Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player, Player A
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT:
Club A, Country B
Represented by
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
•
the Country A player, Player A (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
the Country B club, Club A (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated
with the Country B Football Association.
2.
On 18 February 2025, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2025. It was also established
that, after the expiration of the term of the Contract, the Club had priority to renew it from
1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026, with a gross annual salary of USD 220,000.
3.
Clause 3 of the Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 3: Salary and Bonuses
1. The Parties agree to calculate the salary on an annual basis. During the term of this
Contract, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] the annual salaries as follows (the Parties may
agree on currency unit):
1) The first calendar year
Dollar 200000 (in words: dollar 200000) from 18/2/2025 (day/month/year) until 31th
December [YEAR] before tax, which shall amount to Dollar 140000 after tax for
reference;
2. Goal bonus
2.1. $500 before tax per goal scored within a season
3. The annual salaries shall be paid to [the Player] in equal monthly installments. [the
Club] shall pay the salary (choose one of the following two options) for the ✓ last
month/current month on the 15th day of every month. In the event the above-mentioned
payment due date falls on a statutory holiday, the payment due date shall be extended
to the first working day following the holiday.
4. In addition to the salary stipulated in the paragraph 1 of this Article, [the Club] has
the right to determine whether to pay bonuses to [the Player] depending on the
circumstance. The amount as well as the payment method of the bonuses shall be
determined according to the relevant bonus distribution plan of [the Club]. [the Club]
shall have the right to make the final decision on the amount and payment method of
the bonuses. At the same time, the total amount of bonuses (before tax) paid by [the
Club] shall not exceed the maximum amount of bonus stipulated by regulations of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Country B Football Association and/or the relevant League Management Council
(hereinafter referred to as: ‘LMC’).
(…)
6. Before-tax amounts under this Contract refer to amounts including all taxes and fees
that [the Player] shall pay arising from the income obtained from [the Club]. Before [the
Club] pays [the Player] each installment of the amounts agreed under this Contract, [the
Club] shall be responsible for the withholding and payment of income tax due from [the
Player] in Country B from the before-lax amount payable to [the Player] in accordance
with the relevant laws and regulations of Country B. Any taxes, expenses, levies, etc.
that might be originated in any country or region outside of Country B shall be
exclusively declared, paid and borne by [the Player].
7. The Parties understand and agrees that the after-tax amounts under this Contract
refer to amounts after deducting the taxes to be paid in Country B and such amounts
are stipulated just for reference. The after-tax amount that [the Player] actually
receives shall be the amount net of taxes to be paid in Country B.”
4.
Clause 4 of the Contract established (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 4: Allowances, holidays and other working conditions
1. [The Club] shall provide [the Player] with lawn fields and other training facilities which
shall meet the standards set forth by LMC and/or Country B Football Association.
2. Any transportation and accommodation expenses incurred by [the Player] due to
participation in matches, trainings and other activities arranged by [the Club] outside
City A shall be borne by [the Club]. During the period of such activities, [the Player]
enjoys the same transportation, accommodation, and dining conditions as other team
members of Party A. Without [the Club]’s prior written consent, [the Player] shall
remain with the team.
3. [The Club] shall provide [the Player] with sportswear for trainings and competitions,
and [the Player] shall dress in accordance with the requirements of [the Club], [the
Club]'s exclusive agent or sponsors. [the Player] shall be personally responsible for
purchase of non-uniforms/clothing (Including footwear) for personal use.
4. During the term of this Contract, [the Club] shall provide [the Player] with a medical
insurance with its coverage area to be Country B, and the maximum insured amount
shall be 100.000 Country B currency. Any additional insurance shall be purchased by
[the Player]. [the Club] has no obligation to purchase any other insurance for [the
Player]. In the event that [the Player] fails to purchase insurance in a timely manner,
or the insurance [the Player]
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
purchased cannot cover all of his losses, any damages arising therefrom shall be borne
by [the Player], and [the Club] does not bear any responsibility.
