Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22232
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Oleksii
Shchebetun
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Oleksii Shchebetun, Ukraine
Represented by Yuliya Bogdanova
RESPONDENT:
Kyzylzhar, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22232
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 January 2024, the Ukrainian player Oleksii Shchebetun (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Kazakh club Kyzylzhar (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an Employment Contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 1 November 2024.
2.
Clause 2 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following concerning the Player’s
obligations (quoted verbatim):
“2.2.27. in case of illness or injury, immediately contact the Employer’s football team
doctor and follow all of his instructions, including those regarding treatment in
recommended medical institutions. Consultations with other specialists, use of
physiotherapy, or following other medical instructions differing from those of the Club’s
Head Doctor must be agreed upon in advance and in writing with the Club’s Head Doctor.
When receiving treatment in recommended institutions, the [Player] must submit a sick
leave certificate to the [Club].”
3.
Clause 2 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following concerning the Club’s obligations:
“2.8.13. ensure, at its own expense, timely preventive, preliminary, and mandatory
medical examinations of the [Player], and, if necessary, provide medical treatment and
rehabilitation for the [Player] by qualified personnel during the performance of his
employment duties;
[…]
2.8.17. compensate for harm caused to the [Player]’s life and health in accordance with
the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”
4.
Clause 3 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“3. REMUNERATION
3.1. The [Player]’s monthly remuneration under this Employment Contract, from 10
January 2024 until the expiration of this Employment Contract, shall amount to KZT
3,680,000 (three million six hundred eighty thousand) net, which does not include taxes
and other mandatory payments to the budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
3.2. All taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan
related to the [Player]’s remuneration under this Employment Contract, on the territory
of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of
Kazakhstan, shall be paid by the [Player] in addition to the amount specified in clause
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22232
3.1. Taxes and other payments outside the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall
be paid by the [Player] independently.
3.3. The procedure, deadlines, and amount of bonus payments and other financial
incentives to the Employee for individual achievements shall be determined by the
[Club]’s internal Regulations.
3.4. Remuneration for downtime caused by the [Club] shall be established in the amount
provided by the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
3.5. Remuneration for downtime due to reasons beyond the control of both the [Club]
and the [Player] shall be established and paid in accordance with the deadlines provided
by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
3.6. In the event that the [Club]’s football team moves to a higher or lower football league,
the Parties may, by mutual consent, revise the employment conditions set forth in this
Employment Contract, in compliance with the requirements of the labor legislation of
the Republic of Kazakhstan. At the same time, such revision of working conditions shall
not apply in cases where the Player is performing for the second or third team of the
Employer for the purpose of recovery from injury and regaining sports fitness, provided
that there is no direct fault of the Player.
3.7. The base salary shall be paid at least once per month by transfer to the [Player]’s
bank account, no later than the 25th day of the month following the settlement month.”
5.
According to the Player, also on 10 January 2024, the parties signed an Additional
Agreement to the Contract (hereinafter: the Additional Agreement) setting out financial
terms, including a signing‑on bonus of KZT 2,500,000, subject to tax withholding, payable
no later than 1 March 2024 (quoted verbatim):
“1. The [Club] shall pay the [Player] a one-time personal bonus for signing the
employment contract in the amount of 2,500,000 (two million five hundred thousand)
KZT, subject to tax withholding, no later than 1 March 2024.
2. The [Club] shall pay the [Player] a one-time personal payment in the amount of
2,300,000 (two million three hundred thousand) tenge (net) in the event that the [Club]’s
team participates in European club tournaments held under the auspices of UEFA in the
2025 season. This payment shall be made no later than 1 March 2025.
3. The [Club] shall pay the [Player] a personal performance-based payment in the
amount of 920,000 (nine hundred twenty thousand) tenge (net) for every 5 points earned
by the [Player] in the ‘goal + assist’ system during the 2024 season, provided the [Player]
meets the corresponding condition; this payment shall be made within 30 calendar days
from the moment the relevant condition is fulfilled.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22232
4. The [Club] shall reimburse the [Player]’s travel expenses from the [Player]’s place of
residence to the [Club]’s location before the start of — and after the completion of — the
OLIMPBET Championship of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the 2024 football season.
5. The [Club] shall compensate the [Player] for the costs of apartment rental, on the basis
of the rental agreement provided by the [Player] in the 2024 season.
