Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15404
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Ivan Georgiev Turitsov
BY:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ivan Georgiev Turitsov, Bulgaria
Represented by SILA International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
FC Khimki, Russia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15404
I. Facts of the case
1.
The present dispute concerns an alleged employment contract between the Bulgarian
player Ivan Georgiev Turitsov (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the Russian club FC
Khimki (hereinafter: club or Respondent), valid as from 25 June 2024 until 10 June 2027.
2.
According to such purported contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant as
follows:
Art. 7: Remuneration
7.2.1. for the period 25.06.2024 to 30.06.2025, Annual Earnings (before tax) in the amount of
USD 355,512 (three hundred fifty-five thousand five hundred and twelve US dollars);
7.1.2. for the period from 01.07.2025 to 30.06.2026, Annual Earnings (before tax) in the amount
of USD 379,860 (three hundred seventy-nine thousand eight hundred sixty US dollars);
7.1.3. for the period 01.07.2026 to 10.06.2027, Annual Earnings (before tax) in the amount of
USD 408,096 (four hundred and eight thousand ninety-six US dollars).
(…)
7.3. The Footballer's Monthly Earnings shall be calculated on the basis of 1/12 of the relevant
Annual Earnings, in proportion to the working days actually worked (with the working days
falling during the period when the Footballer is on paid leave being equal to the days worked
for the purposes of calculating the Monthly Earnings),
and shall include the following:
(a) monthly salary (clause 7.4 of the present Agreement);
(b) monthly incentive payment for the proper performance of the Footballer's duties (clause
7.6 of this Agreement);
(…)
7.4. The Club shall pay the monthly salary to the Footballer in the amount of 300,000 (Three
hundred thousand) Russian rubles. The salary is paid twice a month - before the 25th of the
current month for the first half of the month, and before the 10th of the following month for the
second half of the month. For a partially worked month, the monthly salary is calculated
proportionally to the working days worked.
7.5. The Club shall pay the Footballer an additional one-off signing-on fee of USD 355,512 (three
hundred fifty-five thousand five hundred and twelve US dollars) (before tax) according to
the following fee schedule:
• USD 118,504 (one hundred and eighteen thousand five hundred and four US dollars) (before
tax) no later than 31.07.2024;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15404
• USD 118,504 (one hundred and eighteen thousand five hundred and four US dollars) (before
tax) no later than 31.08.2024;
• USD 118,504 (one hundred and eighteen thousand five hundred and four US dollars) (before
tax) no later than 30.09.2024.
7.6. The monthly incentive payment for a full pay month shall be calculated as the difference
between (i) the Monthly Salary, (ii) the sum of the monthly salary and (iii) the sum of the average
earnings payments for the pay month. In the event that the sum of the monthly salary and
average earnings payments for the billing month is greater than the Monthly Salary, such excess
will be taken into account in calculating the monthly incentive payment in the following billing
periods (months). The monthly incentive payment shall be paid by the 15th day of the month
following the payable month.
7.8. The Club has no obligation to pay the Footballer's rent and, in connection therewith, the
Club shall pay the Footballer an additional monthly remuneration of 1,177 (one thousand one
hundred seventy-seven US dollars).
3.
Between 11 June 2024 and 24 June 2024, the Claimant’s and Respondent’s respective
representatives exchanged various correspondences and conducted various phone calls
negotiating the terms of a potential employment contract. The key facts thereof may be
summarized as follows.
4.
On 11 June 2024, an intermediary purportedly working on behalf of the Respondent sent a
draft employment agreement to the Claimant and his agent.
5.
On 12 June 2024, a second draft was exchanged between the aforementioned individuals.
Equally, within said exchange of correspondence, the intermediary of the Respondent
shared the Respondent’s in-house legal counsel’s telephone number with the Claimant’s
agent.
6.
On the same day, the Respondent’s and Claimant’s agents exchanged a third draft
agreement.
7.
On 13 June 2024, the Respondent’s in-house counsel contacted the Claimant’s agent via
telephone, requesting the latter to discuss the terms of the Claimant’s contract.
8.
On 17 June 2024, the Respondent’s in-house counsel sent the Claimant’s agent a fourth
draft contract for the latter’s perusal.
9.