5. [The Club] shall provide [the Player] with (2) round-trip economy class flight tickets
and (0) round-trip business class flight tickets from City A in Country B to Country A
(country of nationality of [the Player]) for each contractual year (every 12 months from
the signing date of this Contract constitutes a contractual year). The above-mentioned
flight tickets are provided on a contractual year basis only and thus will not be
cumulative upon the entire duration of this Contract (i.e. no additional tickets will be
provided in the new contractual year in the event [the Player] does not use all of the
airline tickets provided during the previous contractual year, and the unused tickets
shall be deemed automatically void, nor shall [the Player] be compensated in any
form as a substitute compensation for the unused airline tickets.). The Parties agree
that the flight tickets can only be used by [the Player], [the Player]'s spouse and
children.
(…)
7. [The Player] shall be granted a paid annual leave of (thirty) days per contractual year
upon prior written approval by [the Club], without prejudice to any training activities,
pre-season preparation and matches. [the Player] shall submit a written application to
[the Club] one month in advance when applying for paid annual leave, and shall obtain
the written consent from [the Club]. [the Player] undertakes that he will be reached by
[the Club] at any time during the holiday. If [the Club] deems it is necessary for [the
Player] to return to work, [the Player] shall cease his vacation and arrive at the place
designated by [the Club] to resume work. If [the Player] takes leave without obtaining
[the Club]'s prior written consent, or fails to return on time after the expiration of
vacation approved by [the Club] in writing, or fails to return within the specified time
after receiving [the Club]'s notice of return, [the Player] shall be deemed as taking leave
of absence without authorization. In such case, [the Club] has the right to deduct [the
Player]’s remuneration during his absence based on his average daily salary. The
application procedures for sick leave and personal leave shall be separately agreed by
[the Club] and [the Player] or in accordance with [the Club]’s rules and regulations.
(…)
9. [The Club] shall provide accommodation for [the Player], with conditions equal to
those of other foreign aid.”
5.
Clause 10 of the Contract included the following provision (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 10: Liabilities for breach of the Contract
In case any of the Parties terminates this Contract without just cause, the breaching
Party shall bear the responsibility for breach of contract to the other Party.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
6.
On 22 April 2025, the Player concluded a rental agreement (hereinafter: the Rental
Agreement) with an unspecified individual, valid as from the date of signature until 21 April
2026. Through this Rental Agreement, the individual leased a house to the Player for
County B currency 38,400 for 12 months, plus Country B currency 6,000 as a deposit to be
returned after the term.
7.
On an unspecified date, the Player paid Country B currency 41,200 to an individual
named Person A (hereinafter: Person A).
8.
On 22 April 2025, the Player paid Country B currency 4,841 to Person A.
9.
On 25 April 2025, the Player paid Country B currency 1,545 to Person A.
10. On 26 April 2025, the Club paid the Player Country B currency 123,540 as “March salary”.
11. On 13 June 2025, the Club paid the Player Country B currency 28,325 as “salaries for April
and May”.
12. On 26 June 2025, an unspecified individual, who according to the Club was acting of behalf
of its head coach (hereinafter: the Coach’s Agent), sent the following message to the Player
(quoted verbatim): “As u already heard, unfortunately, the club has decided to discuss with u
about a contract termination. The coach and the club hope to make this process smoothly, for
both sides, so they wanna listen about our opinion for the termination. What do u think about
it? And I and Person B also already start to check other possibilities for u”. The Player replied
by saying that “Person B” was going to contact him and that he was confused.