6. All payments to the [Player] shall be made from irrevocable funds and shall not
originate from sponsorship or conditional sources.
7. This Additional agreement to the Employment Contract is executed in three (3) copies,
each having equal legal force, with one copy for each of the Parties and one copy for the
PFLK.”
6.
The Club disputed the validity of the Additional Agreement, as it was never registered in
the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS).
7.
On 5 February 2024, the parties signed a Supplementary Agreement extending the
Contract until 11 November 2024, and this version was uploaded to the FIFA Connect/TMS
system.
8.
On 3 October 2024, during an official Premier League match, the Player suffered an
Anterior Crusade Ligament (ACL) rupture.
9.
On 4 October 2024, the Player underwent an MRI, which confirmed his knee injury.
10. On 14 October 2024, the Player underwent surgery in Astana, Kazakhstan. The parties do
not dispute that the Club covered the costs of the surgery.
11. On 11 November 2024, the Contract (as extended per the Supplementary Agreement)
expired, and the Player left for Moldova.
12. In March 2025, the Player entered into a new employment contract with the Moldovan club,
FC Zimbru.
13. In March–April 2025, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages with a person identified
as the Club’s accountant regarding overdue remuneration and expenses.
14. On 28 October 2025, the Club's accountant issued a letter to the Player, asking him to
provide additional supporting documents for his receipts:
“For the purpose of making a decision regarding payment for the treatment and
rehabilitation you have undergone, we kindly ask you to provide supporting
documents and receipts (payment invoice, act of completed works, fiscal receipt).”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22232
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 5 December 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
16. The Player first argued that the Club failed to pay the one-time signing bonus of KZT
2,500,000, which was due no later than 1 March 2024. He alleged that this omission
constituted a clear and unjustified breach of the financial obligations expressly agreed
upon in the Additional Agreement.
17. The Player also submitted that he sustained a serious ACL injury on 3 October 2024 during
an official match, while duly performing his contractual duties. He stated that although the
Club financed the surgery, it failed to cover the subsequent rehabilitation costs, despite:
•
•
•
its obligations under Clauses 2.1.8, 2.8.13, and 2.8.17 of the Employment
Contract;
the Club’s verbal approval of his rehabilitation plan;
repeated assurances that the rehabilitation expenses would be reimbursed.
18. The Player maintained that the Club’s obligation to ensure medical treatment and
rehabilitation survived the end of the contractual term, as the injury occurred during the
Contract’s validity.
19. In this regard, the Player alleged that after his surgery, the Club ceased all communication
and offered no support during his months-long recovery. He contended that he was left
alone to manage significant treatment and accommodation expenses, despite assurances
by the Club’s management. He further alleged that this conduct demonstrated a lack of
good faith and amounted to the Club abandoning its responsibilities towards an injured
player.
20. The Player stated that he acted in good faith by submitting all receipts and documents,
including via WhatsApp to the Club’s accountant. He contended that although the Club
confirmed receipt and stated that financing was being arranged, subsequent responses
became vague and no reimbursement was ever processed.
21. The Player asserted that he personally paid the following amounts:
•
•
KZT 313,800 for rehabilitation in Astana (invoices submitted).
EUR 7,000 for rehabilitation in Serbia.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22232
22. He submitted that these expenses were a direct consequence of an injury sustained while
fulfilling his obligations as an employee of the Club.
23. The Player submitted the following request for relief (quoted verbatim):
“1. ORDER FC KYZYLZHAR to pay in favor of the Player:
1.1. The outstanding one-time personal bonus for signing the Employment Contract in
the amount of 2,500,000 (two million five hundred thousand) KZT, plus an annual
interest of 5 % which should be calculated as from 02.03.2024 until the date of effective
payment;
1.2. The amount of 313 800,00 (three hundred thirteen thousand eight hundred) KZT for
his rehabilitation in Astana, Kazakhstan;
1.3. The amount of EUR 7 000,00 (seven thousand euros) for his rehabilitation in
Belgrade, Serbia.”
