Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19948
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ruben Luis
Mauricio Brigido
BY:
Angela COLLINS, Australia
CLAIMANT:
Ruben Luis Mauricio Brigido, Portugal
Represented by Nuno Rego
RESPONDENT:
Kyzylzhar, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19948
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 January 2024, the Portuguese player Ruben Luis Mauricio Brigido (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Kazakh club Kyzylzhar (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract)
valid as from the date of signature until 1 November 2024.
2.
Clause 3 of the Employment Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“3. REMUNERATION
1. Monthly remuneration of the [Player] under this Employment Contract from «17»
January 2024 and until the expiry of this Employment Contract shall be 3 733 000 (three
million seven hundred thirty-three thousand) tenge (net), which do not include taxes and
any other mandatory payments to budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
2. All taxes and other mandatory payments to budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan
payable from amount of remuneration under the present Employment Contract of the
[Player] in the Republic of Kazakhstan and in accordance with laws of the Republic of
Kazakhstan shall be paid by the [Club], taxes, and other payments to the budget outside
the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall be paid by the [Player] independently.
3. The procedure, terms and amount of bonus payments and other material incentives
to the [Player] for individual achievements is determined by the Internal Regulation of
the [Club].
4. Payment of downtime due to the fault of the [Club] shall be 100% (one hundred
percent) of the basic salary of the [Player] and shall be paid within the time stipulated by
laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
5. Payment of downtime for reasons beyond the control of the [Club] and the Employee
shall be 50% (fifty percent) of the basic salary of the [Player] and paid within the time
periods stipulated by laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
6. In the event the [Club]’s football team passes to a higher or lower football league, the
Parties may, by mutual agreement, revise the work conditions stipulated by this
Employment Contract, subject to the requirements of the labor law of the Republic of
Kazakhstan. At the same time, a review of work conditions shall not apply in cases where
the footballer plays for the second team of the [Club] for the purposes of recovering from
an injury and regaining his sporting fitness, subject to absence of his direct fault.
7. The basic monthly salary and personal allowance are paid at least once a month by
money transfer in the national currency of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the bank
account of the [Player], not later than the 25th day following the settlement month.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19948
3.
On the same date, 17 January 2024, the parties signed a “Collateral Agreement”
(hereinafter: the First Collateral Agreement), by means of which they agreed upon additional
payments by the Club to the Player, quoted verbatim:
“1. The [Club] assigns a one-time personal bonus to the [Player] for signing an
employment contract in the amount of 4,000,000 (four million) tenge, with/ without
deduction (underline as appropriate) with payment until May 01, 2024.
2. The [Club] assigns a one-time personal payment to the [Player] in the amount of
2,300,000 (two million three hundred thousand) tenge (net), if the [Club]’s team will take
part in European club competitions held under the auspices of UEFA in the 2025 season.
3. The [Club] assigns a one-time personal payment to the [Player] based on the results
of the 2024 season, OLIMPBET- football championship of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in
the amount of 1 150 000 (one million one hundred fifty thousand) tenge (net) if the
[Player] will score 5 points according to the «goal and pass».
4. The [Club] pays the [Player] air tickets from the location of the [Player] to the location
of the [Club] before and after the start of the OLIMPBET football championship of the
Republic of Kazakhstan in the 2024 season.
5. The [Club] provides to the [Player] accommodation and meals in the hotel "Lina" city
Petropavlovsk in one single room.
6. This Addendum to Agreement has been signed in 3 (three) copies of equal legal force,
one for each of the Parties and one for KFF and PFLK
7. All payments if this Agreement will be made from no budgetary funds.”
4.
On 5 February 2024, the parties also executed a second “Collateral Agreement”
(hereinafter: the Second Collateral Agreement) by means of which they amended the
duration of the Employment Contract. Accordingly, the Employment Contract would be
valid from 17 January 2024 until 11 November 2024.
5.
On 3 March 2025, the Club issued a “Letter of Guarantee” (hereinafter: the Letter of
Guarantee), acknowledging a debt of KZT 5,150,000 net towards the Player, which would
allegedly be paid by 30 March 2025.