On the same day, the Claimant replied to the Respondent, sending a fifth draft contract
and requesting a phone call with the latter to further discuss amendments to the
agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15404
10. On 18 June 2024, the Respondent sent to the Claimant’s representative an official proposal
via email, with the following contents:
“Dear sir,
Hope this letter find you well.
Sending to you a new version of the Contract with Mr. Turitsov.
As you asked before, we can confirm that amounts in the Contract stated the
following:
7.2.1 – 25 000 $ per month net;
7.2.2 – 27 000 $ per month net;
7.2.3 – 29 000 $ per month net;
7.5 – 300 000$ net;
7.8 – 1 000 $ per month net as rent compensation;
Our Club will wait your decision.
Sincerely yours,
FC “Khimki””
11. On 19 June 2024, the Claimant’s agent and Respondent’s in-house counsel spoke on the
telephone on two occasions.
12. On 20 June 2024, the Claimant’s agent messaged the Respondent’s counsel via the
messaging service WhatsApp, requesting an update on the “Claimant’s contract”.
13. On 21 June 2024, the Respondent’s counsel sent the Claimant a sixth draft agreement via
email (the alleged employment contract, cf. point 1 et seq. supra).
14. On the same day, the Claimant’s agent acknowledged receipt of the last draft of the
contract via WhatsApp, and informed the Respondent’s counsel as follows:
“Thx Alex , will check all and after proceed for next step
(…)
Hi Alex, we r ready, proceed next step, all agreed here”
15. On 24 June 2024, the Claimant, via his agent, formally replied to the email dated
21 June 2024 containing the sixth proposal (cf. point. 13 supra), informing as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15404
“Dear all,
Thanks for detailed email , Mr Turitsov accept your Contract proposal so pls proceed with next
step , visa issue and plane tickets.
Best Regards
Dimitar Atanasov”
16. On the same day, the Claimant, via his agent, messaged the Respondent’s counsel,
requesting an update on the contract and information about the flight tickets. He further
requested the Respondent whether sending a signed copy of the contract was necessary,
since he communicated acceptance via email and intended to formally sign the contract
once arriving at the club’s premises.
17. On the same day still, the Respondent’s counsel replied, informing that he would check the
“details of trip” and revert to the Claimant and his agent in due course.
18. On 25 June 2024, the Respondent’s counsel informed the Claimant that he should contact
the sporting director in order to discuss.
19. On the same day, the Claimant’s agent and the Respondent’s sporting director exchanged
messages via WhatsApp, organising a call for the following day.
20. On 26 June 2024, the Respondent’s sporting director allegedly contacted the Claimant via
telephone, informing the latter that the former had appointed a new head coach and that
said coach was not interested in the Claimant’s services. Therefore, by virtue of the fact
that the Contract was not formally signed, the Respondent did not acknowledge the
Contract’s validity.
21. On 27 June 2024, the Claimant, via legal counsel, sent a formal notice to the Respondent,
informing it as follows:
“Dear Sir or Madam,
I have been instructed by the Bulgarian player Ivan Georgiev Turitsov and his FIFA
agent Dimitar Atanasov (Cc).
On June 18, 2024, after long negotiations, FC Khimki sent a contract offer to Mr. Turitsov via Mr.
Atanasov by email (see attached). On June 24, 2024, after consulting with me, Mr. Atanasov
accepted the contract offer on behalf of Mr. Turitsov by email (see attached).
Mr. Atanasov informed me that FC Khimki’s Sports Director, Anar Mamedov, has now told him
that the employment contract is not valid because it has not been signed. It seems that FC Khimki
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15404
does not wish to execute the employment contract and is looking for a cheap excuse to opt out
of its contractual obligations towards Mr. Turitsov.
In this respect, pursuant to more recent FIFA and CAS jurisprudence (see attached), a signature
is not a mandatory element for an employment contract to be considered valid. The essential
elements of an employment contract between a player and a club must include (i) the duration
of the contract, (ii) the subordination of the player to the club, (iii) the personal performance,
and (iv) wages. All these requirements are met in respect of the contract offer in the present case.
Mr. Turitsov has already accepted the contract offer. Therefore, a valid and binding employment
contract exists between the parties with a term of validity from June 20, 2024, to June 10, 2027.