b. Reply of the Club
24. On 6 January 2026, the Club submitted its reply to the claim.
25. In its reply, the Club stated that it had concluded a Contract with the Player on 10 January
2024, later extending it through a Supplementary Agreement signed on 5 February 2024,
which was duly uploaded to the FIFA Connect/TMS system. It asserted that the Player
subsequently introduced another contract dated 10 January 2024 (i.e., the Additional
Agreement), but this document was never registered in TMS, carried a facsimile signature
of the former president, and lacked a verifiable execution date. Therefore, the Club
maintained that the Additional Agreement could not be deemed an integral or binding
component of the contractual framework. In particular, the Club argued that the clause
concerning the one‑time signing bonus of KZT 2,500,000 was included only in this disputed
agreement and that the Club’s approved budget for the relevant period did not
contemplate such a payment. Consequently, the Club contended that it bore no
contractual obligation to pay the signing bonus at the time it fell due.
26. Regarding the Player’s injury, the Club affirmed that the MRI performed on 4 October 2024
reflected signs of a partial ACL rupture related to a prior injury rather than a new acute
trauma. It declared that it had arranged and financed the Player’s surgery in Astana on 14
October 2024 as well as his initial course of rehabilitation at that institution. The Club
further asserted that the Player completed three additional rounds of rehabilitation in
Astana before the expiration of the Contract on 11 November 2024 and that these sessions
– although paid by the Player – had been carried out with the Club’s awareness and within
the contractual term. It emphasised that after the Contract expired, the Player returned to
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22232
Moldova, and no oral or written agreement existed authorising rehabilitation abroad,
including in Serbia.
27. The Club insisted that the Player’s subsequent rehabilitation in Serbia, from November
2024 until March 2025, had been undertaken without its approval, in violation of clause
2.2.27 of the Contract, which required prior written consent for any external treatment. It
claimed that the Player acknowledged in correspondence that no coordination had
occurred. The Club further noted that the Player had submitted only a scanned invoice as
proof of rehabilitation costs and had failed to provide a service contract, proof of payment,
fiscal receipts, or original documentation. After seeking verification directly from FTS
Training Systems on 23 December 2025, the Club reported receiving no official response
from the institution. Instead, it received an email from an unverifiable address containing
documents with inconsistent signatures and seals, lacking registration marks, and bearing
insufficient authenticity to meet FIFA evidentiary standards. Accordingly, the Club asserted
that the Serbia‑related documents had no probative value and could not prove any
financial outlay by the Player.
28. The Club also rejected the Player’s argument that he had been unable to secure
employment after the winter transfer window due to his injury. It submitted evidence that
the Player had, in fact, resumed his professional career shortly thereafter, including
documentation of the termination of his previous contract on 13 March 2025, a public
announcement by FC Zimbru on 16 March 2025, and the Player’s own application dated 17
March 2025. The Club maintained that these materials demonstrated not only the Player’s
employability but also the lack of factual basis for any claim of career disruption
attributable to the injury or the Club’s conduct.
29. Addressing the Player’s reliance on contractual clauses concerning medical obligations, the
Club stated that clause 2.1.8 did not impose an unconditional obligation to reimburse any
and all medical costs but instead required adherence to contractual procedures. It
explained that clause 2.8.13 limited the Club’s responsibilities to treatment and
rehabilitation occurring during the term of the employment relationship and under the
Club’s organizational control. The Club maintained that any post‑Contract medical
expenses fell outside its obligations unless expressly agreed otherwise, which was not the
case. It noted that even in scenarios where obligations might extend beyond contract
expiry, such obligations must be carried out within the Club’s approved medical program,
subject to the established approval procedure. The Club emphasised that the Player had
unilaterally selected the location, duration, and type of rehabilitation after the contract’s
expiration and therefore could not impose liability on the Club for such expenses.
30. Finally, the Club stated that it had already paid the Player the disputed amounts relating to
the signing bonus and the Astana rehabilitation expenses, but it firmly rejected
responsibility for the claimed EUR 7,000 related to the rehabilitation in Serbia. It concluded
that the Player’s claim lacked factual basis, contractual justification, and adequate proof,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22232
and it therefore requested that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) dismiss the
claim in full with respect to the Serbian rehabilitation costs.
