Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20242
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Victor
Matheus da Silva Matos
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Victor Matheus Da Silva Matos, Brazil
Represented by Wallace Joacir Alves de Oliveira
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
KF Bylis, Albania
Represented by Arsen Selmanaj
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20242
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 February 2025, the Brazilian player Victor Matheus da Silva Matos (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Albanian club KF Bylis (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until the end of the 2024-2025
season.
2.
According to the information available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS) the 20242025 season in Albania ended on 30 June 2025.
3.
Clause 2 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“1. Club undertakes to pay football player for all the football duration of this contract the
value of 400 (four hundred) Euro a month.
2. The monthly payment is valid only for the time the championship, Cup or EUFA Competition
is played. […]
6. The monthly payment will be made every 10th of the next month”
4.
Clause 18 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“In case of possible disputes, the parties of this contract undertake/commit in their resolution
by consensus, otherwise competent to address them as the first degree will be the respective
committees of the Albanian Football Association and as a degree of appeal will be the Sports
Court in Switzerland (CAS).”
5.
On 22 May 2025, the Player sent an email to the Club requesting outstanding payments for
the months of March and April 2025 amounting to EUR 5,200 (including monthly salary and
certain target bonuses), and apartment rent for the months of March and April 2025
amounting to EUR 800.
6.
On 5 June 2025, the Club responded to the Player’s email denying the Player’s demands
and requested him to return the overpaid amount of EUR 494.
7.
On 24 July 2025, the Player put the Club in default of payment of salaries corresponding to
two monthly salaries under the Contract amounting to EUR 800 setting a time limit expiring
in 10 days in order to remedy the default.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20242
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 6 August 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
9.
According to the Player, despite him fully performing his contractual obligations and
remaining available to the Club during the entire period of the employment relationship,
the Club failed to pay his salaries for the months of March and April 2025, as stipulated
under the Contract, totaling EUR 800.
10. The Player argued that in addition to the salary stipulated in the Contract, i.e., EUR 400 per
month, the parties reached a verbal agreement, confirmed through WhatsApp messages,
whereby the Club agreed to pay the Player an additional monthly amount of EUR 2,600, as
part of his total remuneration package.
11. The WhatsApp conversation submitted by the Player with an unsaved number, who
according to the Player is a Club representative, which reflects a series of exchanges
regarding unpaid remuneration and related issues. The Player repeatedly claimed that his
agreed monthly salary was EUR 3,000, consisting of EUR 2,600 in cash and EUR 400 by bank
transfer, and asserted that the Club failed to pay the full amount for February and
subsequent months.
12. The Player further claimed entitlement to apartment rent and later offers to waive bonuses
in exchange for partial settlement. Throughout April and May, the Player insisted on
payment. The alleged Club representative’s responses are limited, occasionally assuring
that payment will be made, while several voice calls have been mentioned, whose content
has not been provided by the Player.
13. In light of the above, the Player argued that these communications clearly demonstrate the
Club’s intention to supplement the contractual salary and that allegedly partial informal
payments were made, reinforcing the existence of this verbal agreement.
14. The Player further argued that according to FIFA jurisprudence, absence of a written clause
does not negate the validity of a binding agreement when supported by conduct and
corroborating evidence, such as WhatsApp messages in the present case, and that he
rendered his services in good faith based on this understanding.
15. The Player finally argued that the Club’s failure to honor its financial commitments
constitutes a serious breach of contract under art. 13 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and the Club is liable for consequences
under art. 12bis of the Regulations.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20242
16. Consequently, the Player’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“a) Declare that the labor contract signed between the parties is valid and binding;
b) Establish that FUTBOLL KLUB BYLIS SH.A has unlawfully breached the contract for noncompliance with its financial obligations;
c) Payment of outstanding salaries for the months of March and April 2025, in the total
amount of €800 (eight hundred euros), corresponding to the two unpaid months under
the written employment contract.
d) Subsidiary claim: Should the FIFA Tribunal deem it appropriate, recognition of the
informal salary agreement of €2,600 per month, as evidenced by WhatsApp
communications, and payment of the total amount of €5,200 (five thousand two hundred
euros) for the months of March and April 2025, or such amount as the Tribunal may
consider fair and equitable.
