Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20657
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luciano
Xavier
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Luciano Xavier, Brazil
Represented by Tiago Patrick de Araujo Marciano
RESPONDENT:
MFC Zhetysu, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20657
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 October 2024, the Brazilian player Luciano Xavier (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Kazakhstani futsal club MFC Zhetysu (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract)
valid as from the date of its signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
Clause 3 of the Employment Contract established as follows (quoted verbatim from the
translation provided by the Player):
“3.1. The [Club] establishes the [Player]’s monthly basic salary in the amount of 1,900,000 (one
million nine hundred thousand) KZT.
3.2. The salary is paid by bank transfer no later than the 10th day of the following month.
3.3. All payments due to the [Player] as set forth in this Employment Contract are made
without deduction of taxes and other mandatory contributions required by the legislation of
Kazakhstan.
3.4. The [Club] independently calculates, withholds, and transfers taxes and other mandatory
contributions from the [Player]’s income in accordance with the legislation of Kazakhstan.
3.5. Idle time not caused by the [Player] is compensated at not less than the minimum wage,
as provided by the legislation of Kazakhstan.
3.6. If the [Player] is transferred to another football club belonging to a higher or lower league,
the Parties may review and amend the employment conditions.”
3.
As to the termination, clause 7 of the Employment Contract read as follows (quoted
verbatim from the translation provided by the Player):
“7.1. The grounds for termination of this Employment Contract are:
7.1.1. termination by agreement of the Parties, in the manner provided by the Labor
Code;
7.1.2. expiration of the Employment Contract term;
7.1.3. termination at the initiative of the [Club] on the grounds and in the manner
provided by the Labor Code;
7.1.4. transfer of the [Player] to another [Club];
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20657
7.1.5. termination at the initiative of the [Player] on the grounds and in the manner
provided by the Labor Code;
7.1.6. circumstances beyond the control of the Parties;
7.1.7. refusal of the [Player] to continue labor relations;
7.1.8. Transition of the [Player] to an elected position or appointment to a position
excluding the possibility of continuing labor relations, as provided by the laws of the
Republic of Kazakhstan:
7.1.9. Termination of this [Player]’s contract after completion of the 1st round of the
CRK;
7.1.10. Violation of the terms of this employment contract;
7.2. Termination of this employment contract shall be formalized by an act of the [Club];
7.3. The Parties undertake to immediately inform the PFLK in writing of the termination of this
employment contract in whole or in any part thereof.”
4.
On 30 October 2024, the Club publicly announced the signing of the Player via its social
media.
5.
On 20 November 2024, the Player was issued a visa by the Republic of Kazakhstan, valid
from 25 November 2024 until 30 June 2025, permitting multiple entries to the country.
6.
On an unspecified day in November 2024, the Player received his initial salary in the
amount of KZT 2,033,182, which was credited to his Kazakhstani bank account.
7.
According to the Player, in December 2025, he sustained an injury during the performance
of his professional duties, namely an ankle sprain accompanied by Achilles tendon
inflammation.
8.
On an unspecified date, the Player engaged in a series of messages with an individual
allegedly acting as a representative of the Club, as reproduced below (quoted verbatim
from the transcription provided by the Player):
” 1. Representative: I don’t know, I’ll tell you tomorrow (18:08/6:08pm)
2. Luciano: Ok, friend. (18:13/6:13pm)
3. Luciano: Friend, good morning, can you answer me about the tickets? (16:34/4:34pm)
4. Luciano: Since you decided to terminate my contract, I have been in the apartment for
15 days, without money for food and to pay the bills. (16:35/4:35pm)
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20657
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
9.
Representative: Good morning! Today is a holiday in all of Kazakhstan. Tomorrow I will
sort it out. (16:35/4:35pm)
Luciano: Yesterday my brother passed away, I stayed with a friend, please.
(16:36/4:36pm)
Representative: Tomorrow I will buy for you. (16:36/4:36pm)
Luciano: Okay my friend, I’ll wait. (16:37/4:37pm)
Luciano: Thank you very much, my friend. (16:38/4:38pm)
On another unspecified date, the Player again engaged in a series of messages with the
aforementioned individual, as reproduced below (quoted verbatim from the transcription
provided by the Player):
“1. Representative: The club itself will open an account for you (10:12am)
2. Luciano: I should have done this yesterday, I waited for the guy to fix it, but he didn’t
come. (10:12am)