31. The Club submitted the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“Based on the stated factual circumstances, the provisions of the Employment
Contract, the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the FIFA
Procedural Rules, and the established practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber,
the Club requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber:
1. To dismiss in full Player A. Shchebetun’s claim for reimbursement by the Club of
EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) for rehabilitation expenses allegedly incurred in
the Republic of Serbia, as unfounded and unproven.”
c. Replica of the Player
32. On 22 January 2026, the Player submitted his rejoinder on this matter.
33. The Player began by acknowledging that the Club had, after the filing of the claim, paid the
signing bonus of KZT 2,500,000 as well as KZT 313,800 corresponding to part of the
rehabilitation undertaken in Astana. However, he stressed that the core dispute remained
unresolved because the Club continued to refuse reimbursement of the rehabilitation
expenses incurred in Serbia. The Player argued that the Club’s objection relied on a purely
formalistic interpretation of the Contract, attempting to limit its medical obligations strictly
to the contract’s end date while disregarding the factual and legal reality that the injury
occurred during the course of employment and required extensive treatment beyond the
contract’s expiry.
34. The Player reaffirmed that the Club had been fully aware of, and had approved, the
rehabilitation plan. He recalled that shortly after suffering the ACL rupture on 3 October
2024, he attended a meeting with General Director Panin, Head Coach Aliyev, and the Club
doctor Kondratov. During this meeting, the Club doctor acknowledged that the Club lacked
adequate facilities for ACL surgery or professional rehabilitation. The Player explained that
he had informed the Club of his proposal to undergo surgery and initial therapy in Astana,
followed by continued rehabilitation in Serbia, and that this proposal had been met with
verbal approval. The Head Coach reportedly expressed support, and the General Director
raised no objection. He added that the Club’s conduct – financing the surgery, paying travel
expenses, and sending its doctor to accompany him – confirmed this approval and
constituted tacit acceptance of the overall treatment plan.
35. The Player rejected the Club’s assertion that he independently organised rehabilitation
abroad without the Club’s knowledge. He emphasised that the Club had never objected to
the plan, had offered no alternative course of treatment, and continued to behave in a
manner consistent with having approved the arrangement. He further noted that the Club
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22232
never issued warnings or instructions contradicting the agreed plan, neither before nor
after he began the rehabilitation in Serbia. The Player also highlighted that rehabilitating in
Serbia allowed him to recover in five months – an unusually short timeline for an ACL injury
and significantly more efficient than his recovery would have been had he remained in
Kazakhstan, where treatment options were more limited. He maintained that his actions
were medically justified and, ultimately, financially beneficial for the Club.
36. The Player next addressed the Club’s reliance on the Contract’s expiration. He reiterated
that the Club’s obligations under clauses 2.1.8, 2.8.13, and 2.8.17 were triggered not by the
Contract’s end date but by the causal link between the injury and the Player’s performance
of professional duties. He stressed that the ACL rupture occurred during an official Premier
League match and was therefore fully attributable to the Club’s employment relationship.
Accordingly, the Club’s obligation to ensure treatment and rehabilitation necessarily
extended beyond the technical termination date, given that the consequences of such a
serious injury persisted well after the contract expired. The Player maintained that this
interpretation was fully consistent with FIFA jurisprudence and general labour principles
governing injury-related disputes.
37. The Player asserted that he consistently acted in good faith. He stated that he kept the Club
informed, followed the agreed rehabilitation plan, and proposed solutions that were both
efficient and cost-effective. He also submitted all documents and receipts, maintained
ongoing communication with the Club’s accountant, and relied on the latter’s repeated
confirmations that payments were being arranged. He stressed that the Club’s accountant
continued to request documentation and to discuss reimbursement nearly a year after the
contract had expired, which, in the Player’s view, constituted clear acknowledgment by the
Club that its obligations remained active. The Player argued that if the Club truly believed
its obligations had ended in November 2024, it would not have engaged in such extensive
communication, nor would it have requested or reviewed documentation in October 2025.
38. The Player concluded that the Club was attempting to evade responsibility by artificially
restricting its obligations to the Contract period despite having full knowledge of the injury,
giving verbal assurances, cooperating in the initial treatment, and repeatedly
acknowledging continuing responsibility through communications long after the Contract
expired. He therefore reaffirmed his request that FIFA order the Club to reimburse the
pending EUR 7,000 for the rehabilitation performed in Serbia.
d. Duplica of the Club
39. On 28 January 2026, the Club submitted its duplica.
40. The Club firmly maintained its position that the Player’s rehabilitation costs in Serbia were
not reimbursable. It reiterated that such expenses had not been agreed upon, had been
incurred after the expiration of the Contract, lacked proper evidentiary support, and bore
no causal link to any breach by the Club. The Club argued that the Player’s comments
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22232
attempted to substitute contractual requirements with subjective notions of “reasonable
expectations” and “moral obligations,” which, according to the Club, had no legal relevance
in DRC practice.