13. On 16 July 2025, an individual saved as “Person B Agent”, who according to the Club was the
Player’s agent (hereinafter: the Alleged Player’s Agent), sent the following messages to the
Coach’s Agent (quoted verbatim):
“Option 1:
pay everything you owe + 2 salaries
(August, September)
but everything needs to be paid now
Option 2:
pay one salary you owe now, pay another salary you owe in August and pay + 3 more
salaries (August in September, September in October and October in November)
so this is basically what Player A said
he will accept +2 salaries only if they pay him upon termination
if they will pay him every month he doesnt trust them, in that case wants what they owe
him and +3 salaries every month which they will not be every month as we both know
and 3rd option pay every month but we put penalties if they dont pay on time as we
agree they have to pay full contract”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
14. On 17 July 2025, the Coach’s Agent shared a draft termination agreement with the Alleged
Player’s Agent (hereinafter: the First Draft Termination Agreement) and requested that he
discuss it with the Club. The Coach’s Agent also stated that, if the Player was in agreement,
he would try to push the Club to accept it. The Alleged Player’s Agent argued that he had
forwarded the document. In this document, it was established that the parties would
terminate the Contract on 17 July 2025, and that the Club should pay the Player three
salaries as compensation (July, August and September) in three instalments. Lastly, a USD
70,000 penalty was imposed on the breaching party of the termination agreement.
15. On 20 July 2025, the Club signed the Country C player, Player B.
16. Between 21 July and 7 August 2025, the Player, the Alleged Player’s Agent, and the Coach’s
Agent exchanged several messages regarding the negotiation of a termination agreement.
17. On an unspecified date, which according to the Player was 21 July 2025, an unspecified
individual, which according to the Player was a Club representative, informed him that their
manager had said he did not need to train that afternoon and that they would have a
meeting the following day.
18. On an unspecified date, which according to the Player was 22 July 2025, an unspecified
individual, which according to the Player was a Club representative, published a list in a
message application group named “Group Chat” containing the A and B lists of the Club’s
players, which did not include the Player.
19. On 25 July 2025, the Club paid the Player Country B currency 93,138.75 as “June salary”.
20. On an unspecified date, the Alleged Player’s Agent and his legal counsel exchanged several
messages regarding the Player’s future.
21. On 6 August 2025, the Player exchanged several messages with an unspecified individual,
which according to him was the Club’s assistant coach, in which the Player asked whether
the Club would train the following day and, after an affirmative reply, he stated that he
wanted to train. The individual indicated that he could not train there.
22. On 19 August 2025, the Player sent a notice to the Club, stating that on 21 July 2025 he had
been deregistered from the list of players of the first team for official competitions after
the Club signed a new foreign player who occupied the last foreign quota in the Club’s first
team, this being just cause for him to terminate the Contract. Furthermore, the Player
alleged that on 23 July 2025 he had a meeting with the Club’s general manager, who
informed him that he would be excluded from the team and requested that he sign a
mutual agreement. According to the Player, as from that date, he had been illegitimately
excluded from activities, with the Club even prohibiting him from attending training, all of
which he considered abusive conduct. Moreover, the Player argued that the Club owed him
two monthly salaries for an amount equal to USD 25,456 net and that, due to the Club’s
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
failure to provide him with accommodation, he had to pay at least Country B currency
38,000 net. In light of this, the Player requested that (i) the Club immediately register him
back on the list of eligible players of the Club’s first team to play official competitions, (ii)
immediately reintegrate him into training and any other activities, and (iii) pay the
overdue amounts within seven days, i.e., USD 25,456 net and Country B currency 38,000
net. The Player stated that, if the Club failed to comply with its obligations, he reserved
the right to immediately terminate the Contract.
23. On 21 August 2025, a contact named “Person C”, which according to the Player was an
intermediary called “Person C” (hereinafter: Person C) and according to the Club was the
Coach’s Agent, contacted the Player and sent him a draft termination agreement
(hereinafter: the Second Draft Termination Agreement) via WhatsApp. In this draft, it was
stated that on 21 August 2025 (i) the parties agreed to terminate the Contract, (ii) the
parties confirmed that the salaries for March, April, May, and June 2025 had been paid in
full, and (iii) the Club undertook to pay Country B currency 332,353.32 to the Player in
three instalments. In case of a breach, it was stated that the breaching party would pay
USD 70,000 as compensation. Person C also shared a document stating that the amounts
to be paid to the Player corresponded to February, July, August, and September 2025,
which aligned with the message that this individual shared.
