Levski Facing Transfer Ban Over Armstrong Oko-Flex Deal – Lawyers Clash

Levski Sofia could face a transfer ban preventing them from registering new players due to an improper acquisition of Armstrong Oko-Flex from Botev Plovdiv, according to football agent and lawyer Christian Raychev.

Raychev, directly involved in the case, detailed his perspective in a lengthy social media post. He outlined the transfer regulations and concluded that the league leaders should be sanctioned for their pursuit of Oko-Flex, alleging that negotiations occurred without the authorization of Botev Plovdiv.

According to Raychev, the Bulgarian Football Union (BFS) lacks the authority to validate the termination of the player’s contract, leaving the final decision in the hands of FIFA.

Prominent sports lawyer Georgi Gradev countered Raychev’s assessment, stating that after a careful review of the legal counsel’s arguments for Botev Plovdiv, he believes Levski did not violate any rules and will avoid punishment. The 26-time Bulgarian champion is therefore unlikely to face sanctions.

Gradev explained his reasoning, concluding: “If the claims of PFC Botev Plovdiv are based on the arguments presented in their legal counsel’s public statement, they are likely to be rejected by FIFA.”

• Here is Raychev’s statement, unedited:

As a person directly and thoroughly familiar with all the documents and circumstances surrounding the case between Armstrong Oko-Flex, PFC “Botev” Plovdiv, and PFC “Levski”, I deem it necessary to publicly state the following position:

Firstly, there is conclusive evidence of a violation by PFC “Levski” of Art. 8, para. 3 of the Regulations on Contracts and Transfers of Players of the BFS. Without the permission of PFC “Botev” Plovdiv and with more than 6 months remaining on the contract, PFC “Levski” contacted the player and negotiated his personal terms. According to Art. 8, para. 4, upon establishing such a violation, a disciplinary sanction should be imposed – a ban on registering new players during the first upcoming transfer period following the entry into force of the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of the BFS, which is subject to appeal before the Appeal Commission.

Secondly, regarding the termination of Armstrong Oko-Flex’s contract, it should be clearly emphasized that the position of the Sports and Technical Commission of the BFS of January 15, 2026, does not correspond to the real factual situation. It states that the player’s contract was terminated as a result of activating the buyout clause. In this case, the amount paid by PFC “Levski” was transferred on behalf of and for the account of the player himself, as Armstrong Oko-Flex sent an official letter to PFC “Botev” Plovdiv the day before, stating that he was unilaterally terminating his contract, activating the buyout clause himself and stating that he would pay it personally or through a third party.

The question arises as to whether the clause contained in the player’s contract gives him the right to unilaterally terminate the contract or represents an agreed mechanism to guarantee a minimum transfer fee that another club must pay if there is interest and the player agrees to the transfer. The position of PFC “Botev” Plovdiv, which I fully share and which has been repeatedly stated both publicly and before the BFS and FIFA, is categorical: this clause does not give the player the right to unilaterally terminate the contract. It was not agreed as a clause that allows the player to unilaterally terminate the contract, but aims to determine the amount of the transfer fee against which the club will be obliged to transfer his playing rights to another club.

Proceedings regarding the actions of Armstrong Oko-Flex and the violation of his contract with PFC “Botev” Plovdiv have already been initiated before the FIFA bodies. The actions of PFC “Levski” lead to joint and several liability of the club for damages suffered by PFC “Botev” Plovdiv, as well as to a possible sports sanction. It is particularly important to emphasize that the bodies of the BFS do not have the competence to rule on whether the contract was validly terminated. In this specific case, according to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the matter is within the competence of the FIFA bodies.

In summary:

PFC “Levski” should be sanctioned by the BFS for improper contact with the player without the permission of PFC “Botev” Plovdiv.

The BFS does not have the competence to rule on the validity of the contract termination. FIFA will decide whether the actions of the player and PFC “Levski” will be sanctioned through the imposition of monetary and sporting sanctions.

• Here is Gradev’s statement, unedited:

I have carefully read the statements made by the legal counsel of PFC “Botev” Plovdiv. Based on the applicable FIFA law and established practice of its bodies, I make the following legal conclusions:

1. In the presence of a buyout clause, FIFA accepts that the former club has given prior consent for negotiations and transfer upon fulfillment of the agreed conditions. In this case, there is no violation of Art. 18, para. 3 of the FIFA Regulations, respectively, Art. 8, para. 3 of the BFS Regulations.
2. The formal distinction of whether the payment was made personally by the player or by the new club is explicitly rejected in FIFA practice. The only thing that matters is the full and unconditional payment of the agreed amount.
3. The STC of the BFS does not rule on the legality of the termination of an employment contract. Its acts have a declarative, not constitutive, character regarding the termination of playing rights under Art. 75, paragraph 4 of the ZFV and do not bind FIFA.

Conclusion: If the claims of PFC “Botev” Plovdiv are based on the arguments set out in the public position of their legal counsel, they are likely to be rejected by FIFA