Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18779
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Shokhboz
Umarov
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE, Brazil
CLAIMANT:
Shokhboz Umarov, Uzbekistan
Represented by Sila International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
Ordabasy, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18779
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 January 2023, the Uzbek player Shokhboz Umarov (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Kazakh club Ordabasy (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) concluded
a first employment contract (hereinafter: the First Employment Contract) valid from the date
of signing until 20 November 2023.
2.
On 31 August 2023, the Club, its coaching staff and all its players (including the Claimant),
concluded a bonus agreement (hereinafter: the Bonus Agreement), which established the
bonuses payable at the end of the 2023 season.
3.
In accordance with the Bonus Agreement, the Club undertook the following:
“1.1. If the team takes 1st place in the Football Championship of the Republic of
Kazakhstan among Premier League clubs of the 2023 season, the Club undertakes to pay
bonuses to the players of the Main Team and the Coaching Staff in the amount of KZT
400,000,000 net.”
4.
In accordance with clause 2 of the Bonus Agreement, payment of the aforementioned
bonus should occur by no later than 31 March 2024.
5.
On 1 December 2023, the same parties concluded a second employment contract
(hereinafter: the Second Employment Contract) valid as from 1 February 2024 until 20
November 2024.
6.
Pursuant to clause 3 in combination with the Annex no. 1 to the Second Employment
Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of KZT 16,666,000 “before
taxes and other mandatory payments stipulated by the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan (to
be accrued).”
7.
Clause 4.3 of the Second Employment Contract provided:
“4. Working hours, rest time and working conditions
[…]
4.3. The [Player] shall be granted an annual paid labor leave of not less than 28 (twentyeight) calendar days.”
8.
Clause 9 of the Second Employment Contract provided:
“9. Resolution of the employment-related disputes
9.1 All disputes arising in the course of execution of this employment contract shall be
resolved by the Parties through negotiations.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18779
9.2 If the dispute between the Parties is not settled in the course of negotiations, it shall
be considered by the Conciliation Commission of the Employer in the manner prescribed
by the Code.
9.3 If the dispute between the Parties is not resolved in the Employer's Conciliation
Commission, it shall be subject to pre-trial settlement in the legal bodies of the KFF in
accordance with the procedure stipulated by the regulatory documents of the KFF.
9.4 If the dispute between the Parties is not settled in the manner prescribed by the
regulatory documents of the KFF, it is subject to consideration in accordance with the
Code.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 28 March 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
10. The Player claimed overdue payables consisting of (i) a collective bonus under the Bonus
Agreement; and (ii) compensation for the unused paid leave.
Collective bonus
11. The Player argued that the Club had failed to comply with the terms of the Bonus
Agreement because the relevant condition (winning the league) had been met, however,
no payment in respect of the relevant bonus had been made.
12. Regarding the calculation of the bonus itself, the Player argued that the Bonus Agreement
did not specify how the stipulated amount should be divided, leading him to assume that
the total amount of KZT 400,000,000 should be divided by 27 – the number of signatories
to the Bonus Agreement.
13. Therefore, the Player understood that the Bonus Agreement constituted a collective
scheme, meaning that, by its nature and unless otherwise specified, it should be divided
equally.
14. The Player also invoked the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem, arguing that, due to
the lack of clarification regarding the division of the agreed amount, the meaning of the
provision should be interpreted against the party that drafted it. Therefore, the Club should
not benefit from the vague wording of the clause.
15. The Player therefore claimed KZT 14,814,814,81 net as outstanding remuneration, plus 5%
Interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18779
Compensation for unused leave
16. The Player also referred to clause 4.3 of the Second Employment Contract, arguing that he
was entitled to 28 days’ annual leave. As this contract was only valid for 10 months, he
prorated this amount to a total of 23.3 days for the relevant period.
17. The Player then established that he was entitled to compensation for unused leave totalling
KZT 16,884,058 net, calculated as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Income: KZT 15,000,000 net per month times 10 months = KZT 150,000,000
Working days for the relevant period: 207 days
Average daily salary: KZT 724,637.68
Unused days of paid leave: 23.3 days
Amount of compensation for unused leave: KZT 16,884,058 net
18. The Player also claimed interest on this amount as from the day after the Second
Employment Contract expired (i.e., 1 December 2024).
Requests for relief
19. The Player submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“Taking the aforementioned into account, the Player hereby respectfully asks the FIFA
DRC to rule as follows:
1.The claim of the Claimant, Mr. Shokhboz Umarov, is accepted.