6.
On 23 May 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent the Club a notice of
default, demanding payment of KZT 5,150,000 net within 10 days.
7.
On 13 June 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s notice and challenged his entitlement to
the amounts sought, which allegedly corresponded to bonuses. The Club asked that the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19948
Player provide a copy of the signed First Collateral Agreement and the power of attorney
authorizing the Player’s legal representative to act on his behalf.
8.
It appears that the Club reiterated the same request on 24 June 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 15 July 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
10. The Player maintained that the Club acknowledged its debt through the Letter of
Guarantee dated 3 March 2025, in which it expressly undertook to pay overdue wages
amounting to KZT 5,150,000 net by 30 March 2025. Despite this acknowledgment, the Club
failed to make the payment within the stipulated deadline.
11. Additionally, the Player emphasized that the Club’s failure to comply constituted a clear
breach of the Letter of Guarantee and the Employment Contract, thereby entitling him to
the outstanding amount plus interest.
12. He requested that the FIFA Football Tribunal order the Club to pay the principal sum of KZT
5,150,000 net (approximately USD 9,874.66), together with 5% annual interest from the due
date until full payment, and to cover procedural and legal costs.
13. The Player submitted the following relief:
“The Claimant requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber to decide that:
a) the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the net amounts owed, in accordance with
the Letter of Guarantee issued and signed by the Respondent, in the amount of
5,150,000.00 (five million one hundred and fifty thousand) tenge NET, corresponding
to USD 9,874.66 according to the conversion rate in effect on the date of filing of this
Claim;
b) the Respondent shall pay an additional 5% annual interest on the amounts due to
the Claimant from the date in which the amounts became due until they are
effectively and fully paid;
c) the Respondent shall coverall costs of the proceedings and make a contribution
towards the Claimant’s legal costs.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19948
b. Reply of the Club
14. On 29 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s claim.
15. The Club explained that a change in its presidency on 26 March 2024 caused administrative
disruptions, including difficulties in transferring files and, at times, the initiation of a
criminal investigation involving the Club’s archives.
16. The Club asserted that, following receipt of the default notice from the Player’s legal
representative, it requested copies of the relevant agreements to verify its obligations. It
further argued that the Letter of Guarantee lacked legal force because it was not signed by
the Player and therefore could not constitute a valid and binding agreement.
17. The Club also questioned the authenticity of the First Collateral Agreement and attached
what it claimed to be the original version of this document.
18. Finally, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in its entirety, alleging that
it was unfounded.
19. Together with its reply, the Club submitted a disorganized set of documents, which
included partially translated screenshots of emails and letters purportedly issued by the
Club.
c. Replica of the Player
20. On 11 August 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
21. The Player rejected the Club’s response as dilatory and aimed solely at delaying payment
of the outstanding amount of KZT 5,150,000. He reaffirmed that the First Collateral
Agreement was duly signed by both parties and had already been submitted as evidence.
The Player denied any knowledge of the alleged criminal proceedings involving the former
Club president and emphasized that the Club had previously received a signed copy of the
agreement.
22. Furthermore, the Player highlighted that on 3 March 2025, the new Club president issued
a declaration acknowledging the debt of KZT 5,150,000 (i.e., the Letter of Guarantee). He
characterized the Club’s arguments as unfounded excuses for non-payment and reiterated
his request that the Club be ordered to pay the outstanding amount in full.
d. Duplica of the Club
23. On 15 August 2025, the Club submitted its final comments. The Club reiterated its challenge
to the validity of the First Collateral Agreement, arguing that it was never signed by the
Player, was not uploaded to the FIFA Connect system, and was not registered with the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19948
Kazakh football authorities i.e., neither with the Football Federation of Kazakhstan (KFF)
nor with the national league (PFLK). Therefore, the Club maintained that this agreement
was not concluded and had no legal force. It emphasized that mutual consent, evidenced
by signatures of both parties, was required for validity, and a scanned copy could not
suffice as proof.