24. On 22 August 2025, the Alleged Player’s Agent asked the Player if he had reviewed the
Second Draft Termination Agreement with his lawyer.
25. On 1 September 2025, the Player terminated the Contract based on art. 14 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), stating that
all the requests made on 19 August 2025 had been ignored.
26. On 10 September 2025, the Coach’s Agent sent a message to a group including the Player
and the Alleged Player’s Agent, in which he stated that the Club had informed him that the
Player had agreed to amicably finish the situation. The Player clarified that he was open to
negotiate but had not agreed to anything. Therefore, the Coach’s Agent requested that he
inform him of his conditions to sign the agreement.
27. On 20 September 2025, the Coach’s Agent requested a reply to his last messages.
28. On 25 September 2025, the Coach’s Agent sent the Player and the Alleged Player’s Agent a
notification requesting that he provide the conditions to mutually terminate the Contract
on 25 September 2025. Otherwise, the Club stated that it would prepare the next steps
regarding the unilateral termination of the Contract by the Player.
29. On 5 January 2026, the Player concluded a new contract with the Country D club, Club B,
valid as from that date until 31 May 2026. According to this contract, the Player would be
entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,500 net, along with a signing fee of USD 2,000 net, a
house allowance of Country D currency 2,500, and a car allowance of Country D currency
1,500.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 11 September 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
31. The Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract but, since the first day, the Club
failed to make timely payment of his remuneration. In addition, the Player stated that the
Club never provided him with accommodation and, therefore, he had to rent an apartment
by himself, paying the entire annual rent in advance for Country B currency 47,200 net.
32. The Player further contended that, based on the Country B Football Association
registration rules, each Country B League One club could only register three foreign
players to be eligible for official matches and, by signing a new player on 20 July 2025, the
Club filled this quota. In this context, the Player stated that the Club deregistered him and
informed him that he did not need to attend trainings anymore. In fact, the Player alleged
that he was told that he was no longer authorised to participate in the Club’s activities.
33. The Player also argued that the Club proposed that he early terminate the Contract by
paying him the outstanding remunerations up to such date plus a small compensation,
which the Player refused. In this regard, the Player remarked that the Club sent the list of
players through the official WeChat account, and he was not included in either the A team
or the B team. The Player affirmed that he was not called up for any training session, official
match, or any other activity, and that the Club even refused to allow him to join training.
34. Based on this, the Player stated that he put the Club in default, requesting that it comply
with its obligations, and that the Club - through an intermediary - offered him a proposal
to terminate the Contract, which he refused to sign. Therefore, the Player terminated the
Contract.
35. According to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just cause in accordance with art.
14 of the Regulations, due to (i) overdue payables, (ii) deregistration, and (iii) further
abusive conduct. Regarding the overdue payables, the Player stated that the Club delayed
all his salaries and, as of 19 August 2025, owed him the prorated salary for February 2025,
the salary for July 2025, and the reimbursement of accommodation costs. In connection
with the deregistration, the Player affirmed that the Club deregistered him as of 21 July
2025 and never disputed it, although the Player had expressly requested proof of his
registration. In this context, the Player stated that for this reason alone he had just cause
to terminate the Contract. Lastly, the Player alleged that he was separated from the rest of
the team and trained alone for one month, even being forbidden from training with the
team.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
36. In light of the above, the Player argued that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration,
unpaid annual leave, and compensation. The Player also requested that all amounts be
paid net, and that the Club be obliged to provide the corresponding tax certificates.
