Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20031
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Eugeniu Rebenja
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Eugeniu Rebenja, Moldova
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
Maziya, Maldives
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20031
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 January 2025, Mr. Luisma Hernández, head coach of the Maldivian club Maziya
(hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent), contacted Mr. Evghenii Draganov, the agent of
the Moldovan player Eugeniu Rebenja (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant) via
WhatsApp to express the Club’s interest in securing the Player’s services.
2.
On 14 February 2025, Mr. Draganov confirmed via WhatsApp that the Player was ready to
join the Club.
3.
On 9 March 2025, the Player signed a mandate authorizing Mr. Draganov and Mr. Juan Luis
García de Mateos Naranjo to represent him and secure an employment contract in
Maldives, Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
4.
On 10 March 2025, Mr. Draganov and Mr. García exchanged the following messages via
WhatsApp:
[Mr. Draganov]: “Let’s see the contract. Can club send today?”
[Mr. García]: “I already sent the info to club secretary… waiting to get the contract… doesn’t
depend on me”.
[Mr. Draganov]: “No problem. We wait”
5.
On 12 March 2025, Mr. García forwarded a copy of an employment contract between the
Player and the Club to Mr. Draganov via WhatsApp for the Player’s signature (hereinafter,
the Alleged Contract).
6.
Also on 12 March 2025, Mr. Draganov returned a version of the Alleged Contract signed by
the Player.
7.
According to the Alleged Contract, the Player would be engaged by the Club as a
professional football player from 1 April 2025 until 31 October 2025.
8.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Alleged Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly
remuneration of USD 3,000 net, payable before the 10th day of each month, as well as to
a monthly food allowance of MVR 600.
9.
On 13 March 2025, Mr. Draganov shared with Mr. García proof of the Player’s previous
contract end date and another version of the Alleged Contract signed by the Player on all
pages. They also discussed the requirements for the Player to obtain a valid visa to travel
to Maldives. Mr. García informed Mr. Draganov that, as per usual practice, the Club would
only sign the Alleged Contract once the Player arrived in Maldives.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20031
10. On 20 March 2025, the Club’s coach informed Mr. Draganov via WhatsApp that the visa
application had been submitted and they were close to obtaining the visa and a flight for
the Player.
11. On 1 April 2025, Mr. Draganov sent a copy of the Alleged Contract signed by the Player to
the Club via email.
12. On 15 April 2025, Mr. Draganov and the Club’s coach exchanged the following messages
via WhatsApp:
[Mr. Draganov]: “Hello! Luisma, how are you? Is there any update?”.
[Club’s coach]: “The same point here. No options now. FIFA BLOCK MALDIVES Federation
until July”.
[Mr. Draganov]: “So, the league will not be started?”.
[Club’s coach]: “They want to offer July. But now. Nothing is sure here”.
[Mr. Draganov]: “But what we can do with his contract signed? You know it’s available…”.
[Club’s coach]: “From the moment nothing to do”.
[Mr. Draganov]: “I hope the club will make something… it’s not easy to stay blocked”.
[Club’s coach]: “You mean… Player is blocked? I think no. He can move. The contract is not
signed from the club yet. I know is difficult moment. But really, it is more than the club. We
tried our best”.
[Mr. Draganov]: “If the contract was signed by the player, then that document has power”.
[Club’s coach]: “I understand all parts. And I am here checking all. We must be smart for
future options. No competitions now. No budget now. Just understand all the parts. And find
new options for the players. Even here in July”.
13. On 1 May 2025, Mr. Draganov followed up via WhatsApp with the Club’s coach, inquiring
about any news regarding the football season in Maldives. In reply, the Club’s coach
informed him: “No league, only Cup now. Waiting for July. No chance for new players or
registration until July/August.”
14. On 10 June 2025, the Player put the Club in default, requesting payment of USD 21,000 net
and MVR 42,000 net as compensation for breach of contract within 10 days. In his letter,
the Player stated, inter alia, the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20031
“At the outset, in my capacity as legal representative of the Moldovan professional football
player, Mr. Eugeniu Rebenja (“PLAYER”), reference is made to the Service Agreement nr.
