Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20112
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Amos Nondi
Obiero
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Amos Nondi Obiero, Kenya
RESPONDENT:
Neftekhimik, Russia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20112
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 June 2025, the Kenyan player, Amos Nondi Obiero (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Russian club, Neftekhimik (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 30 June 2027.
2.
In accordance with Clause 8 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the following (quoted verbatim):
“8.1. The [Player] is assigned a monthly salary, excluding compensation, incentive, and
social payments, in the amount of 550,000 (Five hundred and fifty thousand) rubles.
8.2. The [Player] is entitled to payments (bonuses) in the football seasons 2025-2026, 20262027
I. The [Player] is awarded a bonus upon signing this employment contract. The bonus
amount is 550,000 (Five hundred and fifty thousand) rubles, and the Club accrues
to the Employee in the following order:
200,000 (Two hundred thousand) rubles until August 10, 2025;
200,000 (Two hundred thousand) rubles until September 10, 2025;
150,000 (One hundred fifty thousand) rubles until October 10,2025.
II. If in the football season 2025-2026 (2026-2027) the [Player] takes part and plays in
70% of the matches in the Russian Football Championship among FNL teams (RPL)
in the starting lineup of FC Neftekhimik, then the [Club] shall establish tv bonus in
the amount of 400,000 (Four hundred thousand) rubles based on the results of the
season.
III. If in the football season 2025-2026 (2026-2027) the [Player] takes part in 10 (ten) or
more matches in the Russian Football Championship among FNL (RPL) teams in
the starting lineup of FC Neftekhimik without conceding goals by the Neftekhimik
team, then the [Club] shall establish a bonus in the amount of 400,000 (Four
hundred thousand) rubles based on the results of the season.
IV. The [Player] shall be paid a bonus for achieving sports results in accordance with this
Contract and/or the bonus regulations. The amount of the [Player]'s bonus
payments for one match is 62,500 (Sixty-two thousand five hundred) rubles for a
draw and 125,000 (One hundred and twenty-five thousand) rubles for a win.
8.3. At the [Club]’s discretion, the [Player] may be paid a bonus for achieving sports results
in accordance with the bonus regulations.
8.4 The [Club] has the right to establish incentive payments, additional payments,
surcharges and other payments, the amounts and payment procedure of which are
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20112
established by additional agreement(s) to this Contract and (or) local regulations of the
[Club].”
3.
The Contract included a provision regarding termination in its Clause 11 (quoted verbatim):
“11.1. An employment contract may be terminated on the grounds provided for in Chapter
13 and Article 348.11 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
11.2. Termination of the employment contract is formalized by an order (instruction) of
the [Club]. The [Player] must be familiarized with the order (instruction) of the [Club] on
termination of the employment contract against signature.
11.3. An employment contract may be terminated only by mutual agreement of the
parties.
11.4. Valid reasons for termination of an employment contract are the reasons specified
in the RFU Regulations on the status and transfer of football players.
11.5. The conditions and procedure for the transition of the [Player] to another employer
(“transfer"), as well as the payment of compensation, are established by the RFU
Regulations on the status and transitions (transfer) of football players.”
4.
The Claimant was provided a Russian working visa, issued on 17 July 2025 and valid until
30 June 2027. The Claimant then travelled to Russia on 22 July 2025.
5.
On 25 July 2025, the parties signed a termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination
Agreement) in which the parties agreed inter alia to the following (quoted verbatim):
“1. The Club and the Football Player by mutual will of the parties have agreed to terminate
the valid employment contract N°TD34-2025 concluded between the Club and the Football
Player on July 25, 2025 (hereinafter - the Contract).”
[…]
“4. By this agreement, the parties confirm that they have no another unresolved claims to
each other, including financial ones arising from the Contract N°TD34-2025 signed on
08.07.2025, annexes and additional agreements to it. The Club and the Football Player
mutually refuse in the future from presenting any claims and claims related to the
Contract N°TD34-2025 signed on 08.07.2025 to the FUR Dispute Resolution Chamber, the
FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, and other jurisdictional bodies of the FUR and FIFA, to
the courts of general jurisdiction and other courts located on the territory of the Russian
Federation or foreign states. Sports sanctions for early termination of contract N°TD342025 signed on 08.07.2025 shall not apply to the Parties.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20112
6.
On 27 July 2025, the Player left Russia.
7.
On 11 August 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with the Albanian club
Partizani with a duration from the date of signing until 30 June 2026. Under said contract,
the Player is entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 2,000 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 27 July 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
9.
In his claim, the Claimant contended that the Club is responsible for terminating the
Contract.
10. According to the Claimant, when he arrived in Russia, he was allocated a room in the Club’s
training camp.
11. On 25 July 2025, the Claimant was allegedly told that he had to leave the Club and sign the
Termination Agreement. He refused to sign it and intended to stay in Russia and play for
the Club.
12. According to the Claimant, on 26 July 2025, the Club insisted and forced him to sign the
Termination Agreement. The Claimant stated that since he had no other choice, he “signed”
the document but instead wrote “not agreed” in the signature line and tried to leave the
Club’s premises without causing conflict.
13. In support of the previous argument, the Claimant submitted a WhatsApp conversation,
supposedly between him and his agent, in which he is being advised the following
regarding his signature of the Termination Agreement: “Yes sign totally different and try to
integrate a sign (like a cross) who shows that you’re not agreed”.
14. The Claimant argued that the Respondent performed an abusive termination of the
Contract and is therefore liable to pay the entirety of the remuneration under the Contract.
15. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“FOR THESE REASONS,
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT FOR THE LAW OF THE CASE,
AGREE TO DECLARE the complaint admissible and well-founded;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20112
AGREE TO CONDEMN FC NEFTEKHIMIK to pay back pay as follows:
550.000 RUB (x24) plus my signing bonus 550.000 RUB plus three-month indemnity for
abusive termination of contract, totaling 15.400.000 RUB, 194.000 USD in today’s currency
rate.
AGREE TO REJECT any further claim by FC NEFTEKHIMIK.
TO LEAVE to the sovereign appreciation of the Court of Appeal the application of articles
24 of the RSTP FIFA 2022.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. The Respondent did not reply to the claim despite being invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 27 July 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.
18. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
an Kenyan player and a Russian club.
19. 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
20. 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20112
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
21. 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
22. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
present case concerns an alleged breach of contract.
23. On the one hand, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was liable to pay the residual
value of the Contract due to its “abusive termination”.
24. Conversely, the Respondent did not submit any reply to the claim. As a result, the
Chamber’s decision had to be made solely based on the evidence available in the case file
(cf. art. 21, para. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
25. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its primary task was to assess the validity
of the Termination Agreement and the determine the consequences arising therefrom.
26. The Chamber noted that the Claimant submitted a signed Termination Agreement in which
the parties acknowledged that they had no unresolved claims to each other.
27. However, the Claimant contended that he was coerced into signing the Termination
Agreement and, as a form of protest, discreetly included the words “not agreed” within his
signature.
28. That being said, the Chamber recalled that, under established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, a contractual party signing a document of legal significance, as a general rule,
does so under its own responsibility and is liable to bear the legal consequences of such
signature. Additionally, the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence clarifies that duress exists
only where a party has good cause to believe that there is imminent and substantial risk to
his own life, limb, reputation or property or those of a person close to them.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20112
29. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, although the Claimant’s signature on the Contract
may not perfectly match the one on the Termination Agreement, the words “not agreed”
cannot be identified within the signature.
30. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant submitted a WhatsApp conversation
to support his claim of coercion to sign the Termination Agreement. In this regard, the
Chamber considered that the Player’s conversation with his agent cannot be considered,
in itself, evidence of duress. In particular, the Player did not provide any proof that the Club
imposed conditions for signing of the Termination Agreement, nor any correspondence
with the Club that could corroborate his claim of coercion.
31. In the absence of such evidence, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant failed to
substantiate an allegation of coercion, let alone one of duress.
32. For the sake of completeness, it was also noted that the Claimant submitted two copies of
the Termination Agreement, neither of which contains the signatures of both parties on
the same document. However, one copy bears the Claimant’s signature, while the other is
signed by the Respondent. Taken together, these documents provide sufficient indication
that both parties agreed to the terms of the Termination Agreement. Consequently, and
despite the absence of a jointly signed version, the Agreement reflects the parties’ mutual
intention to discontinue the contractual relationship and, in principle, constitutes a valid
agreement between them.
33. Nevertheless, and in accordance with jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the mere
signature of the document is not sufficient to ensure its enforceability. Hence, the Chamber
analysed whether there was an appropriate equivalence between the parties’ reciprocal
concessions, especially when a waiver/financial release is included in the relevant
document.
34. In this respect, the Chamber found that the Termination Agreement did not establish
reciprocal concessions of comparable importance between the parties.
35. The Chamber noted that the Player travelled to the Club’s premises and, although only for
a short period, joined the Club’s training camp. Specifically, the Player processed and
acquired a visa and subsequently travelled to Russia on 22 July 2025. The Termination
Agreement was signed on 25 July 2025 and the Player left Russia on 27 July 2025.
36. Despite the short duration and the Player’s apparent interest in executing the Contract, the
Termination Agreement stipulated that the parties had no unresolved claims, while the
Player was, at that time, entitled to a signing bonus that amounted to RUB 550,000 and was
soon to receive his first monthly salary of RUB 550,000.
37. Similarly, although the Player secured new employment with an Albanian club shortly after
the termination, his remuneration under the new contract was significantly lower than
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20112
what had been agreed with the Club. This disparity casts doubt on any potential financial
justification for the premature termination of the original Contract, suggesting that the
decision may not have been driven by economic necessity.
38. In light of the foregoing, and in the absence of a response from the Club that could negate
the Player’s position, the Chamber decided that the Termination Agreement cannot be
deemed valid insofar it did not confer any reciprocal benefit to the Player. This is
particularly relevant given that the Player had already made the necessary arrangements
to join the team for training sessions and has seemingly expressed his disagreement with
the premature termination of the Contract.
39. Taking into account the above considerations, along with the Respondent’s lack of
response and failure to present any argumentation, the Chamber concluded that the
Termination Agreement must be set aside and, consequently, that the Respondent
unilaterally and prematurely terminated the contractual relationship without just cause.
ii. Consequences
40. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified termination by the Respondent.
41. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, is equivalent to RUB 550,000,
corresponding to the signing bonus.
42. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 29 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
43. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
44. 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
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20112
45. 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).
46. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 RUB 13,200,000 (i.e., monthly salary of RUB 550,000
multiplied by the 24 months remaining under the Contract had it not been prematurely
terminated) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
47. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
48. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Albanian club Partizani. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 2,000
per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in
the total amount of RUB 2,045,120, that is, RUB 185,920 times 11.
49. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
RUB 11,154,880 to the Claimant (i.e., RUB 13,200,000 minus RUB 2,045,120), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
50. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 25 July 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
51. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20112
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.
52. 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.
53. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
54. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
55. 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
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20112
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Amos Nondi Obiero, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Neftekhimik, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- RUB 550,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 June 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- RUB 11,154,880 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
25 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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 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.
6.
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.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20112
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