37. The Player’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“123. In view of the foregoing, Player A respectfully requests FIFA
to rule as follows:
I. The claim filed by Player A before the FIFA DRC against Club A is upheld.
II. Club A is condemned to pay Player A the following outstanding remunerations
under the Contract:
a. USD 5,753 net as outstanding remuneration regarding the pro-rata salary of
February 2025, plus 5% p.a. interests from 15 March 2025 until its effective payment;
b. USD 13,425 net as outstanding remuneration regarding the salary of July 2025, plus
5% p.a. interests from 15 August 2025 until its effective payment;
c. USD 13,425 net as outstanding remuneration regarding the salary of August 2025,
plus 5% p.a. interests from 1 September 2025 until its effective payment;
d. Country B currency 47,200 net (USD 6,611 net) regarding the accommodation costs,
plus 5% p.a. interests from 22 April 2025 until its effective payment.
e. USD 13,425 net as outstanding unpaid annual leave for the year 2025, plus 5% p.a.
interests from 1 September 2025 until its effective payment.
III. Club A is condemned to pay Player A compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of USD 151,402 (one hundred fifty-one thousand four hundred two US Dollars)
net plus 5% interest p.a. since 1 September 2025 until the date of full and effective
payment, or the amount that FIFA shall deem fair and appropriate to this case.
IV. All the above-mentioned amounts are ordered to be paid “net” of Country B taxes.
V. Club A shall be ordered to provide Player A with evidence of payment of the Country
B taxes and other charges paid on top of the outstanding remuneration and
compensation and, in particular, with the relevant tax certificates issued in
compliance with Country B law.
VI. Club A shall bear any and all the possible costs of this procedure”
b. Reply of the Respondent
38. In its reply, the Club stated that the parties concluded the Contract and, although it
acknowledged having made late payments, it argued that this was due to the need to
complete tax withholding and customary industry payroll procedures in Country B.
Nevertheless, it argued that the Coach’s Agent (also referred to as Person C), had
informed the Alleged Player’s Agent in December 2024 that it was common practice in
Country B clubs for salary payments to be subject to administrative delays.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
39. Specifically regarding the prorated salary for February 2025, the Club explained that, since
the Contract was executed in the middle of February, it had informed the Player that this
payment was to be included in the Club’s year-end settlement and was scheduled to be
paid within or about a week. Nevertheless, the Club stated that, as of the date of the
response, it had paid the salary up to and including August 2025 and affirmed that the
salary for September 2025 was to be paid within or about a week.
40. Regarding accommodation, the Club alleged that it had provided multiple options for the
Player, but he refused to move into the apartment offered by the Club, for which the Club
had already signed the lease, and independently moved into his own apartment. The Club
stated that it advised the Player that, based on internal regulations, receipts and
supporting documents must be submitted for any reimbursement of housing costs, but he
failed to provide the receipts except later through his legal counsel. The Club explained
that it never refused to pay this amount and that the delay was caused solely by the failure
to provide documentation.
41. Moreover, the Club contended that it did not suddenly or unilaterally decide to exclude the
Player from the squad, but, following a sequence of performances it considered
unsatisfactory, in June 2025 it initiated discussions with the Player concerning the
possibility of a consensual early termination of the Contract, which, according to the Club,
culminated in a mutual agreement. The Club stated that the messages between the Coach’s
Agent and the Alleged Player’s Agent were central to this case. According to the Club, the
Player expressly confirmed his agreement, and the parties reached an agreement in
principle on the economic terms. The Club stated that throughout July and August 2025 the
Player continued to communicate his intention to terminate the Contract and, based on
this, the Club reasonably expected prompt formalization by signature.
42. The Club acknowledged that it deregistered the Player but pointed out that this occurred
after the parties had mutually agreed that the Contract would be terminated early, as the
outstanding formal signature was considered a mere formality. Moreover, the Club
remarked that it did not intend to block the Player’s training opportunities or professional
development during this period. On the contrary, it stated that, after the parties reached a
mutual understanding which included the Player’s express intention to leave the Club and
seek a new employer, the Club informed him that he did not need to attend training so that
he could prioritize transfer opportunities. Nevertheless, the Club affirmed that it did not
deny access to the facilities and that the Player never objected to being excluded, only
raising the issue on 6 August 2025.
