Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18792
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alim
Zumakulov
BY:
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi, Qatar
CLAIMANT:
Alim Zumakulov, Russia
Represented by Evgenii Efremov
RESPONDENT:
Krabi FC (KBFC), Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18792
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
• The Russian player, Alim Zumakulov (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
• The Thai club, Krabi FC (KBFC) (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to
the Football Association of Thailand (FAT).
2.
On 6 August 2024, the Player arrived in Thailand. According to the stamp in his passport,
he was allowed to stay in the country until 4 October 2024.
3.
According to the Player, on 8 August 2024, he entered into an employment contract with
the Club purporting to be valid as from 9 August 2024 until 30 March 2025 and providing
for a monthly salary of THB 25,000.
4.
The Player claimed that he was never provided with a copy of this contract, and he
submitted photographs purportedly to have been taken at the time of signing, together
with a standard template issued by the FAT.
5.
On 15 August 2024, the Club entered a transfer instruction in the FIFA Transfer Matching
System (TMS) in order to engage the Player as an amateur (Transfer ID: 889211). No
employment contract was uploaded with the relevant transfer instruction, which was
completed on 27 August 2024.
6.
According to the Player, he attended the Club’s training sessions and friendly matches in
September and October 2024.
7.
On 6 October 2024, the Player left Thailand.
8.
On 27 January 2025, the club from Hong Kong, Tuen Mun Sports Association Limited,
initiated a transfer instruction in TMS in order to engage the Player permanently (Transfer
ID: 981665). The Player was also register as an amateur with this club on the same day.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 29 March 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. According to the Player, he entered into an employment contract with the Club on the
following terms:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18792
• Duration: from 9 August 2024 until the end of the 2024/2025 season.
• Remuneration: THB 25,000 per month.
• Visa: the Club would arrange the necessary formalities to obtain a work visa for the
Player.
11. However, the Player claimed that he was never provided with a copy of this contract and/or
with the necessary documents to continue his stay in Thailand. He did, however, provide
photographs of him signing the contract and wearing the Club’s uniform during matches.
12. The Player then claimed that he had contacted the Club’s management on several
occasions in relation to the expiration of his tourist visa, but that he had no option but to
leave the country on 6 October 2024. Similarly, the Player stressed that he had made
“written requests to the Club’s management to resolve the situation that had arisen”, but to no
avail.
13. The Player also added that he had overstayed his tourist visa by two days and had been
fined THB 1,000 as a result. In support, the Player submitted a photograph of his passport
and a translation of the document allegedly issued by the immigration authorities.
14. In the light of the foregoing, the Player concluded that he had terminated the Contract for
just cause and was entitled to THB 200,000 as compensation for the breach, equivalent to
the 8 months’ salary at THB 25,000 per month.
15. The Player submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“1. FIFA DRC shall accept the claim of the Claimant.
2. FIFA DRC shall order the Respondent to pay to the Claimant 200,000 Thai Baht net as
Compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 09 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
3. FIFA DRC shall order the Respondent to pay to the immigration penalty accrued to the
Claimant equal of 1000 [Thai Baht], including penalties that will be accrued at the time
of payment.
4. FIFA DRC shall impose sportive sanctions on the Respondent”.
b. Position of the Respondent
16. The Club failed to respond to the claim despite being invited to do so.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18792
c. Information provided by the FAT
17. At the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the FAT confirmed that the Player was
registered with the Club as an amateur from 21 August 2024 until 21 January 2025. In
addition, the FAT provided a copy of a contract registered by the Club with the following
terms:
• Duration: from 7 August 2025 to 30 June 2025.
• Remuneration: THB 15,000 per month, payable by no later than the 5th day of the
following month.
18. The copy of the contract provided by the FAT is signed by both the Player and the Club.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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 29 March 2025 and submitted
for decision on 2 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.
20. 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
Russian player and a Thai club.
21. 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
22. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18792
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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
23. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for breach of contract brought by a player against a club.
25. The Single Judge noted that the Player claimed he had signed a contract with the Club but
had never received a copy of it. The Player also claimed that the Club had failed to obtain
his work visa and that he had therefore been forced to terminate the Contract (allegedly
with just cause) and flee the country, being entitled to compensation for the breach.
