
18.
The Player claimed that the Club failed to pay a total of EUR 230,000.
19.
Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“I respectfully request that the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
o Order [the Club] to pay the total outstanding amount of EUR 230,000 without delay;
o Impose additional compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 100,000;
o Apply any other sanctions or measures deemed appropriate under the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)”.
20.
On 25 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to, inter alia, provide a
detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute, indicating individually (i) each of its
components, (ii) their currency, (iii) their contractual basis and (iv) to which period of time
(day/month/year) they correspond.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19657
21.
On 30 June 2025, the Player clarified that, between 2022 and 2025, the Club failed to pay
the following amounts:
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to September 2022;
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to October 2022;
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to January 2023;
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to February 2023;
o EUR 1,000, corresponding to December 2023;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to March 2024;
o EUR 7,500, corresponding to November 2024;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to January 2025;
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to February 2025;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to March 2025;
o EUR 41,000, corresponding to May 2025; and
o EUR 25,000, corresponding to the bonus under Clause 3.2 of the Second
Supplementary Agreement in the 2023/2024 season.
22.
Accordingly, the Player claimed that, despite he initially asserted that EUR 230,000
remains unpaid, the outstanding sum amounts to EUR 237,500.
23.
The Player requested the following:
“Therefore, I hereby amend and clarify my claim and respectfully request that the club be
ordered to pay EUR 237,500 in my favour without further delay.
Additionally, I confirm that the claim for the EUR 100,000 contractual penalty for breach of
contract remains in force”.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
24.
On 30 July 2025, the Club filed its reply to the Player’s claim and also filed a counterclaim
against the Player.
Reply to the claim
25.
In its reply, the Club first challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Parties agreed
—via Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract and Clause 7 of both the First and
Second Supplementary Agreements— that any dispute would fall under the exclusive
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19657
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of Cyprus (hereinafter, the NDRC
of Cyprus).
26.
The Club maintained that the NDRC of Cyprus is impartial and independent, and therefore
meets the requirements of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players. Specifically, the Club claimed that the NDRC of Cyprus respects the
principle of parity, the principle of a fair hearing, as well as the right to a contentious
proceeding and to equal treatment.
27.
The Club also challenged the admissibility of the Player’s claim for unpaid salaries for
September and October 2022, and January and February 2023 —totalling EUR 84,000—
arguing that these claims are time-barred.
28.
Regarding the merits, the Club argued that it has already paid the December 2023 and
the November 2024 salaries.
29.
While acknowledging that the other amounts remain unpaid, the Club argued that it
always intended to fulfil its financial obligations. It cited financial difficulties —allegedly
known to the Player— as the reason for delayed payments.
30.
The Club firmly rejected the Player’s claim to a contractual penalty of EUR 100,000,
asserting that there is no contractual, legal, or evidentiary basis for such a claim.
31.
Alternatively, the Club requested a set-off against the amount claimed by the Player and
the amount allegedly due to the Club as detailed in its counterclaim.
Counterclaim
32.
In its counterclaim, the Club stated that it had an agreement with its official sponsor, TA
MERI FINANCE, under which vehicles were provided to players via individual rental
arrangements. The Club alleged that the Player failed to pay an outstanding amount of
EUR 2,605 under such an arrangement.
33.
As a result of the Player’s failure to settle the debt, the Club claimed it had to pay
EUR 2,650 directly to the sponsor on the Player’s behalf.
34.
Based on the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, our Club requests that the Tribunal:
a) Rejects jurisdiction of the present matter.
b) In the event that the Tribunal rejects jurisdiction of the present matter, orders the player
to bear the full costs of the proceedings and to contribute to the Club’s legal expenses.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19657
c) In the alternative, and in the event that the Tribunal finds the claim admissible, declare
that the claim is partially time-barred and that the Player is not entitled to the salaries of
September 2022, October 2022, January 2023 and February 2023.
d) Reduce the amount claimed by the Player by €8,500.
e) Reject the Player’s entitlement to €100,000 as an alleged contractual penalty.
f) Set-off the Player’s outstanding salaries and/or other remuneration against the amount
of €2,605 paid by our Club in relation to the Player’s car rental fees”.
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
35.