43. The Club indicated that it was surprised by the notice of default sent by the Player and
stated that it tried to reach an agreement. However, the Player purportedly terminated the
Contract even though the parties continued to engage in communications after receipt of
that letter. The Club asserted that its sporting decisions were made in compliance with the
Country B Football Association registration rules and in light of its obligation to select the
best available squad. The Club again indicated that when it signed another foreign
player during the summer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
window, it deregistered the Player after the mutual agreement to terminate the Contract
early.
44. In this context, the Club stated that it attempted to reach an amicable settlement, but the
Player sought to introduce new conditions and alter terms previously agreed.
45. Based on the above, the Club affirmed that the Player did not have just cause to terminate
the Contract, as the overdue payables did not justify termination under art. 14bis of the
Regulations. Moreover, it alleged that the deregistration occurred only after the parties had
reached an agreement, with the formal signature remaining, and that during this period
the Club continued paying salaries and allowed him to continue individual training, and at
no time abusively isolated him. In this regard, the Club also denied having displayed
abusive behaviour.
46. Therefore, the Club contended that the Player was not entitled to compensation or any
other claims. Regarding the tax certificates, the Club indicated that this could be addressed
administratively and did not require any monetary sanction.
47. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“57. For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber:
i. Dismiss the claim in its entirety;
ii. Confirm that termination was without just cause;
iii. Reject compensation under Art. 17 RSTP, including any ‘specificity of sport‘
adjustment; and
iv. Reject the Claimant’s request that the Respondent bear any and all costs.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
48. In his replica, the Player first stated that the Coach’s Agent was not the Club’s agent and
that the Club had never confirmed nor informed him that this individual was authorised to
represent the Club. In addition, the Player denied that the Alleged Player’s Agent was his
agent, as he had never authorised him to represent him. In fact, the Player asserted that
this agent was connected to the Club and merely informed him from time to time about
issues within the Club due to the language barrier.
49. In this context, the Player denied all the allegations made by the Club. Specifically regarding
the payment delays, the Player indicated that it was the first time the Club claimed that the
delays were due to administrative issues. In any case, the Player argued that he had never
accepted being paid late. Furthermore, he argued that the Club acknowledged its
obligation to reimburse expenses but failed to comply with such payment. In addition, the
Player pointed out that the Club deregistered him for sporting reasons and stated that he
never agreed to be excluded from training.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
50. In particular, the Player denied having agreed to any mutual termination, as he never
signed nor agreed to sign any settlement with the Club. He noted that this could be seen
in the evidence submitted by the Club itself. For example, on 10 September 2025 the Player
informed the Club that he was open to negotiate but did not accept any agreement.
51. In this respect, the Player argued that the parties did not mutually terminate the Contract
but that he unilaterally terminated it. The Player firmly alleged that the parties had never
verbally agreed nor signed any agreement, and that there was no evidence to the contrary.
He added that, had the parties terminated the Contract by mid-July 2025, they would not
still have been negotiating at the end of September. In any event, the Player remarked that
the Club’s answer was entirely supported by chats with his alleged agent, without any
evidence that this person was indeed his agent or authorised to negotiate his departure.
The Player further stated that the Club did not pay any of the amounts foreseen in the
drafts of the termination agreements, thereby demonstrating that no mutual consent had
been reached.
52. Apart from acknowledging the debt, the Player indicated that the Club acknowledged his
deregistration, without proving how this was in line with Country B Football Association
regulations and without proving that a mutual termination had taken place.
53. The Player alleged that mitigation shall not apply because he remained unemployed, and
he pointed out that the Club acknowledged that he was entitled to reimbursement and to
receive all amounts net, with the corresponding tax certificates.
54. Based on the above, the Player maintained his requests for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
55. The Club was provided with a deadline until 10 December 2025 to submit its duplica.
56. On 11 December 2025, the Club provided its duplica.
57. On 19 December 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that the
correspondence had been submitted outside the time limit and was therefore disregarded
based on art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules).
58. On 26 December 2025, the Club submitted a request for reconsideration and asked that
its duplica be admitted.