In light of the above, I hereby invite FC Khimki to provide Mr. Turitsov with a visa invitation and
an air ticket to travel to Russia to execute the contract and comply with his duties and
obligations.
Should FC Khimki fail to comply with the above request by July 1, 2024, Mr. Turitsov will interpret
FC Khimki’s behavior as a material breach of the employment contract and reserves the right to
file a claim against FC Khimki with the FIFA Football Tribunal.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.”
22. On 28 June 2024, the Respondent replied as follows:
“Dear (…),
Hope this letter find you well.
The Club shall not fulfill your requirements based on the fact that FC Khimki never concluded an
employment contract with Mr. Turitsov. Moreover, the Club never sent any official documents
signed or stamped by the Club’s CEO or any other official representative. Any expectation that
the Club has entered into an employment relationship with the Player is obviously false and
looks like an attempt to mislead the Club. The Club has never made any false expectation that
a contract has been signed or the Club will sign the Contract in the future. It is clear that the
proposal sent earlier was just a part of a multi-stage negotiations which already closed without
any obligations between the Player and the Club.
It is also obvious that signing of any employment contract requires:
- Prepare visa;
- Buy air-tickets to the Club;
- Get successful medical check-up;
- Sign the Contract or any other official document.
The fact is that none of the above was even discussed during the negotiations. Also the fact that
you required in your message visa invitation and an air ticket to travel to Russia is additionally
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15404
confirms that the contract negotiations were preliminary and did not bind the parties to any
obligations.
Based on what, FC Khimki has to confirm that the Club never concluded an employment contract
or entered into an employment relationship with Mr, Turitsov and decline all your requirements.
Sincerely yours,
FC Khimki.”
23. On the same day, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s latest
correspondence, stating that he considered this a repudiatory breach of the contract and
that the Respondent does not intend to adhere to the terms of the purportedly concluded
contract, therefore informing the latter that it intends to file a claim before the Football
Tribunal for breach of contract.
24. On 1 July 2024, the player signed an employment contract with the Bulgarian club CSKA
Sofia, valid as from the date of signature until 10 June 2026, including a monthly
remuneration of BGN 15,000, a sign-on fee of BGN 20,000 and rental support of EUR 800
(hereinafter: the New Contract).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. On 30 July 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
26. In his claim, the player argued that he and the Respondent concluded a valid and binding
employment contract on 24 June 2024 when his agent formally accepted the offer sent by
the club on 21 June 2024 via email.
27. The Claimant contended that the lack of a formal signature did not detract from the
existence and validity of a binding employment contract, given that the jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal and the CAS lays down that agreement to be legally bound can be
communicated in other ways than a signature, as long as such communication is clear and
unequivocal.
28. The Claimant thereafter argued that, despite the existence of a valid and binding contract,
the Respondent simply denied its existence and verbally communicated its intention to no
longer pursue an employment relationship with the former.
29. Therefore, the Claimant argued that the Respondent’s denial of an existing valid and
binding contract and failure to take the necessary steps as an employer (i.e., visa
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15404
formalities, travel arrangements and integration into the squad) constitutes a breach of
contract without just cause, giving rise to liability for compensation for the Respondent.
30. The Claimant formulated the following request for relief as a result:
-
USD 355,512 as a sign-on fee based on Clause 7.5 of the Agreement;
USD 355,512 as remuneration from June 25, 2024, until June 30, 2025, based on
Clause 7.2.1 of the Agreement;
USD 379,860 as remuneration from July 1, 2025, until June 30, 2026, based on
Clause 7.2.2 of the Agreement;
USD 408,096 as remuneration from July 1, 2026, until June 10, 2027, based on
Clause 7.2.3 of the Agreement;
USD 41,783.50 (i.e., 35.5 months x USD 1,177) as monthly accommodation
allowance from June 25, 2024, until June 10, 2027, based on Clause 7.8 of the
Agreement,
Deduction: USD 205,277.29 (alleged mitigation under the New Contract)
-
Total: USD 1,335,486.21, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 28 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
31. In its reply, the Respondent denied the existence of a formal employment contract between
itself and the Claimant.
32. The Respondent emphasised that the Claimant never formally signed any contract, which
was a requirement to give rise to a valid and binding employment relationship between the
parties.