26. On the other hand, the Single Judge also observed that the Club did not respond to the
claim, thus she decided that any decision must be taken solely on the basis of the
documentation provided by the Player (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
27. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine (i) the
contractual basis of the parties’ employment relationship, if any; (ii) the circumstances of
the termination; and (iii) the consequences thereof.
28. The Single Judge then proceeded to analyse each issue in turn.
A. THE CONTRACTUAL BASIS
29. As a starting point, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Player does not have a copy of
the contract allegedly signed with the Club. Furthermore, the Single Judge found that,
although the photographs provided by the Player serve to document the existence of an
employment relationship between the parties, none of the evidence provided by the Player
could corroborate the financial terms alleged by the Player.
30. In particular, the Single Judge pointed out that the enlarged photograph submitted by the
Player was barely legible, thus she decided that it could not, in itself, be considered as
evidence of the agreed financial terms. Similarly, the Single Judge underscored that, as the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18792
Player claimed that he had not been paid by the Club, there was also no proof of payment
that could demonstrate his monthly entitlement.
31. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge also noted that (i) the Player was registered
by the Club in TMS; and (ii) the Club submitted a signed contract to the FAT around the
same time.
32. As a result, and although the Single Judge determined that the financial terms contained in
the contract submitted to the FAT differed from those claimed by the Player, they should
be taken into account in the absence of other convincing evidence to the contrary.
33. The Single Judge therefore concluded that the contract submitted to the FAT should be
treated as the document governing the parties’ relationship. Furthermore, the Single Judge
confirmed that, irrespective of his status of registration in TMS as an amateur, the Player
was to be treated as a professional by virtue of art. 2, par. 1 of the Regulations.
B. THE TERMINATION
34. Having established the above, the Single Judge turned to the assessment of the alleged
termination.
35. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player claimed he terminated his
employment with just cause because the Club failed to register him and provide him with
a work visa. Furthermore, the Player claimed that he had contacted the Club on several
occasions in an attempt to remedy the situation.
36. However, the Single Judge found it decisive that the only evidence submitted by the Player
was the copy of his passport and the alleged fine imposed by the immigration authorities.
Whilst the Single Judge considered that these documents were instructive in establishing
the Player’s entry/exit in the country and that they could indicate the absence of a proper
work visa, she did not consider that they were sufficient to establish that (i) the Club failed
to provide the necessary documentation and thereby engaged in any form of abusive
behaviour towards the Player; (ii) the Player ever requested the Club to rectify the situation;
or (iii) the Player ever attempted to remedy the breach, the failure of which led to the
termination of his contract as an ultima ratio measure.
37. In the same vein, the Single Judge outlined that the Player did not even formally notify the
Club of the early termination of the Contract and/or request payment of any amount.
38. Due to the (lack of) documentation in the case file, and by recalling that the party claiming
a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof, the Single
Judge decided that the Player could not prove the just cause for his termination, let alone
his entitlement to compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18792
C. THE CONSEQUENCES
39. Having stated the above, and notwithstanding the conclusion that the Player was not
entitled to compensation, the Single Judge ruled that he be awarded a salary for the period
during which he was unequivocally employed by the Club, namely from 9 August 2024
(when he signed the contract submitted to the FAT) to 6 October 2024 (when he left
Thailand).
40. In particular, the Single Judge stressed that the Player shall receive THB 29,129.03 as the
salary from 9 August 2024 until 6 October 2024, plus interest from the day following the
relevant due dates, as follows:
• THB 11,129.03 as the prorated salary for August 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6
September 2024;
• THB 15,000 as the salary for September 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 October
2024; and
• THB 3,000 as the prorated salary for October 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6
October 2024.
41. Next, the Single Judge noted that the Player also requested reimbursement of THB 1,000
in respect of a fine for overstaying his tourist visa in Thailand. However, the Single Judge
highlighted that the Player has only provided a translation of the alleged document, which
did not appear to be an official document, and, in any event, the Player has not
demonstrated that such an infringement was attributable to the Club.
42. The Single Judge then decided that his claim in this respect should be rejected.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. 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.
44. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18792
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18792
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alim Zumakulov, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Krabi FC (KBFC), must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- THB 11,129.03 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 September
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- THB 18,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 October 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. 10
REF. FPSD-18792
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