The case involves a dispute between Football Club Goverla and professional football player Mykola Mykolayovych Gibalyuk over unpaid wages and contractual obligations, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Club and the Player entered into an employment contract in January 2010, with an additional agreement signed in April 2010 stipulating further financial commitments, including wages and rent payments. The Player alleged the Club failed to meet these obligations, while the Club contested the validity of the additional agreements, arguing they were unauthorized and violated internal regulations and Ukrainian labor laws. The Player filed a claim with the Football Federation of Ukraine’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, finding the additional agreement legally valid and binding. The DRC ordered the Club to pay outstanding wages, lease payments, and compensation for early contract termination. The Club appealed to CAS, which examined jurisdiction, factual arguments, and legal interpretations. The CAS panel emphasized the adversarial nature of the proceedings, placing the burden of proof on the parties. The Club’s appeal was criticized for lacking reasoned arguments, contradictory submissions, and insufficient evidence. Despite repeated requests, the Club failed to provide clear and consistent documentation, such as payment records or witness testimony, to substantiate its claims. The Panel found the Club’s evidence unconvincing, noting discrepancies in payment records and the absence of key documents like tax records or bank statements. The Club also failed to prove the invalidity of the additional agreement or address key factual and legal issues. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, confirming the Club’s liability for unpaid wages and dismissing the appeal due to the Club’s failure to meet its burden of proof. The ruling underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, proper authorization, and comprehensive evidence in arbitration proceedings. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in professional sports, particularly regarding the validity of agreements and the obligations of parties under applicable law. The final decision by CAS affirmed the DRC’s ruling without modification, requiring the Club to fulfill its financial obligations to the Player.