2.The Respondent, PFC Ordabasy, Kazakhstan, has to pay to the Claimant, Mr. Shokhboz
Umarov, the amount of KZT 14 814 814.81 net as outstanding bonus payment, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024 until the date of effective payment;
3.The Respondent, PFC Ordabasy, Kazakhstan, has to pay to the Claimant, Mr. Shokhboz
Umarov, the amount of KZT 16 884 058 net as outstanding compensation for unused
leave, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective payment”.
b. Reply of the Club
20. On 15 April 2025, the Club responded to the Player’s claim as follows.
Collective bonus
21. The Club argued that it was unaware of the Bonus Agreement and that its legal effects
should be disregarded.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18779
22. More specifically, the Club asserted that, in accordance with its internal regulations, “major
agreements” must be approved by the Board. As the Bonus Agreement was not included
in the Board’s records, the Club claimed that it was purportedly not concluded with the
Board’s approval.
23. The Club alleged that conditional bonuses should be stipulated in the employment
contract, and that players whose contracts included such bonuses had received the
relevant amounts. The Club also argued that, as the players and technical staff of the Club
extended to 43 members, the amount should be reduced to the amount of KZT
400,000,000 divided by 43, that is KZT 9,302,325 per member.
24. In any event, the Club argued that the parties had agreed to engage in pre-dispute
conciliation in the relevant contract, but that no such conciliation had taken place. As a
result, the Club requested that the parties be permitted to engage in such conciliation prior
to FIFA rendering a decision.
25. Lastly, the Club requested that the present claim be consolidated with two parallel claims
brought by another player and by a coach, in respect of the same Bonus Agreement.
Compensation for unused leave
26. The Club alleged that the Player’s remuneration under the Second Employment Contract
had been paid in full and disputed any entitlement to additional remuneration.
27. Referring to a previous decision issued by the Football Tribunal (FPSD-6525), the Club
stressed that the request for compensation for unused leave lacked a contractual basis,
and that the Player was not entitled to any amount exceeding the value of his contract(s).
Requests for relief
28. The Club submitted the following relief:
“In view of the foregoing, the Club respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
1. Reject the Player's claim concerning unused paid leave in its entirety.
2. Suspend the proceedings regarding the Championship bonus due to the Player's
failure to comply with the pre-dispute resolution procedures set forth in the
Contract.
3. Consolidate all related claims involving PFC Ordabasy and the 2023
Championship bonuses into a single proceeding, specifically:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18779
1. Ref. FPSD-18807 (Coach Oleksandr Glushchenko)
2. Ref. FPSD-18795 (Player Bobir Abdixolikov)
3. Ref. FPSD-18779 (Player Shokhboz Umarov).”
c. Replica of the Claimant
29. On 30 April 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
30. The Player noted that the Club had not challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction but had only
requested a suspension of the proceedings to find an amicable resolution. Nevertheless,
the Player argued that he should not be prevented from lodging a claim due to the above
provisions, as this would restrict access to justice.
Collective bonus
31. The Player also pointed out not only that the Club’s lack of awareness was not a valid reason
to render the Bonus Agreement null and void, as the Club itself had admitted. Furthermore,
no copy of the internal regulations had been provided.
32. The Player also argued that the Club’s argumentation as to the calculation of the bonus
should be dismissed, given that only signatories to the Bonus Agreement are entitled to
benefit from its provisions, and, had the Club manifested a different intention, it would
have offered the terms of the Bonus Agreement to all 43 staff it has alleged are employed
by the club.
Compensation for unused leave
33. The Player insisted on his entitlement to compensation for unused leave, in accordance
with clause 4.3 of the Second Employment Contract and the Kazakh national law. He also
referred to other FIFA cases in which the claimants were awarded compensation for
unused leave.
34. The Player reiterated his calculation and request for outstanding remuneration.
35. In conclusion, the Player reiterated his initial request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
36. On 6 May 2025, the Club submitted its duplica, restating its previous allegations.
37. The Club disputed the calculation of the compensation for unused leave, arguing that the
collective bonus claim should either be suspended or be deemed invalid.
38. The Club repeated its requests for relief.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18779
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 28 March 2025 and submitted for
decision on 18 June 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.
40. 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 Kazakh club.
41. At this point, the Single Judge acknowledged that, although the Club did not dispute the
Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it asked that this dispute be suspended in an attempt at
conciliation.
