Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21091
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Kyrylo Melichenko
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Kyrylo Melichenko, Ukraine
Represented by Yuliya Bogdanova
RESPONDENT:
FC Dinamo Batumi, Georgia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21091
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 January 2025, the Ukrainian player Kyrylo Melichenko (hereinafter, the Player or the
Claimant) and the Georgian club FC Dinamo Batumi (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 15 January
2025 until 15 December 2026.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following net monthly remuneration:
o From 15 January to 31 January 2025: the equivalent of USD 4,500 net in Georgian
Lari.
o From 1 January 2026 to 15 December 2025: the equivalent of USD 5,500 net in
Georgian Lari.
3.
In accordance with Clause 4.3 of the Contract:
“Payment of salary and other emoluments payable by Employer to Employee as set out in
this contract will be made from the 1st to the 15th of every month by transfer to a bank
account to be provided by Employee to Employer”.
4.
On 21 August 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to
pay USD 25,000 net corresponding to his remuneration for March 2025 in the amount of
USD 2,500 and from April to August 2025 (i.e., USD 4,500 net each).
5.
On 8 September 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract for outstanding
salaries.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 30 September 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
7.
In his claim, the Player asserted that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract for outstanding salaries, after having put the Club in default, to no avail.
8.
In particular, the Player contended that the Club made only a partial cash payment of
USD 2,000 for the salary due in March 2025, and failed to make any further payments
thereafter. As a result, the Player claimed the following salaries remain unpaid:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21091
o USD 2,500 for March 2025;
o USD 4,500 for April 2025;
o USD 4,500 for May 2025;
o USD 4,500 for June 2025;
o USD 4,500 for July 2025;
o USD 4,500 for August 2025; and
o USD 1,050 for 7 days of September 2025.
9.
In addition, the Player claimed compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
USD 80,111, representing the residual value of the Contract from the date of termination
until its original expiry on 15 December 2025.
10. Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“1. RULE, that the Contract, concluded between the Player and the Club, was prematurely
terminated by the Player with just cause.
2. ORDER [the Club] to pay in favour of the Player:
2.1. The outstanding remuneration amounted to USD 26,050 (twenty-six thousand and fifty
US Dollars), plus interest which should be calculated as follows:
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 2,500 as from 16 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 August 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5 % interest p.a. on the amount of USD 1,050 as from 08 September 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
2.2. The compensation for the premature termination of the Contract without just cause in
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21091
the amount of USD 80,111 (eighty thousand one hundred eleven US Dollars), plus 5 % of
interest which should be calculated starting from September 08, 2025 till the date of
effective payment”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
11. In its reply, the Club acknowledged the existence of the outstanding salary amounts
claimed by the Player. In this regard, the Club explained that it is currently facing a severe
financial crisis, which has resulted in the accumulation of debts, including those owed to
the Player.
12. As a proposed resolution, the Club offered to settle the total amount of USD 106,161
through monthly instalments until 15 December 2026.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 30 September 2025 and submitted
for decision on 10 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.
14. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Ukrainian player and a
Georgian club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
16. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21091
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
17. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerned
a claim by the Player against the Club for breach of contract based on the alleged nonpayment of certain financial obligations by the Club under the Contract, in accordance with
art. 14bis of the Regulations.
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
20. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
21. The Single Judge noted that the Player claimed not having received his remuneration for
March 2025 (in part) and from April to 7 September 2025, totalling USD 26,050.
Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Player provided written evidence of having
put the Club in default on 21 August 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 8 September 2025.
22. The Single Judge also 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. However, the Club admitted being in default regarding the aforementioned
salaries, citing alleged financial difficulties that purportedly prevented it from fulfilling its
contractual obligations.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21091
23. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that, in accordance with the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, financial difficulties do not constitute a valid
justification to deviate from the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda and the obligation to
pay contractually agreed amounts. The Single Judge added that, in any event, the Club
failed to provide any evidence regarding its alleged financial hardship.
24. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations and that the
Club is therefore liable for the legal consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
25. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the analysis of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
26. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to USD 25,000, broken
down as follows:
o USD 2,500 for March 2025;
o USD 4,500 for April 2025;
o USD 4,500 for May 2025;
o USD 4,500 for June 2025;
o USD 4,500 for July 2025; and
o USD 4,500 for August 2025.
27. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD 25,000 as
detailed ut supra.
28. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request, Clause 4.3 of the Contract and
the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to
award the Player interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from
the day following the respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
o On the March 2025 salary, as from 16 March 2025;
o On the April 2025 salary, as from 16 April 2025;
o On the May 2025 salary, as from 16 May 2025;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21091
o On the June 2025 salary, as from 16 June 2025;
o On the July 2025 salary, as from 16 July 2025; and
o On the August 2025 salary, as from 16 August 2025.
29. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge 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.
30. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the Contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in the event of
breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
31. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge 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.
32. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of USD 81,161 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
o USD 18,000 for the period from September to December 2025;
o USD 60,500 for the period from January to November 2025; and
o USD 2,661 as 15 days of December 2025.
33. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Player 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 Football Tribunal 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21091
34. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that the Player did not secure new employment
following the termination of the Contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
35. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of
USD 81,161 to the Player (i.e., the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
36. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of 8 September 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. In continuation, and taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge
referred to art. 24 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision,
the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the
failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time. In this regard, he highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
principle, of a ban from registering new players, either nationally or internationally, up until
the due amounts are paid.
38. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded
where the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of art. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
39. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 16 January 2025 and notified on 24 January 2025, a transfer ban has been
imposed on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the
case FPSD-16994.
40. Accordingly, the Single Judge established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21091
41. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and a formal decision.
42. 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.
d. Costs
43. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
44. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
45. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21091
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kyrylo Melichenko, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Dinamo Batumi, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o USD 25,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,500 as from 16 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 16 August 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
o USD 81,161 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 8 September 2025.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
5.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21091
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. 12