In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player argued that the NDRC of Cyprus is not an
independent body and that the Club has influence over it. According to the Player, “Despite
the ambiguous clause in the contract referring to this body, I strongly believe that I am entitled
to submit my claim to FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)”.
36.
The Player further claimed that the Club made payments in a disorganized and
inconsistent manner. He asserted that he was contractually entitled to a total of
EUR 955,000 over the course of the employment relationship (including the bonus under
Clause 3.2 of the First Contract). Since he only received EUR 723,250, he calculated the
outstanding amount to be EUR 231,750. He emphasized that the most reasonable and
objective way to determine the outstanding amount is by subtracting the total received
from the total contractually agreed amount.
37.
The Player also noted that, even without a contractual penalty clause, the Football
Tribunal has previously ordered clubs to pay compensation for breach of contract.
38.
Regarding the vehicle mentioned by the Club, the Player argued that it was not part of his
employment contract. He maintained that any rights or obligations related to the vehicle
stem from a separate agreement with a third party and are legally unrelated to the Club.
39.
The Player reiterated his request for relief.
d. Final comments of the Club
40.
In its final comments, the Club reiterated its position regarding the NDRC of Cyprus.
41.
The Club rejected the Player’s proposed method of calculating the outstanding amount,
arguing that it deviates from his original claim. The Club maintained that EUR 84,000
—representing salaries for September and October 2022, as well as January and February
2023— is time-barred.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19657
42.
Concerning the contractual penalty, the Club argued that the contracts between the
Parties contain no such provision. It added that the Football Tribunal only awards
compensation in cases of breach of contract.
43.
The Club reaffirmed its claim for a set-off of EUR 2,605 related to the vehicle. It explained
that the Player had entered into a separate rental agreement with its sponsor, TA MERI
FINANCE, and had an outstanding debt of EUR 2,605, which the Club paid on his behalf.
44.
The Club reiterated its request for relief.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19657
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
45.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 19 June 2025 and submitted for decision on
6 November 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.
46.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), it is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Georgian player
and a Cypriot club.
47.
Notwithstanding the above, the DRC observed that the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction
to hear the dispute at stake, citing Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract and
Clause 7 of the First and Second Supplementary Agreements. According to the Club, these
provisions stipulate the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Cyprus.
48.
The Chamber also observed that, for its part, the Player argued that the matter regarding
the vehicle is not related to his employment relationship with the Club.
49.
In this context, the members of the Chamber deemed that it must be analysed (i) whether
this dispute —particularly the counterclaim concerning the vehicle— is indeed
employment-related, thereby falling under the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations and, if so, (ii) whether FIFA has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute or the
Parties indeed agreed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Cyprus.
50.
Regarding the first issue, the Club’s counterclaim relates to an amount allegedly paid to
its sponsor due to the Player’s alleged default in connection with a vehicle. Crucially, none
of the contracts concluded between the Parties —including the First and Second
Contracts, the Standard Employment Contracts, and the Supplementary Agreements—
make any reference to the vehicle, the Club’s sponsor, or any obligations of the Player in
this regard. Furthermore, the Club failed to submit the relevant sponsorship agreement
into the case file.
51.
Therefore, and in the absence of any contractual or employment-related link between the
Player and the Club concerning the vehicle, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the
counterclaim is not employment-related. The members of the DRC clarified that it does
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19657
not arise from the employment relationship governed by the contracts signed by the
Parties.
52.
As a result, the Chamber decided that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to
hear the Club’s counterclaim, as it falls outside art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
53.
Having excluded the vehicle-related counterclaim from FIFA’s jurisdiction, the DRC
proceeded to analyse whether, as argued by the Club, the NDRC of Cyprus has exclusive
jurisdiction over the employment-related dispute between the Parties.
54.
In this context, the Chamber first recalled that, in January 2025, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for NDRCs in order to provide clarity and the necessary legal
certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible
formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
55.
Most importantly, the DRC noted that the aforementioned rules have been incorporated
into art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases brought
before FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 lit. c) of the Regulations).
56.
Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 19 June 2025, the Chamber
determined that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the
following provision:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear: b)
employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension;
the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be
decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution
body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in
accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such
jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a
collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties”.
57.