AGR/PLYR/112/2025 (“Employment Contract”), concluded between the Player and Maziya
Sports and Recreation FC (“CLUB”) on 1 April 2025, valid from the date of signing until 31
October 2025.
As it is clearly within your knowledge, following the negotiation phase, the Club provided the
Player with the final version of the Employment Contract and kindly requested that he sign
and circulate it, so that the Club could proceed with its registration before the Football
Association of Maldives, and subsequently, the request for his ITC. In other words, the Club
extended the final offer reflecting the agreed terms which the Player dully accepted by
signing and submitting the contract via email. Consequently, the employment relationship
was effectively and substantially concluded.
Nonetheless, without prior waring and absent any just cause, the Club abruptly withdrew its
interest in the Player’s sporting services and proceeded to unilaterally terminate the
Employment Contract.
(…)
With that being said, reference is made to Clause 4.1 of the contract which provides that the
Club undertook the obligation to remunerate the Player with the net monthly salary of USD
3.000 (three thousand US dollars). In addition, pursuant to Clause 4.4, the Club undertook
the obligation to pay to the Player a net fixed amount of MVR 6.000 (six thousand Maldivian
rufiyaa) per month as food allowance”.
Therefore, the entire compensation that the Player is entitled to amounts to (i) USD 21.000
(twenty one thousand US dollars), corresponding to the monthly salaries from April to
October 2025; plus (ii) MVR 42.000 (forty two thousand Maldivian rufiyaa), corresponding
to the monthly house allowance from April to October 2025”.
15. On 19 June 2025, the Club replied to the aforementioned letter. In its correspondence, the
Club acknowledged that discussions took place between the Club and the Player but
asserted that no valid or binding contract had ever been signed by both parties. The Club
emphasized that the Player was never registered with the Club or with the Football
Association of Maldives (FAM), nor was an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) requested
or issued. The Club added that the Player never arrived in Maldives nor joined the Club
and, as a result, no employment relationship was ever established. The Club stated that
discussions with the Player occurred during a preliminary phase in anticipation of an
upcoming tournament that was subsequently cancelled. Accordingly, the Club was not in a
position to proceed with new player acquisitions.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20031
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 22 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 Claimant
17. In his claim, the Player asserted that, on 12 March 2025, the Club delivered to Mr. García
an employment contract for the Player, covering the period from 1 April 2025 to 31 October
2025, with a monthly remuneration of USD 3,000 net and a monthly food allowance of MVR
6,000 net. The Player further stated that, on the same date, Mr. Draganov sent a duly signed
copy of the contract by the Player to the Club.
18. The Player also argued that, following the above, the Club’s coach informed him that the
Club had already submitted a visa application on his behalf.
19. However, despite the conclusion of the Alleged Contract, the Club failed to comply with its
contractual obligations. In this respect, the Player argued that, on 8 April 2025, the Club’s
coach informed Mr. Draganov that the Club could not register new players, adding that the
Player “can move” and that there was “no chance for new players registration until July/August”.
According to the Player, this demonstrates that the Club no longer had any interest in his
services.
20. The Player contended that, in its correspondence dated 19 June 2025, the Club expressly
acknowledged the essential considerations raised by the Player, but also advanced
purported justifications for the non-performance of the Alleged Contract, namely, that it
had never signed it and was therefore not bound by any obligations.
21. It is the Player’s position that, under Swiss law, the crucial element for an employment
contract to be concluded is the parties’ mutual expression of intent, whether expressed or
implied. In this regard, the Player argued that procedural requirements —such as whether
the ITC is requested or issued, whether the player is registered, or whether the visa and/or
work permit are obtained— do not affect the fundamental question of whether a valid
contractual relationship has been formed, “which depends exclusively on the concurrence of
the parties’ substantive consent to enter into such relationship”. He further argued that
whether the Club subsequently circulates a countersigned copy of the Alleged Contract is
equally irrelevant to the validity of the employment relationship.
22. The Player claimed that, in casu, it is evident that an employment relationship between the
parties was duly and unequivocally established. He contended that the mere fact that the
Club failed to provide him with a countersigned copy of the Alleged Contract does not grant
it the right to terminate the agreement at its discretion and without consequences.