e) Impose a sporting sanction on FUTBOLL KLUB BYLIS SH.A, banning it from registering
new players for two entire and consecutive registration periods;
f) Order the club to pay interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the overdue salaries”
b. Reply and Counterclaim of the Club
17. In its reply, the Club rejected all the claims of the Player.
18. Preliminarily, the Club argued that as stated in clause 18 of the Contract, all disputes arising
from the employment relationship are to be resolved by the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC) of the Albanian Football Association (hereinafter: the Albanian NDRC), with
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the appeal body and that the Albanian NDRC
fully complies with FIFA’s "Recognition Principles" — including independence, parity, and
enforceability — and is officially recognized under FIFA Circular no. 1010. Therefore, the
Club argued that the jurisdiction clause was mutually agreed upon and is binding under
the principle of pacta sunt servanda and FIFA is not competent to handle the present
dispute.
19. As to the merits, the Club argued that pursuant to clause 2 of the Contract, the agreed
monthly salary was EUR 400, payable only during active participation in official
competitions. The Club submitted that the season concluded on 27 April 2025, limiting the
Player’s entitlement to the period between 5 February and 27 April 2025. Based on this
calculation, the Club asserted that the total salary due was EUR 1,106, which had already
been exceeded by payments totalling EUR 1,600 made via bank transfer.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20242
20. The Club further argued that the Player’s demand for apartment rent reimbursement lacks
any contractual basis as the Contract does not contain any clause obligating the Club to
cover accommodation expenses, nor was any separate agreement executed to that effect.
21. Additionally, the Club argued that there was no informal agreement for an additional salary
of EUR 2,600 per month and that the WhatsApp exchanges do not amount to a binding
contractual obligation as they were unilateral informal demands by the Player, which were
not accepted. In this regard, the Club emphasized the following message from the Club
representative which according to the Club confirms that it gave the Player an advance
upon request and it was not a binding contractual obligation for an increased salary
amount:
“Dasilva, you told me that I did not come for money, but I want to play to regain my physical
form and find a good team with money for the next season. When you asked for some money
in advance, I gave it to you! Now, day by day, you pressure me with SMS! Do not bother me
with SMS, come and meet me so we can talk.”
22. Further, the Club argued that the Player was brought into the team primarily for training
purposes to regain fitness and not as a regular player who would be entitled to such a high
salary, which according to the Club is confirmed through the WhatsApp messages provided
by the Player.
23. The Club finally argued that the WhatsApp messages do not link the number to a Club
representative and that the Player failed to provide any evidence substantiating the alleged
salary of EUR 2,600 per month or entitlement to housing costs thereby failing to discharge
his burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
24. Consequently, the Club’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“a) Reject the Claimant’s claim in its entirety;
b) Declare itself without jurisdiction, due to the exclusive competence of the Albanian
NDRC;
c) Confirm that no salary is outstanding, and that the Club has fulfilled all financial
obligations under the signed contract;
d) Alternatively, determine that no credible evidence exists to support the existence of a
valid and binding verbal salary agreement for EUR 3,000/month;
e) Deny the imposition of any sporting sanctions, as no contractual breach has occurred;
f) Order the Claimant to reimburse the overpaid amount of EUR 494 to the Club;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20242
g) Reject the request for interest or further compensation.”
c. Rejoinder/ Reply to the Counterclaim by the Player
25. The Player reiterated all arguments and requests from his initial claim and responded to
the Club’s allegations.
26. With respect to jurisdiction, the Player argued that the clause favouring the Albanian NDRC
is not binding because the Club failed to prove that the body meets FIFA’s independence
and impartiality standards. He emphasized that, as a foreign player, he is entitled under
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations to bring his claim before FIFA.
27. With regard to the merits, the Player argued that the Club’s assertion of having paid EUR
1,600 is unsupported, as no proof of payment specifically linked to the months of March
and April 2025 was provided. He confirmed that no salary was paid for these months and
maintained that his claim for EUR 800 under the Contract is fully substantiated.
28. The Player further argued that WhatsApp communications demonstrate a clear and
consistent agreement for an additional monthly payment of EUR 2,600 beyond the written
Contract. He asserted that the Club’s characterization of these payments as “advances” or
“favours” is contradicted by the tone of the messages, the absence of objections from the
Club, and its own payment conduct. According to the Player, these facts, combined with
FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, confirm the existence of a verbal and enforceable agreement,
despite the lack of a signed addendum.