33. The Respondent further outlined that it negotiated with the Claimant in good faith, and
that it underwent a change in management which explains the loss of interest.
Notwithstanding, the Respondent firmly argued that it never formally concluded a valid
and binding contract, nor did it create any legitimate expectations, particularly since the
draft agreements sent were all Microsoft Word documents – indicating that they were
subject to amendments and “far from being finalised”.
34. The Respondent equally argued that the essential terms of the contract, which are requisite
for the conclusion of a valid and binding contract (“essentialia negotii”) were not yet agreed
upon between the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15404
35. On one hand, the Respondent stated that the start date of the alleged contract was not
agreed upon by the parties – in the sense that the draft agreements in English and Russian
contained different start dates (20 June 2024 RU vs. 25 June 2024 EN).
36. On the other hand, the Respondent asserted that the sign-on fee differed between the
Russian and English versions of the alleged contract.
37. The Respondent equally stressed that the varying methods of communication – such as the
communication of the sixth (“final”) via WhatsApp and the purported acceptance by the
Claimant dated 24 June 2024 – in reply to the offer dated 18 June 2024 – created confusion
and a lack of an unequivocal acceptance.
38. The Respondent equally invoked Russian law labour to argue that the lack of a physical
signature of the contract detracted from its validity.
39. In conclusion, the Respondent firmly asserted that there was no valid and binding
employment contract ever concluded between the parties.
40. Therefore, the Respondent requested the rejection of the parties’ claim.
c. Position of the Respondent
41. In his replica, the Claimant insisted that a valid contract was concluded, as the lack of a
signature did not detract from the formal acceptance of the terms. The Claimant referred
to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal in this respect.
42. The Claimant argued additionally that the varying methods of communication did not entail
that there was a broken chain of negotiation, and that he formally accepted the last offer
sent via WhatsApp with the email dated 24 June 2024.
43. The Claimant also argued that the draft sent on 21 June 2024 (the final draft) was not a precontract, as the Respondent gave no express indication that it had no intention to be legally
bound. In other words, the offer sent constituted an intention to be legally bound.
44. As to the alleged agent of the Respondent, the Claimant emphasised that he never formally
purported a mandate between the agent and the Respondent; only that said agent was
involved in the negotiations. In any event, the Claimant stressed, this did not affect the
Respondent’s undertaking to be bound subsequently, as it continued to negotiate through
its in-house counsel.
45. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the change in management was not a valid
justification for its new attitude as to the validity of the contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15404
46. As to the Word documents, the Claimant argued that the format was irrelevant and not
indicative that the parties did not wish to be bound; rather, the sending of the offer / draft
and the acceptance via email were representative thereof.
47. Moreover, the Claimant firmly emphasised that the offer / draft which he agreed to on 24
June 2024 contained all essentialia negotii. Not only did the parties agree that the English
version of a potential contract shall always prevail (i.e., the version being relied upon), but
furthermore, the amounts that were stipulated in the email of 18 June 2024 – which were
as a matter of pure formality replied to with a firm acceptance on 24 June 2024 – the net
amounts of the draft sent on 21 June 2024. Therefore, there was no discrepancy, unlike the
Respondent purports.
48. Lastly, the Claimant stressed once again that he unequivocally accepted the offer on 24
June 2024, and that as of that moment, there was a valid and binding contract.
49. In conclusion, the Claimant insisted on his request for relief.
d. Position of the Respondent
50. In its duplica, the Respondent largely reiterated its previous submissions.
51. In particular, it stressed the importance of the discrepancies between the Russian and the
English versions of the contract, and that this resulted in the finally agreed upon document
by the Claimant falling short of the standard of essentialia negotii.
52. Furthermore, the Respondent echoed its previous submission that the lack of a formal
signature was critical in light of the domestic legal provisions and the ramifications of the
negotiations – such as, the format of the files and the method of communication.
53. Lastly, the Respondent indicated that no financial harm was suffered by the Claimant as he
almost immediately found new employment.
54. Therefore, the Respondent once again argued that the claim should be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
55. 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 30 July 2024 and submitted for decision on
18 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition of
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15404
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.
56. 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 (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 Bulgarian player
and a Russian club.