Furthermore, the Player’s inability to arrive in Maldives and commence his duties was the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20031
direct consequence of the Club’s own premature and unilateral termination of the
employment relationship.
23. The Player maintained that the above is further corroborated by the Club’s coach’s
WhatsApp messages, which explicitly acknowledged that the Club could not register new
players, confirmed that the Player could move elsewhere, and indicated that the Club was
experiencing financial constraints.
24. Based on the above, the Player argued that the Club unilaterally terminated the Alleged
Contract on 8 April 2025, the date on which its coach informed Mr. Draganov about the
alleged impossibility to register the Player. Accordingly, the Player claimed entitlement to
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 21,000 net and MVR 42,000,
representing the entire duration of the Alleged Contract.
25. The Player requested the following relief:
“In the light of the above, Mr. Eugeniu Rebenja respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Tribunal to:
(i)
Determine the present claim as admissible;
(ii) Determinate that the Respondent, Maziya Sports and Recreation, terminated
unilaterally the Employment Contract without just cause, under FIFA Regulations;
(iii) Order the Respondent, Maziya Sports and Recreation, to proceed with the payment of
the compensation to the Claimant which amount to USD 21.000 (twenty one thousand
US dollars net corresponding to the monthly salary of the Player as per Clause 4.1 of
the Employment Contract, plus MVR 42.000 (forty two thousand Maldivian rufiyaa) net
corresponding to the food allowance of the Player as per Clause 4.4 of the Employment
Contract;
(iv) In case the Claimant finds a new employment during the course of the FIFA proceedings,
order the Respondent, Maziya Sports and Recreation, to proceed with the payment of
the Mitigated and Additional Compensation, in accordance with Art.17 RSTP. As to the
calculation of the Additional Compensation, DRC shall take into consideration that the
monthly remuneration of the Claimant totalled in the amount totals to USD 3.000 net
plus MVR 6.000 net, as per Clause 4.1 and 4.4 of the Employment Contract, respectively;
(v) Determine that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall apply over the amount of USD
21.000 net plus MVR 42.000 net, as from 8 April 2025, until the date of the effective
payment, in accordance with the supra submission IV.E;
(vi) Order the Respondent, Maziya Sports and Recreation, to bear any and all legal costs as
to the present dispute”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20031
b. Reply of the Respondent
26. Despite being invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. 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 22 July 2025 and submitted for decision on
20 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.
28. 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), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Moldovan player
and a Maldivian club.
29. 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
30. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the Parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
31. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20031
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
32. 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 breach of contract and the legal
consequences arising therefrom.
33. The DRC observed that, according to the Player, although the Club never provided him with
a duly countersigned copy of the Alleged Contract, such document nonetheless constitutes
a valid and binding employment contract between the parties. The Player further argued
that the Club failed to undertake the necessary steps —such as registering him with the
relevant association or arranging his travel— to allow him to commence his duties. On this
basis, the Player maintained that the Club unilaterally terminated the Alleged Contract on
8 April 2025 without just cause.
34. The Chamber equally noted that the Club did not submit any reply to the claim despite
being duly invited to do so. Consequently, and pursuant to art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules, the Chamber determined that the case would be assessed solely on the basis of the
Player’s submissions and the documentary evidence on file.
35. In this context, and taking into account that the Alleged Contract submitted by the Player
does not bear the Club’s signature, the DRC considered that, before assessing whether a
breach of contract occurred and its potential consequences, it must first determine
whether the Alleged Contract indeed constitutes a valid and binding employment contract
between the parties.
36. To that effect, the Chamber referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, which
has established that the actual signature of the contract is not the sole or even a necessary
element to determine whether there was an existing contractual relationship between the
parties. Indeed, the validity and the enforcement of the contract should be established on
the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions taken by the parties
within the context of their relationship.