24. The Club claimed it had repeatedly requested the original signed agreement from the
Player’s lawyer, including a formal request on 24 June 2025, which was ignored. It also
informed FIFA that on 10 August 2025 it sent the original version in its possession, which
allegedly showed the agreement was not concluded. The Club further noted that the
absence of the document in FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS) and Connect systems,
as well as in the KFF and PFLK records, supported its position.
25. Finally, the Club requested FIFA to compel the Player to produce the original signed
agreement. It asked that if the Player failed to do so, the claim should be dismissed as
unfounded. The Club attached proof of its prior requests and confirmation of sending the
original document to FIFA.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 24 October 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.
27. 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) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Portuguese player and a Kazakh club.
28. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19948
b. Burden of proof
29. 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 she may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
30. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for overdue payables.
32. In particular, the Single Judge noted that the main disagreements between the parties were
the following:
•
The Player asserted that the Employment Contract and the First / Second Collateral
Agreements were duly signed by both parties and submitted as evidence. The Club,
however, denied the validity of the First Collateral Agreement, claiming it was never
signed by the Player, was not registered with the Kazakh football authorities, and
was absent from FIFA’s Connect and TMS systems, which in its view confirmed that
it had no legal force.
•
The parties also diverged on the legal effect of the Letter of Guarantee. The Player
argued that this document, signed by the Club’s new president, constituted a
binding acknowledgment of the debt of KZT 5,150,000. The Club countered that the
Letter of Guarantee lacked legal force because it was not signed by the Player and
was merely an internal administrative note without contractual effect.
•
Regarding the payment obligation, the Player insisted that the Club was in clear
breach of its commitments and that the amount claimed was undisputed and
overdue. The Club rejected this, alleging that the Player had not fully complied with
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19948
his obligations. It further argued that without proof of the additional agreement, the
claim was unfounded.
•
Finally, the parties disagreed on evidentiary issues. The Player considered the
documents submitted sufficient and accused the Club of using procedural tactics to
delay payment. The Club insisted on the production of the original signed additional
agreement, arguing that the absence of this document and its non-registration
supported its position that the Player’s claim lacked merit.
33. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to establish the contractual
basis of the dispute and whether the Player was entitled to the amounts sought.
34. Accordingly, the Single Judge first noted that the Player produced signed versions of all
relevant agreements, which appeared consistent and coherent. Contrary to what the Club
attempted to portray, the Single Judge determined that its internal reorganization and
related administrative difficulties could not be held against the Player. Indeed, the Single
Judge established that it was the Club’s responsibility to exercise due diligence and
maintain proper records of the documents it executed.
35. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged the Club’s request to compel the Player to
produce the original signed copy of the First Collateral Agreement. However, in her view,
this request was moot as the Letter of Guarantee, although unilateral, constituted a clear
and unequivocal acknowledgment of debt by the Club. The Single Judge was of the opinion
that this document sufficiently corroborated the Player’s claim and rendered the Club’s
request unnecessary. And, again, the Single Judge emphasized that the Player could not be
prejudiced by the Club’s lack of organization or its administrative failures.
36. In the existence of the Letter of Guarantee, the Single Judge found that it was incumbent
upon the Club to dispute the Player’s entitlement with substantive counterevidence or to
demonstrate that it had fully discharged its payment obligations. However, she considered
that the Club failed to do so and, instead, adopted contradictory positions: while admitting
financial difficulties at the relevant time, it later challenged the validity of the agreements
and the underlying payment obligation.
37. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge fully dismissed the Club’s defence. As a result, she
decided that the Player was entitled to the amount claimed, namely KZT 5,150,000 net,
together with interest at the applicable rate as from the day after the due date (i.e., 31
March 2025) until effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
38. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19948
39. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the Club
with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
40. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
41. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the first offence by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art.
12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
42. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
46. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19948
47. 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.
d. Costs
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19948
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ruben Luis Mauricio Brigido, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kyzylzhar, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- KZT 5,150,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March
2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19948
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. 13