42. Nevertheless, the Single Judge pointed out that, even if the Second Employment Contract
provided for a preliminary negotiation between the parties, it could not preclude the
Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Single Judge also added that there was no regulatory
basis for a suspension, the parties did not express an interest in submitting this case to the
FIFA Mediation, nor there was an alternative and exclusive forum to than FIFA.
43. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Football Tribunal had jurisdiction over this
matter.
44. Next, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
45. 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 he may
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18779
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
46. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
47. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim of a player against a club for overdue payables. Furthermore, the Single Judge
acknowledged that the parties disputed the entitlement to, and the amount of, each
component in question.
48. According to the Player, the Club failed to pay (i) KZT 16,884,058 in compensation for
unused leave; and (ii) KZT 14,814,814,81 net, which corresponded to his share of the
collective bonus under the Bonus Agreement. Regarding the latter, the Player also provided
evidence that the condition had been met and further argued that the amount should be
calculated based on the number of signatories to the Bonus Agreement.
49. The Club, on the other hand, argued that the Player should not be entitled to compensation
for unused leave due to the lack of contractual / regulatory basis, and that the Bonus
Agreement had not been signed by the Board and that the Board had no knowledge of its
existence. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the collective bonus awarded to the Player
should be reduced to 1/43 to include all members of its staff and players, and that the
interest payable should be reduced due to its lack of knowledge regarding the Bonus
Agreement.
50. The Single Judge then proceeded to analyse each of the claims in turn.
A. COLLECTIVE BONUS
51. The Single Judge first recalled that, according to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), employees cannot be expected to be aware of,
or bound by, internal authority arrangements and that, as long as a person who has
apparent authority to make legal agreements on behalf of the Club – akin to a technical
director making a valid employment offer on behalf of a club, despite Board approval being
theoretically required – the club shall be bound by the actions of its representatives.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18779
52. In this case, the Single Judge noted that the Club’s President signed the Bonus Agreement
and the Club’s stamp was included. Hence, the Club’s alleged lack of awareness that the
Bonus Agreement had been signed was not a valid justification for undermining its validity
(as the Club itself correctly acknowledged).
53. The Single Judge then established that the Bonus Agreement was validly concluded and
had legal effect on the parties involved.
54. Regarding the calculation of the bonus, the Single Judge deemed that the Club’s argument
to be dismissed. Accordingly, he found that the Club had provided no evidence of the
entitlement of the remaining members to the bonus scheme, nor was there any suggestion
in the Bonus Agreement that the amount is payable to parties other than the signatories.
As it was a collective scheme, the Single Judge considered that only the signatories thereto
should be able to benefit from it. In any event, the Single Judge also found that the wording
was so ambiguous that (objectively, and outside the context of the player’s submission
which points to the parties’ intention), an argument could even be made that every
signatory was entitled to KZT 400,000,000.
55. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that dividing KZT 400,000,000 net by 27 seemed to
give an accurate result.
56. The Single Judge further noted at this stage that the amount remained unpaid for no valid
reason.
57. Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided to award the Player KZT 14,814,814.81 net. Furthermore, he
stressed that default interest of 5% p.a. should also apply from 1 April 2024 until the
effective payment date.
B. COMPENSATION FOR UNUSED LEAVE
58. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that the Player had claimed compensation for his
23.3 days of unused leave. Conversely, the Club disputed this entitlement, citing a lack of
contractual basis and past jurisprudence.
59. In this respect, the Single Judge initially noted that clause 4.3 of the Second Employment
Contract entitled the Player to at least 28 days of leave per year. As a result, the Single Judge
concluded that his claim was valid and that he was entitled to the requested compensation.
60. Despite the particularities of the specific case quoted by the Club, the Single Judge also
noted that the compensation for unused leave has been consistently acknowledged by the
Football Tribunal in similar cases, with which the Single Judge agreed (see for example FPSD12661, FPSD-6148 and FPSD-5680).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18779
61. In light of the above, the Single Judge ruled that the Player’s allegations were to be followed.
62. Furthermore, in the absence of any contrasting calculations or counterevidence from the
Club regarding the fixtures provided by the Player — which the Single Judge also deemed
reasonable — he accepted that the Player should be entitled to the claimed amount (i.e.,
16,884,058 net).
63. Lastly, the Single Judge decided that default interest should apply from the day after the
Contract expired (i.e., 1 December 2024) until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
64. 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 his 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.
65. 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.
66. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
67. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
68. 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
69. 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,
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18779
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
70. 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.
71. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18779
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Shokhboz Umarov, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ordabasy, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- KZT 14,814,814.81 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
April 2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- KZT 16,884,058 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18779
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. 14