Having confirmed that the present dispute has an international dimension (i.e., Georgian
player against Cypriot club) and is employment-related (i.e., claim for overdue payables
arising from the employment relationship), the Chamber considered that this case in
principle fell within FIFA’s jurisdiction, and therefore would only be prevented in case of:
1. A clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Contract in favour of the civil courts;
or
2. A clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause included in the Contract or in an applicable
collective bargaining agreement in favour of an NDRC “that has been officially
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19657
recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles”.
58.
In order for FIFA to decline jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested party
challenging the Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction should demonstrate that the parties had
validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that
such body is recognised by FIFA. These conditions are cumulative and should all be met
at the time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
59.
With the above in mind, the DRC went on to analyse the jurisdiction clauses on which the
Club challenges the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, namely, Clause 13 of the Standard
Employment Contract and Clause 7 of the Second Supplementary Agreement.
60.
The Chamber noted that, pursuant to Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract —
which is an integral part of the First and Second Contract concluded between the Parties
(cf. Clause 2 therein):
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”
61.
The Chamber also noted that, according to Clause 7 of the First and Second
Supplementary Agreements — which are also an integral part of the Contract: “without
which the Contract would not have been signed” (cf. Clause 9 of both agreements):
“In case any dispute arises between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial bodies of
the Cyprus Football Association (…)”.
62.
After having carefully analysed the foregoing provisions, the members of the DRC
unanimously concluded that that the jurisdiction clauses contained in the Standard
Employment Contract and the First and Second Supplementary Agreements, considered
in conjunction, are not clear and exclusive in line with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations. Whereby the Standard Employment Contract refers to the NDRC of Cyprus,
the First and Second Supplementary Agreement ambiguously refer to the “judicial bodies
of the [CFA]”, without specifying the competent body or the NDRC.
63.
In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned jurisdiction
clauses, when read together, lack the clarity and exclusivity required under art. 22 par. 1
lit. b) of the Regulations. Consequently, the DRC found that the Parties had not explicitly
and clearly agreed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Cyprus.
64.
In any event, the Chamber confirmed that there was no NDRC recognised by FIFA in
Cyprus at the time of the relevant events. Therefore, even if these clauses were to be
considered as clear and exclusive, the Football Tribunal would still have jurisdiction.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19657
65.
On account of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber determined that the Football
Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear the present claim.
66.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
67.
In continuation, the DRC took note that, before addressing the merits of the case at hand,
it is necessary to examine the admissibility of two issues that arose in the present
proceedings, namely (i) the admissibility of the new arguments submitted by the Player in
response to the Club’s counterclaim, and (ii) the potential application of the statute of
limitations regarding part of the Player’s claim.
Player’s new arguments in reply to the Club’s counterclaim
68.
The Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 4 and 5 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates
that:
“4. Where the respondent validly submits a counterclaim, the counter-respondent(s) (i.e. the
original claimant) shall reply solely to the counterclaim within the time limit granted by the
FIFA general secretariat.
5. Should the response to the counterclaim refer to matters which did not form part of the
counterclaim, those matters will not be considered”.
69.
In application of the foregoing provision, the DRC decided that the new arguments and
evidence submitted by the Player in his reply to the Club’s counterclaim —specifically
those concerning the allegedly outstanding amounts and the claimed contractual
penalty— are inadmissible, as they fall outside the scope of the Club’s counterclaim.
Statute of limitations
70.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that FIFA’s deciding making-bodies shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have
elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The DRC highlighted that the
application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
71.
In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was filed before FIFA on 19
June 2025. Therefore, any amounts fallen due before 19 June 2023 are affected by the
statute of limitations, in accordance with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19657
72.
With the above in mind, the DRC noted that, in the case at hand, the Player requested,
inter alia, payment of salaries corresponding to the months of September and October
2022, as well as January and February 2023.
73.
As a result, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s claim is partially time-barred and
deemed his claim regarding the aforementioned monthly salaries inadmissible.
c. Burden of proof
74.
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).
d. Merits of the dispute
75.
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
76.
The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for overdue payables arising from their
employment relationship as well as for compensation for breach of contract.
77.
In this respect, the members of the DRC noted that the Player alleged that the Club has
failed to pay the following amounts:
o EUR 1,000, corresponding to December 2023;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to March 2024;
o EUR 7,500, corresponding to November 2024;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to January 2025;
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to February 2025;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to March 2025;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19657
o EUR 41,000, corresponding to May 2025; and
o EUR 25,000, corresponding to the bonus under Clause 3.2 of the First
Supplementary Agreement.