41. The Club specifically contested the Player’s assertion that the rehabilitation in Serbia had
been verbally approved by Club management. It stated that neither the Contract nor FIFA
regulations recognised verbal agreements for medical treatment, especially those involving
rehabilitation abroad or the creation of financial obligations. Instead, the Club emphasised
that clause 2.2.27 unequivocally required prior written approval for any medical treatment
outside what was prescribed by the Club’s physician. As such, the Player was required to
obtain written permission, a medical referral, or an approved medical plan – none of which
were ever provided. The Club added that references to alleged discussions with the General
Director, the Head Coach, or the team doctor could not be treated as admissible evidence
under the standards applied by the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS). It also noted that the fact that it had paid for the surgery, travel, and doctor
supervision during the Contract did not imply agreement to any post‑contract
rehabilitation abroad. These measures, the Club argued, related exclusively to its
obligations during the contract term and could not be interpreted as “tacit consent” for later
medical expenses.
42. On the duration of its medical obligations, the Club maintained that even though the Player
had suffered the injury during the contract period, this did not automatically obligate the
Club to cover all subsequent medical treatments. It asserted that the medical reports
indicated a recurrence of a pre‑existing injury rather than a new work‑related incident.
Moreover, it argued that clauses 2.1.8, 2.8.13, and 2.8.17 contained no provisions
extending medical obligations beyond the end of the employment relationship, nor did
they grant the Player the discretion to select any medical provider or country. The Club also
stressed that the DRC may extend obligations post‑expiration only in exceptional cases
where the Club breached an agreed medical program and where costs were proven,
necessary, and proportionate – conditions it insisted were not satisfied in this case.
43. Addressing the Player’s argument regarding good faith and “reasonable expectations,” the
Club stated that post‑contract communication did not equate to acknowledgment of
liability. It explained that the correspondence with the accounting and legal departments
was merely part of standard verification procedures and could not substitute a written
agreement. The Club further emphasised that subjective expectations did not create legally
enforceable obligations and that DRC assessed only objective contractual evidence. It also
underscored that the Player only began pursuing compensation after signing with another
club, which the Club argued undermined the notion of an ongoing medical necessity tied
to the Player’s former employment.
44. The Club again challenged the evidentiary value of the Player’s documents. It asserted that
the material submitted consisted exclusively of scanned invoices and lacked signatures,
fiscal receipts, contracts for services, or any verification that payments had actually been
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22232
made. The Club also pointed out that supposed confirmations had been sent from an
unofficial email address, raising doubts about authenticity. It emphasised that the Player
had not submitted a single payment document – such as bank statements, payment orders,
or receipts – showing he had incurred the expenses in question.
45. In its conclusion, the Club maintained that it had fully complied with all obligations during
the term of the Contract. It reiterated that the Player’s rehabilitation in Serbia was
independent, uncoordinated, post‑Contract, unsupported by admissible evidence, and not
proven to have been paid. Accordingly, the Club argued that the expenses created no
financial responsibility for the Club. The Club therefore requested that the DRC reject in full
the Player’s claim for reimbursement of EUR 7,000 relating to rehabilitation in Serbia.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. 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 5 December 2025 and submitted for decision
on 9 April 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
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.
47. 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 Ukrainian player and a Kazakh club.
48. 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
49. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22232
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
50. 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
51. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned several
outstanding amounts (signing bonus; rehabilitation expenses in Astana; rehabilitation
expenses in Serbia.
52. Given that, during the course of the proceedings, the Club paid KZT 2,500,000
corresponding to the signing bonus and KZT 313,800 corresponding to the rehabilitation
expenses incurred in Astana, and those payments were expressly acknowledged by the
Player in his rejoinder, the Chamber held that the dispute was consequently limited to the
Player’s claim for reimbursement of EUR 7,000 relating to the rehabilitation undertaken in
Belgrade, Serbia.
53. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the Club
was liable to reimburse the Player EUR 7,000 for rehabilitation undertaken in Serbia
between 15 November 2024 and 15 March 2025.
54. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Player argued that the Club remained
responsible for covering his full rehabilitation following the serious ACL injury sustained
during an official match on 3 October 2024, and that this obligation extended beyond the
Contract’s expiry because the injury occurred during the Contract and required long-term
treatment. He maintained that the Club was fully aware of, and verbally approved, the
proposed rehabilitation plan – initial surgery and therapy in Astana followed by continued
treatment in Serbia – and that the Club’s conduct, including paying for the surgery, travel,
and sending the Club doctor, confirmed its approval. The Player emphasised that he acted
in good faith, continuously provided documentation, and relied on the Club accountant’s
confirmations that financing was being arranged, which he viewed as acknowledgment of
ongoing responsibility. He therefore insisted that the EUR 7,000 spent on rehabilitation in
Belgrade constituted necessary, injury-related costs that the Club had agreed to reimburse.
55. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club rejected any responsibility for the Player’s
Serbian rehabilitation expenses, arguing that the treatment occurred after the Contract
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22232
expired on 11 November 2024 and was undertaken entirely at the Player’s own initiative
without the written approval required under clause 2.2.27 of the Contract. The Club
maintained that neither the Contract nor the Regulations recognised verbal agreements
for medical expenses abroad and that support provided during the Contract – such as
paying for surgery, travel, and doctor supervision – could not be interpreted as consent to
post-contract rehabilitation. It further asserted that the Player failed to provide admissible
proof of payment, having submitted only scanned invoices lacking receipts, fiscal
documentation, or verifiable confirmation from the provider, and that correspondence
from an unofficial email address raised authenticity concerns. As a result, the Club argued
that the Player did not demonstrate either contractual entitlement or evidentiary proof of
the EUR 7,000 expense, and the claim should therefore be dismissed.
56. In this context and at the outset, the Chamber noted that the Contract expressly required
written approval from the Club’s medical staff for any medical treatment outside the Club’s
structure (clause 2.2.27), and that the Player did not provide any such written authorization.
57. The Chamber further noted that the Player relied on alleged verbal approvals by individuals
indicated as the Club’s General Director and Head Coach. While the Chamber could not
exclude that conversations took place, the Chamber recalled the established practice of
the Football Tribunal, according to which verbal assurances do not create enforceable
financial obligations, especially when (i) the Contract expressly requires written
authorization; and (ii) the medical expenses were incurred abroad.
58. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Player did not obtain the mandatory written
approval required by the Contract for rehabilitation abroad.
59. In continuation, the Chamber assessed the duration of the Club’s medical obligations. In
this respect, the Chamber noted that, according to the parties’ submissions and the case
file, the injury was sustained during the Contract and that the Club duly covered the cost
of surgery and related immediate post-operative expenses.
60. The Chamber held, however, that post-contractual obligations arise only when expressly
agreed or when the Club breached an agreed medical program. In the present matter, the
Chamber found no evidence of:
•
•
•
an agreed medical program binding the Club after 11 November 2024;
a contractual provision requiring the Club to cover medical expenses after expiry;
any post-contractual negligence by the Club.
61. Consequently, the Chamber was not convinced that the Club’s medical obligations
extended beyond the Contract period.
62. Finally, the Chamber thoroughly examined the proof of payment of the Serbian expenses,
noting that, as established by the Club, the Player submitted a scanned invoice from FTS
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-22232
Training Systems but did not provide any payment receipts, bank confirmations, or fiscal
documentation.
63. The Chamber further noted that the Club attempted verification and received replies from
an unofficial email address, which raised concerns as to the authenticity of the documents.
64. Notably, the Chamber underscored that, consistent with Football Tribunal practice, an
invoice alone is insufficient to establish that an expense was actually incurred, and the
burden of proof rests with the party invoking the right for reimbursement (i.e., the Player
in the present case). The Chamber therefore concluded that the Player did not meet the
required burden of proof to demonstrate that he actually paid EUR 7,000.
65. Based on the absence of written authorization, the lack of post-contractual obligation, and
the failure to prove payment of the expenses, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s
request for reimbursement of EUR 7,000 must be rejected.
d. Costs
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-22232
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Oleksii Shchebetun, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-22232
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