57. 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 July 2024, the June 2024 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
58. 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
59. 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
60. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of a valid and binding employment relationship
between the Claimant and the Respondent.
61. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Claimant and the Respondent validly concluded an employment contract, and based on
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15404
such conclusion, whether or not the Respondent committed a breach of contract by
denying the existence of a potentially valid and binding contract.
62. Prior to entering the analysis of the facts, the Chamber deemed it opportune to recall the
parties’ respective submissions, starting with the Claimant, according to whom the
Respondent terminated the alleged contract without just cause by denying its existence.
The Claimant hereby emphasised that the requirements of essentialia negotii were met and
that no just cause existed for the Respondent not to recognise the allegedly valid and
binding employment contract.
63. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Claimant never formally agreed with
the terms, which were in any event not conclusive and, therefore, fell short of the
jurisprudential standard set by the principle of essentialia negotii. Thus, the Respondent
argued that there was no formal contract and requested the rejection of the claim.
64. Due to the nature of the allegations at stake, the Chamber set out the order of questions
which it deemed relevant in order to establish the existence of any breach and, leading
therefrom, liability, namely:
-
Did the parties conclude a valid and binding employment contract?
If so, did the Respondent terminate such contract with or without just cause?
What are the consequences of the above conclusions?
65. Having set out the above, the Chamber proceeded with the first relevant question in its
analysis, namely whether the parties’ negotiations reached a point whereby the existence
of a valid and binding employment contract could be established.
66. In this respect, as a premise of its further analysis, the Chamber deemed it important to
draw attention to the fact that the parties uncontestedly entered into contractual
negotiations and that the factual timeline, as presented by the Claimant, remained
unchallenged by the Respondent; rather, the latter only offered an alternative
interpretation of the context as presented by the Claimant.
67. As such, the Chamber went on to recall the key facts of the negotiation which took place
between the parties:
-
On 11 June 2024: 1st draft contract sent by alleged agent to Claimant via
WhatsApp;
-
On 12 June 2024, a second and third draft sent to Claimant and contact
established with Respondent’s in-house legal counsel via WhatsApp;
-
On 13 June 2024, phone call between parties;
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15404
-
On 17 June 2024, fourth and fifth draft exchanged between the parties via
WhatsApp;
-
On 18 June 2024, official offer sent via email by Respondent to Claimant;
-
On 19 June 2024, further discussions regarding terms between the parties over
telephone;
-
On 20 June 2024, Claimant requests update;
-
On 21 June 2024, sixth draft (the “final” version) sent by Respondent to Claimant
via WhatsApp, and acknowledgement of receipt and acceptance communicated
by Claimant via WhatsApp;
-
On 24 June 2024, formal reply of acceptance by Claimant via email and request of
update as to formalities to initiate contractual relationship.
-
On 26 June 2024, alleged call with sporting director of the Respondent informing
the Claimant that the contract is not valid and binding, and that new coaching
staff was allegedly not interested in the player’s services.
-
On 27 June 2024, formal notice by Claimant requesting enforcement of alleged
contract;
-
On 28 June 2024, Respondent formally rejects the existence of a contract, which
Claimant considers repudiatory breach.
68. Having assessed the above timeline, the Chamber went on to determine whether the
parties indeed concluded a valid and binding contract – i.e., whether such negotiation had
reached the level of formality and commitment required for a valid and binding
employment agreement – in other words, whether the requirements of the doctrine of
essentialia negotii were met.
69. As dictated by the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS), the requirements of essentialia negotii are that a valid and binding employment
contract must contain the following fundamental elements:
-
Clear indication of the parties and their obligations towards each other (especially,
the player’s employment/subordination as a professional footballer);
Clear terms regarding the player’s remuneration;
Clear terms regarding the duration of the purported contract;
Clear mutual intention to be legally bound and communication thereof (usually
through both parties’ signature).
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15404
70. The Chamber proceeded to establish the first clear and straightforward element of the
purported contract at stake; namely, the nature of the relationship was beyond dispute in
the sense that the Claimant was supposed to be employed by the Respondent to render
services as a professional football player.