78.
The Player further claimed to be entitled to EUR 100,000 as compensation for breach of
contract.
79.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having
complied with its financial obligations. In continuation, the Chamber will analyse the
Player’s entitlement to the compensation claimed.
80.
The Chamber first noted that, in accordance with the principle of burden of proof
enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Regulations, the Club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the different contracts concluded between
the Parties.
81.
In this regard, the DRC observed that the Club admitted not having paid the majority of
the claimed amounts, citing financial difficulties as the reason. The Club only contested
the Player’s claim regarding December 2023 and November 2024, asserting that these
were fully paid. The Club also rejected the Player’s claim regarding compensation, arguing
that no breach of contract occurred in the present case.
82.
Consequently, the Chamber noted that there is no dispute regarding the Club’s obligation
to pay the Player the following amounts, totalling EUR 147,000:
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to March 2024;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to January 2025;
o EUR 21,000, corresponding to February 2025;
o EUR 20,000, corresponding to March 2025;
o EUR 41,000, corresponding to May 2025; and
o EUR 25,000, corresponding to the bonus under Clause 3.2 of the First
Supplementary Agreement.
83.
As a result, the Chamber’s task is to analyse whether the Club has indeed paid the
remaining amounts claimed as outstanding, namely EUR 1,000 and EUR 7,500,
corresponding to December 2023 and November 2024.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19657
84.
Before addressing this, the Chamber considered it appropriate to recall the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal in accordance with which financial difficulties do
not constitute a valid justification to deviate from the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
85.
Having established the above, the DRC noted that, according to Clause 1.3 of the Second
Contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 20,000 on 31 December 2023 and EUR 20,000 on
30 November 2024. Additionally, under the Second Supplementary Agreement, the Player
was entitled to a monthly allowance of EUR 1,000 and an extra EUR 20,000 on 30
November 2024.
86.
The Chamber therefore noted that the Player should have received EUR 21,000 on 31
December 2023 and EUR 41,000 on 30 November 2024.
87.
With the above in mind, the Chamber went on to analyse the evidence submitted by the
Club to substantiate its assertion that these amounts were fully paid.
88.
The members of the DRC first noted that the Club provided documentary evidence
confirming payment of the full amount for December 2023 (i.e., EUR 21,000), including the
monthly allowance.
89.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that no amount remains outstanding for December
2023.
90.
However, with respect to November 2024, the Club only submitted evidence of payment
of EUR 21,000. In the absence of any further evidence, the Chamber determined that the
balance of EUR 7,500 claimed by the Player remains unpaid. Consequently, this amount
must be added to the undisputed sum, resulting in a total of EUR 154,500 due to the
Player.
91.
As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts
claimed as outstanding under their employment relationship, as detailed ut supra.
92.
The Chamber noted that the Player did not request interest on the aforementioned
outstanding remuneration. As a result, and so as not to contravene the legal principle of
ne ultra petita, the DRC decided not to award any interest.
93.
Finally, the members of the DRC addressed the Player’s claim for compensation due to
the alleged breach of contract, which was disputed by the Club.
94.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant to art. 17 of the Regulations and
established jurisprudence, compensation for breach of contract can only be awarded in
cases of unilateral termination without just cause. The Chamber observed that the
employment relationship between the Parties expired on 31 May 2025 in accordance with
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19657
the agreed contractual term, without any indication of early termination or unilateral
breach. Consequently, the essential prerequisite for awarding compensation —namely, a
unilateral termination without just cause— was not met.
95.
As a result, the Chamber determined that the Player’s claim for compensation for breach
of contract is moot, and decided to reject it.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
96.
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.
97.
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.
98.
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.
99.
The Respondent 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.
100. 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.
e. 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19657
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. 18
REF. FPSD-19657
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Lasha Dvali.
2.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim of the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, APOEL Nicosia.
3.
The claim of Lasha Dvali is partially accepted insofar as it is admissible.
4.
APOEL Nicosia must pay to Lasha Dvali the following amount:
o EUR 154,000 as outstanding remuneration.
5.
Any further claims of Lasha Dvali are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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. APOEL Nicosia 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.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Lasha Dvali, in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-19657
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. 20