Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18533
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Sukhrob Nurulloev
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI, Qatar
CLAIMANT:
Sukhrob Nurulloev, Uzbekistan
Represented by Vadim Lyubinskiy
RESPONDENT:
Kedah Darul Aman Football Club, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18533
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 February 2024, the Uzbek player, Sukhrob Nurulloev (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Malaysian club, Kedah Darul Aman Football Club (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
On 26 December 2024, the parties concluded a document entitled “Agreement to mutual
termination football player contract” (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
3.
The terms of the Termination Agreement were as follows (quoted verbatim):
“a. The Club shall pay the outstanding salary payment including signing fee with amount
is USD 88,460.16 as schedule bellow:
b.
NO
1
DESCRIPTION
1st payment
AMOUNT
USD 20,000
2
2nd payment
USD 20,000
3
3rd payment
USD 20,000
4
4th payment
USD 28,560.16
DATE
Before End of 30th
January 2025
Before End of 28th
February 2025
Before End of 30th
March 2025
Before End of 30th
April 2025
c. The Player agrees to surrender the house without any damage of the house condition,
without any payables of the utility bills, any damage of the and car that provide to him
from the Club and do not make any further claims against the Club upon execution of
this Agreement;
d. The Club agrees not to make any further claims against the Player and further agrees
to provide permission to the Player to sign with any new team on 26th December 2024;
e. The Player agrees not to make any disclosure the content of this Agreement to third
party without written approval from the Club. Failing which, the Player shall be
accountable to any damages incurred by the Club; and
f. The Player hereby declares that it fully understands the term of this Agreement, has
had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice in connection of this Agreement
and that it voluntarily accepts same for the purpose of making full and final compromise,
adjustment and settlement of all claims as aforesaid, whether arising by force of
contract, at common law, or under applicable laws.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18533
4.
On 6 February 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD
20,000 corresponding to the first instalment of the Termination Agreement, within 10 days.
5.
On 24 February 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter, informing him that it was facing
financial difficulties. In this regard, the Club requested an extension of the deadline until
10 March 2025 to resolve the matter.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 11 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
The Player argued that the Club failed to pay him the amounts agreed upon in the
Termination Agreement. In this respect, the Player pointed out that, according to the
Termination Agreement, the Club undertook to pay him USD 20,000 before the end of 30
January 2025. Nonetheless, according to the Player, the Club failed to fulfil this payment
obligation and, therefore, he sent a notice of default on 6 February 2025, but the
Respondent also failed to make the payment within the deadline granted.
8.
Furthermore, the Player stated that the Club requested additional time to make the
payment, but the outstanding amounts were not paid.
9.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“REQUEST
For the facts and legal arguments that were developed above, we request the Respondent
pays the next outstanding amounts:
1) USD 20,000.00 + 5% p.a. from February 1, 2025, until the date of effective payment;
2) USD 68,560.16 + 5% p.a. from March 1, 2025, until the date of effective payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club acknowledged a debt owed to the Player and argued that it was in the
final stage of resolving the outstanding payments of the Player. In this sense, the Club
contended that it was facing financial difficulties but maintained that it had always been
committed to settling the amounts due.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18533
11. The Club also requested additional time until 30 April 2025 to settle the outstanding
payment.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 11 March 2025 and submitted
for decision on 1 May 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.
13. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. 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
16. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18533
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration arising from a termination
agreement.
18. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to comply with the
terms outlined in the Termination Agreement and, therefore, he requests payment of the
total amount established therein.
19. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Club acknowledged having outstanding
payments towards the Player and merely requested additional time to make the payment.
20. In this context, and considering that the Club admitted owing a debt and did not provide
any evidence of having paid any amount, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was
only to determine the amount the Club owes the Player.
21. First, the Single Judge observed that in the Termination Agreement, the parties established
that the Club would pay the Player USD 88,560.16 in four instalments: the first instalment
was to be paid by no later than 30 January 2025, the second by no later than 28 February
2025, the third by no later than 30 March 2025 and the fourth by no later than 30 April
2025.
22. The Single Judge also noted that the Player lodged the claim on 11 March 2025, arguing
that the Club failed to pay the first instalment of USD 20,000 before end of 30 January 2025,
and requesting the total amount of the Termination Agreement. However, the Single Judge
pointed out that the Termination Agreement did not include an acceleration clause, which
would have made all the remaining instalments due in the event of non-payment of one
instalment.
23. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that the Player failed to explain why he was claiming
the full amount of the Termination Agreement. For the sake of completeness, and although
this was not expressly argued by the Player, the Single Judge wished to mention that she
did not consider that, through the letter dated 24 February 2025, the Club undertook to
pay all the amounts stipulated in the Termination Agreement by 10 March 2025, as such a
letter only referred to the first instalment.
24. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the instalments due at the time the Player
lodged the claim were the first (USD 20,000 payable before end of 30 January 2025) and
the second (USD 20,000 payable before end of 28 February 2025). In contrast, the third and
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18533
fourth instalments were not yet due when the Player filed his claim, as their respective due
dates were set for 30 March 2025 and 30 April 2025.
25. In this context, the Single Judge underlined that the date when the claim is lodged is
dispositive. In this sense, the Single Judge considered that if the amounts were not due at
the time of filing, they could not be awarded. Consequently, the Single Judge determined
that the debt owed to the Player was USD 40,000.
26. At this point, the Single Judge underscored that the Club did not provide any evidence of
the alleged financial difficulties it asserted. In any case, the Single Judge recalled the
longstanding jurisprudence of Football Tribunal, that on many occasions has said that
financial difficulties are not a valid justification for non-payment of contractually agreed
amounts.
27. For this reason, the Single Judge decided to award the Player the first and the second
instalment, i.e., USD 40,000, while the rest of the claim was deemed premature, without
prejudice to any future claim by the Claimant regarding the third and fourth instalments.
28. Regarding interest, the Single Judge considered that it should in principle apply as from the
day following each due date, i.e., 31 January 2025 and 1 March 2025. However, as the Player
requested interest on the first instalment as from 1 February 2025, the Single Judge
decided to accept his request, to avoid ruling ultra petita. On the second instalment, the
Single Judge decided to award interest as from 1 March 2025.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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
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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18533
32. 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.
33. 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
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18533
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sukhrob Nurulloev, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kedah Darul Aman Football Club, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount:
- USD 40,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 20,000 as from 1 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 20,000 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected, without prejudice to any claim that may be
filed with FIFA for the third and fourth payment instalment set forth in the contract at the
basis of the present claim, which were premature at the date the claim was lodged.
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18533
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18533
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. 11