71. Having set this out, the Chamber went on to analyse the remaining elements required to
establish the existence of a valid and binding employment contract, namely, clear terms as
to the duration of the purported contract and the remuneration due thereunder, as well
as the mutual intention of the parties to be legally bound by the previously agreed upon
terms.
72. The Chamber, at this stage, took note of the Respondent’s argument that the English and
Russian versions of the drafts contained material differences, to the extent of undermining
the clarity of the agreed upon terms, thereby falling short of the threshold set by essentialia
negotii.
73. In respect of such assertion, the Chamber emphasised a number of important points.
Firstly, the negotiations between the parties – in particular, correspondence exchanged via
both e-mail and WhatsApp – (per exhibit C5 of the Claimant) were entirely in English.
74. Moreover, all versions of the draft contracts from the second version onwards (exhibits C3,
C4, C6, C7) stipulated the same remuneration in the Russian version; whilst the English
version changed during these negotiations, the Russian version remained unamended.
Therefore, this cemented the Chamber’s view that the basis for establishing the key terms
of the purported contract was English.
75. Lastly, the parties agreed in the alleged contract that in case of any difference, the English
version would prevail; this is in line with the fact that the figures represented in the final
draft contract align with those indicated in the exchanged correspondence.
76. Based on the above elements, the Chamber was comfortable to establish that the parties
had a pattern of communication of negotiating and establishing the terms of the purported
contract in English. These terms appeared, to the Chamber, to have been finally agreed
upon with the last draft sent on 21 June 2024.
77. More importantly, the Chamber deemed it particularly noteworthy that the Respondent
never invoked a lack of clarity of the allegedly agreed terms in the aftermath of the
contract’s conclusion – and only ever asserted – until presently – that the lack of a written
signature by the Claimant meant that no formal employment contract had been concluded.
78. Therefore, the Chamber was clear in its view that there did not appear to be any confusion
about what was supposedly agreed on, and further went on to point out that the
Respondent’s stance in the present proceedings – namely that the parties did not
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15404
conclusively agree on the remuneration of the Claimant – constituted behaviour akin to
venire contra factum proprium.
79. In simpler words, the Chamber concluded that the remuneration of the Claimant was
clearly agreed upon by the parties at the end of their negotiations and in the final version
of the draft.
80. Turning to the duration of the contract, the Chamber echoed its argumentation as to the
remuneration, and further added that, as the parties were negotiating, the differing start
dates in the respective drafts was bound to change as time passed until the “final version”
would eventually be agreed to.
81. What is more, the end date of the contract remained unchanged, which was deemed by
the Chamber as the more pertinent point, given that the start date consistently appeared
to represent the immediate date after the formal conclusion of the contract.
82. Thus, the Chamber was satisfied that clear terms as to the contract’s duration were
concluded as well.
83. Lastly, but not least importantly, the Chamber turned to the analysis of whether, based on
the facts at hand, the parties’ intention to be legally bound could be established – either by
way of a formal signature or otherwise.
84. In this sense, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent (uncontestedly) communicated a
draft version of the contract (which may be, by its very nature, construed as an unequivocal
offer, in the absence of any wording in such document suggesting otherwise), on
21 June 2024 (i.e., the supposed “final version”).
85. This offer was communicated to the Claimant via WhatsApp; hereby, the Chamber wished
to remark that the Claimant not only fully demonstrated that this was done so by the
Respondent’s in-house counsel, with adequate proof of identity of the latter, but further,
the Respondent did not challenge that this offer was validly communicated to the Claimant.
86. Additionally, and not less importantly, throughout the time after the alleged conclusion of
the contract, until the alleged breach thereof, the Respondent only ever invoked the lack
of a signature – but not the valid communication of this offer.
87. Thereafter, the Claimant communicated his acceptance of the presented terms to the
Respondent on two separate occasions: once via WhatsApp on 21 June 2024, and once
more on 24 June 2024 via e-mail.
88. The Chamber considered that the wording of the WhatsApp message dated 21 June 2024
was already quite clear (“All agreed here”) for the sake of communicating the Claimant’s
intention to be legally bound by the terms at stake.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15404
89. However, for the sake of additional certainty and the clearance of any further doubt,
considering the fact that the subsequent e-mail communication was sent 1) without any
interim reply by the Respondent after the first, more informal one via WhatsApp, in a sense
“doubling down” on his previous acceptance, and more importantly, 2), to the official
address of the club, the Chamber was comfortable to conclude that the Claimant’s email
of 24 June 2024 constituted the formal, unequivocal acceptance of the terms on his end.