29. Additionally, the Player claimed reimbursement of EUR 800 for accommodation expenses,
stating that the Club never provided lodging and implicitly accepted his self-financed
arrangements.
30. He rejected the Club’s demand for repayment of EUR 494 as baseless and retaliatory.
31. The Player amended his initial requests for relief and requested the following additional
reliefs:
“5. Order reimbursement of €800 in housing expenses;
[…]
7. Apply interest at 5% p.a. over overdue payments.”
d. Final comments of the Club
32. The Club reiterated its previous arguments and requests.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20242
33. Additionally, with respect to the Player’s claim for reimbursement of accommodation costs,
the Club argued that free lodging was available at Hotel Gjanica for all its players and that
the Player’s decision to reside elsewhere was voluntary and unsupported by evidence such
as receipts or any addendum. Therefore, as there are no contractual basis or evidence, the
Club argued that any claims for reimbursement of such expenses should be rejected.
34. The Club amended its initial requests for relief and requested the following additional
relief:
“e) Deny the claim for rent reimbursement and interest application;”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. 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 6 August 2025 and submitted for decision on
16 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
36. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Brazilian player and an Albanian club.
37. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber further noted that the Club contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the Albanian NDRC, alleging that the
latter is competent to deal with any disputes deriving from the Contract, in accordance with
its clause 18.
38. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Club has argued that the Albanian NDRC fully
complies with FIFA’s "Recognition Principles" – including independence, parity, and
enforceability – and is officially recognized under FIFA Circular no. 1010.
39. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player argued that the clause
under the Contract favouring the Albanian NDRC is not binding because the Club failed to
prove that the body meets FIFA’s independence and impartiality standards. He emphasized
that, as a foreign player, he is entitled under art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations to bring
his claim before FIFA.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20242
40. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, as this dispute has an international dimension (i.e., Brazilian
player vs. Albanian club) and is employment-related (i.e., claim for breach of an
employment contract), it falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction in principle, and would only be
prevented in the hypothesis 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 CBA in favour of a NDRC “that has been officially recognised by
FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
41. It follows that in order for the Chamber to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the
interested party challenging the Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction must demonstrate that the
parties have 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 must all be
met at the time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
42. In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber emphasised that the Albanian NDRC is not
officially recognised by FIFA. Therefore, the Chamber was of the opinion that it does not
need to address whether clause 18 of the Contract contained a clear and exclusive clause
in favour of the Albanian NDRC, as the conditions are cumulative in nature and the second
requirement is not met in the present case.
43. Consequently, the Chamber established that the Club’s objection towards the competence
of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and FIFA is competent, on the
basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the
substance.
44. 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
45. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the TMS.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20242
c. Merits of the dispute
46. 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
47. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim for overdue payables by the Player against the Club and a counterclaim for
reimbursement of overpaid salaries by the Club against the Player.
48. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether:
a. outstanding salaries under the Contract are due from the Club?
b. the alleged verbal agreement for an additional monthly salary of EUR 2,600 is valid
and binding?
c. accommodation expenses are to be reimbursed by the Club?
d. the Club actually overpaid the Player, entitling the Club to a reimbursement?
A. Outstanding salaries under the Contract
49. The Chamber recalled that according to the Player, despite him fully performing his
contractual obligations and remaining available to the Club during the entire period of the
employment relationship, the Club failed to pay his salaries for the months of March and
April 2025, as stipulated under the Contract, totalling EUR 800.
50. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Club submitted that the season concluded
on 27 April 2025, limiting the Player’s entitlement to the period between 5 February and 27
April 2025. Based on this calculation, the Club asserted that the total salary due was EUR
1,106, which had already been exceeded by payments totalling EUR 1,600 made via bank
transfer.
51. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that, while clause 2 par. 2 of the Contract specifies
that the monthly payment is valid only until an official match competition is played, the
Club has failed to provide any evidence that the Club’s season and last official match
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20242
concluded on 27 April 2025, thereby failing to discharge its burden of proof under art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
52. The Chamber further noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the
parties. While the Club claimed that it made payments amounting to EUR 1,600 to the
Player, the Chamber took note that the alleged proof of payment submitted by the Club
has not been translated into an official FIFA language and does not clearly indicate the
amounts paid or the receiver of such amounts. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that
the proof of payment submitted by the Club must be disregarded in accordance with art.
