Tensions Erupt Between PASP and Peyia Over Wage Dispute

A dramatic standoff between the Cyprus Football Players’ Association (PASP) and Second Division side Peyia unfolded on Saturday, 12 April, amid claims of unpaid wages and threats made against players.

The controversy began when PASP released a statement earlier in the week alleging that Peyia’s players had gone on strike due to three months of unpaid salaries. According to PASP, the club responded to the strike with threats, suggesting it might cease operations entirely—leaving players without any compensation. The union also claimed that the players had offered to play if at least half of January’s salary was paid, a proposal the club reportedly rejected.

PASP publicly backed the players, strongly condemning the club’s response and demanding immediate wage payments and full transparency regarding contracts. The union also reminded the public that FIFA regulations protect players in cases where contractual obligations are breached by clubs.

On the morning of the match, Peyia released a fiery counter-statement, vehemently denying PASP’s claims and branding them as false, unverified, and defamatory. The club accused the union of making serious allegations without conducting a proper investigation or contacting the club, basing its conclusions solely on phone calls with players.

Peyia outlined its position clearly, asserting that:

• All contractual financial obligations have been met.

• Original contracts have been submitted to the Cyprus Football Association (CFA), with players also holding copies.

• All players are fully and legally registered.

The club demanded a public retraction from PASP within 24 hours and threatened legal action if none was forthcoming. It also posed a series of pointed questions to the union, challenging its transparency and internal processes:

• Why does PASP appear to target Peyia specifically?

• Why are most cases handled by the same PASP lawyer—where is the oversight?

• Were past player insurance agreements mismanaged?

• How are PASP scholarships awarded, and what are the criteria?

• How are members’ fees used—does PASP ensure financial transparency?

Peyia urged the union to prioritise internal governance rather than launching attacks on clubs, warning that such actions ultimately harm the players themselves.

As part of its rebuttal, Peyia also shared an internal letter that had been issued to players prior to PASP’s public statement. In the letter, the club labelled the players’ absence from training and matches as unjustified, arguing that no formal requests for leave or official complaints had been submitted. Players were ordered to return to training the following day or face disciplinary measures, including fines and potential complaints to the CFA and PASP.

In response, PASP issued a brief follow-up, refusing to engage further with the club’s accusations and standing firmly by the content of its original statement. Nevertheless, the union expressed willingness to engage in dialogue—provided it followed proper procedures.

Later that afternoon, matchday developments added a surreal twist to the saga. Only eight players were listed in Peyia’s squad for their away fixture against Othellos. The home side stormed to a 7–0 lead by half-time and added an eighth shortly after the restart. When two Peyia players picked up injuries, the game was suspended due to the team no longer having the minimum number of players required to continue.

Othellos are expected to be awarded an 8–0 victory by default. However, the fallout for Peyia could be much more severe, with the CFA now likely to take disciplinary action.