3. Luciano: Monday is payday, will I have the account in my hands? (10:13am)
4. Representative: I already told you, you yourself said that you wanted to leave with Lucas.
(3:58am)
5. Representative: I am going to work now. (10:14am)
6. Representative: I will find out. (10:14am)
7. Representative: I will write to you. (10:14am)
8. Luciano: Ok. (10:15pm)
9. Luciano: I sent a message to the guy and he said he will pick me up on Monday after
training. (10:30pm)
10. Representative: Luciano, hi. Did the money arrive? (16:20/4:20pm)
11. Luciano: Salary yes, but will I receive something for the termination of the contract,
friend? (16:26/4:26pm)
12. Representative (awnser): No, friend. (16:27/4:27)”
10. On another unspecified date, the Player engaged in a further exchange of messages with
who appeared to be the same representative of the Club, now identified as “Erkebulan
Mussabekov”. The content of this exchange is reproduced below (quoted verbatim from the
transcription provided by the Player):
“1. Representative: Ok (03:57am)
2. Luciano: You. I was at the club for two months and I still only got paid for one month,
they didn’t give me severance pay because you s...
3. Representative (awnser): I already told you, you yourself said that you wanted to leave
with Lucas. (3:58am)
4. Representative: You are lying. (3:58am)
5. Luciano: If you have any issues, solve them with my manager. Have a good day. (9:53pm)
6. Representative: [image representing an open hand] (9:54am)
7. Luciano: Good evening, friend. Could you send me the contract I signed to play in Jetisu?
(19:52/7:52pm)
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20657
8.
9.
Luciano: Please (21:07/9:07pm)
Luciano: ? (12:50pm)”
11. On 23 December 2024, the Player returned to Brazil.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 3 September 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
13.
The Player argued that he “received only his first monthly salary (for October 2024), duly
credited to his bank account in Kazakhstan”.
14.
He further highlighted that, in December 2024, he “sustained a grade I ankle sprain with
Achilles tendon inflammation during his duties as a professional player. Shortly thereafter,
instead of supporting him medically and continuing the contractual relationship, the
Respondent unjustifiably terminated the employment”. Accordingly, he acknowledged
having subsequently returned to Brazil on 23 December 2024.
15.
In light of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“The Claimant respectfully requests that the DRC:
a. Order the Respondent to pay all outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant,
corresponding to the entire contractual period (October 2024 - June 2025), including
salaries and any other financial benefits contractually stipulated;
b. Order the Respondent to pay compensation for breach of contract without just
cause, in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (RSTP);
c. Order the Respondent to provide the Claimant and this Chamber with a full signed
copy of the employment contract entered into with the Claimant, in order to ascertain
all benefits and contractual provisions that must be enforced;
d. In the alternative, should the Respondent fail to provide the contract, the Claimant
requests that the FIFA Administration (Players’ Status Department) obtain and provide
a copy of the said contract from the TMS records or through official request to the
Kazakhstan Football Federation;”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20657
16.
On 12 September 2025, upon request of the FIFA General Secretariat, the Player provided
FIFA with a breakdown of the amounts claimed as follows (quoted verbatim):
PERIOD
CONTRACTUAL
SALARY (KZT)
DUE DATE
(PER
CONTRACT)
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
(KZT)
October
2024 (prorata: 28–31
Oct)
245,161.29 (prorata)
Due by
10/11/2024
0 (no
separate
credit
recorded)
November
2024
December
2024
January
2025
February
2025
March
2025
1,900,000
1,900,000
1,900,000
1,900,000
1,900,000
April 2025
1,900,000
May 2025
1,900,000
June 2025
1,900,000
Due by
10/12/2024
Due by
10/01/2025
Due by
10/02/2025
Due by
10/03/2025
Due by
10/04/2025
Due by
10/05/2025
Due by
10/06/2025
Due by
10/07/2025
1,900,000.00
(of the
2,033,182
KZT credit)
0
ALLOCATION
OF THE
RECEIVED
PAYMENT
Partially
covered by
the Nov
credit:
133,182 KZT
allocated as
partial
October prorata
Allocated to
November full
salary
OUTSTANDING
(KZT)
REMARKS
111,979.29
4 days of 31
(1,900,000 ×
4/31 =
245,161.29)
0
Bank
screenshot
shows a
single credit
of
2,033,182
KZT
(attached)
1,900,000
Unpaid
1,900,000
Unpaid
1,900,000
Unpaid
1,900,000
Unpaid
1,900,000
Unpaid
1,900,000
Unpaid
1,900,000
Unpaid
“Totals:
•
Total contractual amount (Oct 28, 2024 - Jun 30, 2025): 15,445,161.29 KZT
•
Total payment recorded: 2,033,182.00 KZT (single bank credit)
•
Total outstanding balance: 13,411,979.29 KZT”
b. Position of the Club
17. Despite being afforded the opportunity to do so, the Club failed to submit any response to
the Player’s claim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20657
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 3 September 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 Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
19. 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 Brazilian player and a Kazakhstani club.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20657
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim from a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract and
overdue payables.
24. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player contended that the Employment Contract
was terminated without just cause by the Club, alleging that the Club failed to provide
proper care and dismissed him in December 2024 after a football-related injury.