13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
53. Therefore, in the absence of any further evidence from the Club, the Chamber concluded
that the Club has failed to discharge its burden of proof and in accordance with the general
principle of pacta sunt servanda the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the
Player the monthly salaries under the Contract for the months of March and April 2025
amounting to EUR 800 (i.e., EUR 400 times two).
54. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 6 August 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
B. Validity of the verbal agreement
55. The Chamber recalled that the Player argued that in addition to the salary stipulated in the
Contract, i.e., EUR 400 per month, the parties reached a verbal agreement, confirmed
through WhatsApp messages, whereby the Club agreed to pay the Player an additional
monthly amount of EUR 2,600, as part of his total remuneration package.
56. On the contrary, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club argued that there was no
informal agreement for an additional salary of EUR 2,600 per month and that the WhatsApp
exchanges do not amount to a binding contractual obligation as they were unilateral
informal demands by the Player which were not accepted. In this regard, the Club
emphasized messages from the Club representative which according to the Club confirms
that it gave the Player an advance upon request and it was not a binding contractual
obligation for an increased salary amount. The Club also argued that the Player did not
prove that the WhatsApp messages were with a Club representative.
57. In this context, the Chamber recalled the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal which has
consistently stipulated that the Tribunal must be very careful with accepting documents
other than the fully executed contract and emphasised that 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 decisions
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20242
determining that a contractual relationship has been formed without a signed contract
require a high standard of proof.
58. The Chamber additionally noted that in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, in the present case it was up to the Player to prove that the supplementary verbal
agreement, on the basis of which he claims additional outstanding remuneration from the
Club, indeed existed.
59. However, the Chamber noted that the Player has only provided a series of WhatsApp
messages in this regard, wherein the WhatsApp conversation submitted by the Player is
with an unsaved number, with no link to the Club, and which in any case contains no
evidence of confirmation of the verbal agreement from the alleged Club representative’s
side in the conversation. Further, the Chamber emphasised that the Player has not
provided any evidence of receipt of the additional amount in previous months from the
Club as alleged by the Player.
60. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player has not discharged his burden of proof
that a supplementary agreement for an additional compensation of EUR 2,600 per month
existed specifically keeping in mind the higher standard of proof required in such cases
and rejected the claim for EUR 5,200 as additional remuneration for the months of March
and April 2025.
C. Reimbursement of accommodation costs
61. The Chamber noted that the Player has also claimed for reimbursement of accommodation
costs for the months of March and April 2025 in the amount of EUR 800.
62. However, the Chamber acknowledged, as argued by the Club, that the Contract does not
obligate the Club to cover the Player’s accommodation costs. Further, the Chamber
observed that the Player has not provided any evidence, rental contract or receipts with
respect to the amount claimed as reimbursement with respect to accommodation costs.
63. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player has not discharged his burden of proof
under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and rejected the claim of EUR 800 as
reimbursement of accommodation costs.
D. Counterclaim of the Club
64. The Chamber noted that the Club has requested reimbursement of the overpaid amount
of EUR 494 from the Player, as according to the Club, for the period between 5 February
and 27 April 2025, it paid the Player EUR 1,600 via bank transfer while only EUR 1,106 was
due as total salary calculated pro rata, as per the Contract.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20242
65. However, as previously elaborated in para 52 above, the proof of payment provided by the
Club has been disregarded by the Chamber in accordance with art. 13 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules.
66. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the counterclaim of the Club is rejected.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
67. The Chamber 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.
68. To this end, the Chamber 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.
69. Accordingly, the Chamber 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.
70. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Club within the last two years, the
Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit.
a) of the Regulations.
71. The Chamber 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
72. 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.
73. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20242
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20242
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant/CounterRespondent, Victor Matheus Da Silva Matos.
2.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Victor Matheus Da Silva Matos, is partially
accepted.
3.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, KF Bylis, must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
the following amount(s):
- EUR 800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 August 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant, KF Bylis, is rejected.
6.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent/Counterclaimant.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20242
9.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20242
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. 17