37. Nevertheless, the DRC recalled that the same jurisprudence also requires the Chamber to
exercise particular caution when accepting evidence other than a fully executed contract
as proof of a concluded agreement (see, inter alia, DRC Decision of 6 March 2025, Lopes
Fernandes).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20031
38. Furthermore, as emphasised in, inter alia, the DRC Decision of 15 May 2025, Roncaglio:
“The Chamber underscored, specifically, that (i) the conclusion of a contract can sometimes,
in very specific and limited circumstances, be proved without a formal signature, provided
that such proof meets certain standards of confidence, but (ii) decisions determining that a
contractual relationship has been formed without a signed contract require a high standard
of proof”.
39. Against this background, the majority of the Chamber considered that this jurisprudence
is primarily focused on those cases in which, although one of the parties never signed the
contract, it nonetheless carried out certain acts demonstrating its execution —whether the
provision of a service, the payment of a consideration, or actions aimed at fulfilling the
terms of the contract— such that it can be established that, even without the signature of
both parties, they were bound and an employment relationship existed.
40. With these principles in mind, the DRC turned to the specific circumstances of the present
case. The Chamber noted that, indeed, during March and April 2025, the Player,
represented by his agents Mr. Draganov and Mr. García, was engaged in negotiations
regarding his potential employment with the Club. The Chamber also observed that the
Player had formally mandated both agents to seek employment opportunities in Maldives,
Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
41. The majority of the Chamber first considered that the Player’s mandate clearly
demonstrated his openness to negotiating contracts in multiple jurisdictions. Despite this,
the Player appears to have focused exclusively on the Alleged Contract with the Club,
notwithstanding the early uncertainties surrounding its finalisation.
42. Moreover, irrespective of the evidentiary weight of unverified WhatsApp messages, the
Player himself relied on communications explicitly stating that the Club would only sign the
Alleged Contract upon his arrival in the Maldives, a requirement clearly conveyed to him as
early as 13 March 2025. Notwithstanding this, the Player did not travel to the Maldives and
instead sent the signed copy of the Alleged Contract directly to the Club only on 1 April
2025, the very date on which the Alleged Contract was purportedly meant to commence.
43. The majority of the Chamber further observed that, again irrespective of the limited
evidentiary weight of WhatsApp messages, the Player relied on communications from the
Club’s head coach dated 15 April 2025, informing him that, due to the situation at the FAM,
the Club was unable to proceed with the signing of the Alleged Contract and that the Player
was free to seek alternative employment elsewhere.
44. In the majority’s view, these exchanges clearly demonstrate that the Player had sufficient
time and opportunity to pursue employment with another club. His agents were already
mandated to seek opportunities in several countries. Nevertheless, the Player (or his
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20031
representatives) persisted in insisting on finalising a contract they were aware could not be
concluded under the prevailing circumstances.
45. The majority of the Chamber additionally considered that the Club’s email of 19 June 2025
—wherein the Club acknowledged that negotiations had indeed taken place but ultimately
did not lead to the conclusion of a valid employment contract— cannot be interpreted as
evidence confirming the existence of a binding agreement between the parties. To
construe such an acknowledgment as constituting contractual acceptance without any
other evidence of execution would run contrary to the established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, which requires particular caution when assessing the existence of an
employment relationship in the absence of a fully executed contract, and imposes a high
standard of proof upon the party alleging that a contract was formed without the
employer’s signature.
46. Following its analysis, the majority of the Chamber reiterated that, although a contract may
exceptionally be proven without a formal signature, this requires a high standard of proof,
as it entails finding that an employment relationship was formed without and explicit proof
of consent, i.e., the signature.
47. In this regard, the majority of the DRC found that the evidence submitted by the Player falls
short of meeting this standard. In particular, the majority was not convinced that there was
sufficient evidence to establish that there had been mutual acceptance of both parties.
Hence, the majority of the DRC deemed that the Alleged Contract did not contain all
essential elements recognised in the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
48. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to underline that, even if the Club failed
to reply to the claim, the Player bore the burden of providing enough evidence to prove
the asserted facts based on art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. Nevertheless, having
carefully examined the documentary evidence submitted with the claim, the majority of
the Chamber concluded that the Player failed to discharge his burden of proof, as he did
not sufficiently corroborate the existence of a contractual relationship.
49. In light of all the foregoing, the majority of the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
50. 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. 11
REF. FPSD-20031
51. 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.
52. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20031
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Eugeniu Rebenja, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20031
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. 14