25. Conversely, as per art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, since the Club did not provide its
position on the Player’s claim, the decision should be taken based on the documentation
already in the file (i.e., the statements and documents presented by the Player).
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the Club
actually terminated the Employment Contract prematurely and, if so, what the resulting
legal consequences were. In parallel, the Chamber was also tasked with assessing whether
any outstanding financial obligations remained unpaid.
27. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
a) The purported termination:
28. At the outset, the Chamber deemed essential to assess whether the Player has succeeded
in demonstrating that the Employment Contract had been early terminated without just
cause by the Club, justifying his entitlement to compensation. In this regard, the Chamber
referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which “a party that asserts a
fact has the burden of proving it”.
29. In this context, the Chamber first noted that the Player did not provide any evidence of
formal communication with the Club regarding the alleged breach of contract. The
Chamber outlined that there was no record of a notice of default, any warning, a refusal by
the Club to provide care, or an official termination notice issued by either party. According
to the Chamber, this absence of documentary evidence significantly undermined the
credibility of the Player’s claim.
30. Notably, the Chamber pointed out that the only evidence submitted by the Player consisted
of WhatsApp messages exchanged on unspecified dates between the Player and a contact
later saved as “Erkebulan Mussabekov”. Nevertheless, the Player failed to identify this
individual’s role within the Club, explain in what capacity he would represent it, or provide
any context surrounding the messages exchanged. Also, the Chamber observed that this
individual was not listed in the Employment Contract, nor had the Player provided any
explanation credibly linking him to the Club. Ultimately, the Chamber outlined that even
assuming, for the sake of argument, that these messages were indeed issued on behalf of
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20657
the Club, their content was inconclusive as to establish an unilateral termination by the
Club.
31. The Chamber further pointed that the Player did not specify when or under what
circumstances his alleged “dismissal” occurred, merely asserting that it took place “in
December 2024” without furnishing further details. In the Chamber’s view, this lack of clarity
regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged termination further weakened the
Player’s position.
32. Moreover, the DRC outlined that the Player also failed to prove the extent and
consequences of the alleged injury. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the sole
submission of a photograph of an ankle joint – unaccompanied by any medical report,
examination results or correspondence between the parties – was insufficient even to
establish that the injury concerned the Player himself, let alone that it led to the premature
termination of the employment relationship. In other words, the Player failed to establish
any causal link between he alleged injury and the breach of contract, nor did he
demonstrate that the Club refused to provide medical treatment. Consequently, the
Chamber considered this submission to be equally unfounded.
33. In conclusion, the Chamber considered that the Player failed to discharge his burned of
proof in relation to the alleged termination of the Employment Contract. In particular, the
Player did not establish that the Club took any action amounting to unilateral termination,
nor did he demonstrate that he formally terminated the Employment Contract with just
cause in accordance with the applicable regulations.
34. In this respect, the Chamber further noted that, while the Player failed to submit any
evidence indicating that the Club undertook affirmative steps to unilaterally terminate the
Employment Contract, it was acknowledged by the Player (and remained undisputed) that,
on 23 December 2024, he voluntarily left Kazakhstan to return to Brazil. In the absence of
any contemporaneous evidence of a formal termination notice, correspondence, or other
unequivocal act of termination by either party prior to that date, the Chamber concluded
that 23 December 2024 constituted the point at which the contractual relationship
effectively came to an end as a result of the Player’s own conduct.
35. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the termination of the Employment Contract
could not be attributed to an unlawful act of the Club. As a result, the DRC concluded that
the Player is not entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
b) Further consequences
36. Although the Player was unable to establish that the Club caused the termination of the
Employment Contract, the Chamber highlighted that this did not preclude his entitlement
to any outstanding financial obligations, in line with the pacta sunt servanda principle.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20657
37. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Player was bound to the Club from 28
October 2024 until 23 December 2024. Therefore, based on the Employment Contract, the
Player was entitled to a total remuneration of KZT 3,554,838.71, calculated on a prorated
basis as follows:
Description
October 2024 (28-31 October)
November 2024 (full month)
December 2024 (1-23 December)
TOTAL
Due date
10 November 2025
10 December 2025
10 January 2025
Amount (KZT)
245,161.29
1,900,000.00
1,409,677.42
3,554,838.71
38. The Chamber then took note that the Player acknowledged having received KZT 2,033,182
from the Club, thereby leaving an outstanding balance of KZT 1,521,656.71, to which the
Player remained entitled.
39. As the Player did not request interest, and in application of the principle of ne ultra petita,
the Chamber concluded that the amount could only be awarded as requested, without
interest.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20657
44. 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
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20657
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luciano Xavier, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, MFC Zhetysu, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- KZT 1,521,656.71 as outstanding remuneration.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20657
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