90. Therefore, the Chamber held that 1) the Respondent made a formal offer, including all
essential terms of an employment contract to the Claimant on 21 June 2024, thereby
expressing its intention to be legally bound and creating a legitimate expectation for the
Claimant as to a valid and binding employment contract; and 2) the Claimant accepted such
offer formally on 24 June 2024, equally declaring his intention to be legally bound.
91. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to point out that, the lack of a formal
signature does not affect the validity of an employment agreement. In particular, the
existence of divergent provisions under Russian law were outweighed by the fact that the
applicable body of law in the present dispute were the FIFA regulations (cf. par. 57 above),
whereunder the legal position as to this point is settled in the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal.
92. Based on all the aforementioned conclusions, the Chamber unanimously considered that
the requirements of essentialia negotii were met, and that the Claimant and the Respondent
concluded a valid and binding employment contract on 24 June 2024 (hereinafter: the
Contract).
93. Having set this out, the Chamber moved on to deliberate the question of the lawfulness of
the contractual termination.
94. In particular, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent allegedly verbally informed the
Claimant on 26 June 2024 that it did not consider the Contract to be valid and binding, and
further on 28 June 2024, indicating the same in a formal response to a warning letter by
the Claimant.
95. In the absence of any evidence corroborating the verbal termination dated 26 June 2024,
the Chamber established that the Contract was formally terminated on 28 June 2024.
96. With this in mind, the Chamber recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal and the wording of art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, pursuant to which a contract
may only ever be unilaterally terminated where there is just cause, and such just cause is
given rise to where the conduct of the counterparty does not permit the reasonable
continuation of the Contract by the terminating party. A premature termination of a
contract may only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15404
97. In the case at hand, the Claimant committed no breach of contract, based on the evidence
on file (nor is this invoked by the Respondent). Equally, the only apparent justification
provided by the Respondent in its exchange of correspondence with the Claimant (i.e., a
change of management) did not, in the Chamber’s opinion, constitute a valid justification
to terminate the Contract prematurely.
98. As a result, considering all of the abovementioned factors, the Chamber unanimously
decided that the Respondent terminated the Contract unilaterally and without just cause.
ii. Consequences
99. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
100. The Chamber observed that, specifically due to the short time elapsed between the
conclusion of the Contract and the termination thereof, no salaries had fallen due. Equally,
the Chamber noted that the sign-on fee stipulated in the Contract only foresaw its first
payment roughly a month after the contract was terminated.
101. Therefore, the Chamber held that no outstanding remuneration was due in the case at
hand.
102. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber 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, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration
and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract,
the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending
on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
103. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it 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 the contractual parties
in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such
compensation clause was included in the Contract at stake.
104. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
105. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the Contract
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15404
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 1,540,763.50 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, or
USD 355,512 for the season 2024/2025, plus USD 379,860 for the season 2025/2026, plus
USD 408,096 for the season 2026/2027, plus USD 355,512 as a sign-on fee, plus USD 1,177
as a monthly guaranteed rental allowance during the term of the Contract) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
106. In continuation, the Chamber 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
DRC 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 player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
107. Indeed, the player found employment with the Bulgarian club CSKA Sofia. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, which overlapped entirely with the Contract at
stake in terms of duration, the player was entitled to a total amount of BGN 370,000 as
salaries and sign-on fee, as well as an accommodation allowance of EUR 800 per month,
totalling EUR 18,666.66 in rental allowance in the term of the New Contract.
108. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount
of BGN 370,000, or USD 205,277.29 plus USD 18,666.66 = USD 223,943.95.
109. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reasons, nor did the Claimant terminate the
Contract himself. Thus, no additional compensation was applicable in the case at hand.
110. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 1,316,819.55 to the player (i.e. the mitigated compensation), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
111. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 28 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15404
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. 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
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15404
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ivan Georgiev Turitsov, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Khimki, must pay to the Claimant USD 1,316,819.55 as compensation
for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 June 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
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. 21
REF. FPSD-15404
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. 22