Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16519
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sardor
Kulmatov
BY:
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal)
CLAIMANT:
Sardor Kulmatov, Uzbekistan
Represented by the Professional Footballers Association of Malaysia (PFAM)
RESPONDENT:
Terengganu FC, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16519
I. Facts of the case
1.
Allegedly, on 28 November 2022, the Uzbek player Sardor Kulmatov (hereinafter: Claimant
or Player) and the Malaysian club (hereinafter: Club or Respondent), jointly referred as the
“parties” concluded an Offer Letter (hereinafter: the Offer Letter).
2.
In accordance with the Offer Letter, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
signing fee of no more than a monthly salary equal to MYR 69,750.
3.
On 30 December 2022, the parties concluded a Professional Player’s Contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023.
4.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant, inter alia, the
following amount (quoted verbatim):
“Schedule A – Salary a) First year Season 2023: RM 42,785.50 per month and must be paid no
later than the 7th of the following month.
(Nett Salary: RM 34,750.00 and Income Tax: Balance a nett salary).”
5.
On 18 September 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested the
payment of MYR 69,750, setting a 10 days’ time limit expiring on 28 September 2024 in
order to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 10 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
towards the Claimant even after putting the Respondent in default.
8.
Consequently, the Claimant requested FIFA (quoted verbatim):
“In the above circumstances, in the grievance, I respectfully request the FIFA DRC hereby award
the Player:
(i) the Club immediately the total claim in the amount of USD 15,500.00 (RM 69,750.00).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16519
(ii) sanctions under article 12bis of the RSTP, cumulatively and severely, including fining the Club
or banning the Club from registering new players, either nationally or internationally, for two
registration periods; and
(iii) any other or further remedy that the DRC deems appropriate.”
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
In its reply, the Respondent stated that full payment related to this dispute had been made
and provided evidence of bank receipts.
c. Reaction of the Claimant to alleged payment
10. Upon request of the FIFA General Secretariat, on 8 November 2024, the Player informed:
“Please be informed that the player has filed two cases with FIFA. The first case is a claim for the
Player’s Salary (Ref. No. 15920) and the second case is a claim for signing fees (Ref.16519 TFC
quoted the wrong reference number in their letter dated 3 November 2024. The payment
receipts attached to the letter pertain to the player’s salary, not to the amount related to this
signing fee claim. The Club still owes USD 15,500.00 (RM 69,750) for the signing fees claim.
Therefore, we request that the Club amend the reference number and settle the overdue
payments.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16519
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether she was
competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took note that the present
matter was presented to FIFA on 10 October 2024 and submitted for decision on 10
February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 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.
12. 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) January
2025 edition, the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Uzbek player
and a Malaysian club.
13. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that, in accordance
with art. 29 par. of the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of said regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
14. 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
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 she 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
15. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16519
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
16. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of unpaid amounts owed to the Claimant.
17. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
claimed amount indeed remains unpaid without prima facie contractual basis.
18. The Single Judge first recalled the arguments made by the Claimant, who asserted that the
Club signed the Offer Letter which contained a signing fee amounting MYR 69,750 (USD
15,500). The Single Judge also recalled that, on its part, the Respondent argued it paid all
the amounts due to the Claimant, providing proofs of payment for the amount of MYR
69,750 disbursed to the Claimant in several payments during the course of time.
19. The Single Judge considered it was also worth recalling that, upon being confronted with
the proofs of payment, the Claimant denied that he received such payments, as he stated
that these payments corresponded to amounts claimed in another case filed by the
Claimant against the Respondent regarding his salary.
20. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the signing fee claimed by the Player is a
different amount than the salary stipulated in the Contract, i.e. MYR 42,785.50. In this
regard, the Single Judge noted that on its response, the Respondent only stated that the
amount in the present dispute was paid in full, without disputing that the signing fee was
due. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded, that the signing fee was not superseded by
the signing of the Contract, and therefore, the Claimant’s entitlement to the signing fee was
tacitly acknowledged by the Respondent.
21. The Single Judge also considered that, from the analysis of the payment receipts provided
by the Respondent, the concept of the bank transfers is missing. In addition, after carefully
analysing the dates of the transfers receipts, the Single Judge observed that several of
those payments' receipts were made before the claim was lodged. For this reason, as well
as the fact that the Claimant stated that the payments made by the Respondent
corresponded to his salary claimed in another case file and not to the signing fee, the
Single Judge was of the opinion that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that such
payment receipts could be attributed to the amount due to the Claimant for the signing
fee.
22. In light of the above, the Single Judge remarked that in the case at hand, the Respondent
bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Offer
Letter concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge concluded that the
evidence provided by the Respondent in its response does not sufficiently prove the
payment of the amount claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16519
23. Then, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant confirmed that he received a partial
payment of MYR 10,000 (USD 2,238.75) from the Respondent, which was made on 13
December 2024. However, the Single Judge emphasized that the Claimant stated that this
amount of MYR 59,750 (USD 13,265.25) was still outstanding.
24. Regarding such payment, the Single Judge noted that the bank transfer receipt dated 13
December 2024, provided by the Claimant in his letter dated 18 December 2024, reads:
“Sardor Ejen Fee”.
25. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that by submitting the partial payment made on 13
December 2024, the Respondent by its own acts, recognized that it still owed the claimed
amount for the signing fee. Equally, the Single Judge concluded that said partial payment
corresponded to the signing fee requested by the Claimant.
26. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that despite the fact that the Claimant requested
the amount to be paid in USD in his request for relief, the amount of the signing fee was
stipulated in the Offer Letter in MYR and the partial payment was made in MYR. Therefore,
based on the foregoing as well as FIFA’s well-established practice on this point, the Single
Judge held that the amount owed should be paid in MYR.
27. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
we propose to award the Player the outstanding amount of MYR 59,750 due corresponding
to the signing fee from the Offer Letter.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
28. Finally, 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.
29. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
30. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16519
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.
31. 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.
32. The Single Judge 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
33. 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
34. 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.
35. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16519
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sardor Kulmatov, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Terengganu FC, must pay the Claimant the following amount:
- MYR 59,750 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. 9
REF. FPSD-16519
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 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. 10