59. On 13 January 2026, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that, after an analysis
of the explanations and evidence provided by the Respondent, there were no grounds to
conclude that the submission had been filed within the relevant time limit. Therefore, the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
FIFA general secretariat reiterated that the Respondent’s duplica should be disregarded,
without prejudice to the fact that the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or
the Chamber) retained ultimate discretion regarding its admissibility.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
60. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 11 September
2025 and submitted for decision on 2 April 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts.
32 and 35 of the January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition
of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
61. Furthermore, the Chamber 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 (July 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 a Country A player and a Country B club.
62. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof and admissibility
63. The Chamber 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 Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
64. In addition, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber confirmed that the duplica
submitted by the Club was filed outside the granted time limit and shall therefore be
disregarded in accordance with art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules.
c. Merits of the dispute
65. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
66. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
67. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just
cause, as the Club deregistered him, failed to comply with several payment obligations, and
displayed abusive behaviour towards him. Therefore, he argued that he is entitled to
outstanding salaries, reimbursement for accommodation, and compensation.
68. The Chamber also noted that the Club, conversely, asserted that the Player terminated the
Contract without just cause, as the deregistration only occurred after the parties had
mutually agreed to a termination and the outstanding remuneration was not sufficient to
justify just cause. Additionally, the Club denied having behaved in an abusive manner.
69. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause and the ensuing consequences.
A. Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
70. First, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just
cause based on art. 14 of the Regulations, which establishes the following:
“1. A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind
(either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is
just cause. In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no
longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.
2. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.”
71. Additionally, the Chamber recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity
justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when
there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of
the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated
prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken, such
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure.
72. Moreover, the Chamber also deemed important to recall that contractual stability is the
backbone of the entire football system, and employers and employees in the football world
are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship without
a valid reason. In this regard, the early termination of an employment contract without just
cause has consequences – both financial and sporting. The rules allow for the parties to
modulate the effects of such a premature termination, but the jurisprudence also sets
certain boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty and the
legitimate expectation of contractual stability.
73. In this context, the Chamber moved on to analyse in turn whether the alleged breaches
that the Player argued were committed by the Club were in fact sufficiently demonstrated,
giving him just cause to terminate the Contract, and whether such termination was an
ultima ratio measure.
a.1) Purported breaches committed by the Club
a.1.1) Deregistration
74. The Chamber first observed that the Player argued that the Club deregistered him when it
signed a new foreign player in July 2025. In this regard, while the Player provided evidence
of the Club signing this new player - which, per se, did not prove that he was deregistered he submitted a communication in which the Club shared the lists of the A and B teams, and
he was not included in either of those lists. More importantly, the Chamber noted that the
Club expressly admitted having deregistered the Player after signing a new foreign player.
75. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that it was undisputed that the Club
deregistered the Player. However, the Chamber observed that the Club indicated that this
deregistration occurred only after reaching a mutual agreement with the Player, by means
of which the parties had decided to mutually terminate the Contract. Hence, the Club
argued that this deregistration did not affect the Player, as they had already decided to end
the employment relationship.
76. In this context, the Chamber noted that most of the evidence provided by the Club refers
to messages exchanged between the Coach’s Agent and the Alleged Player’s Agent. While
the Club argued that the latter was the Player’s agent, the Player strongly denied this, and
the Club failed to provide evidence demonstrating that this individual was authorised to
represent him in any negotiations with the Club.
77. In any event, even if the Alleged Player’s Agent were to be considered the Player’s agent,
the Chamber considered that the Club failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that,
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
at the time of the deregistration - which, based on the allegations of the parties, occurred
on or around 21 July 2025 - there was an agreement for a mutual termination.
78. While it could be inferred that the parties were discussing an amicable settlement - also
based on the exchanges involving the Player, which he did not dispute – the Chamber
remarked that there was no evidence indicating that the deregistration occurred after the
parties had terminated the Contract. Based on the evidence on file, the Chamber
underscored that it could not even be inferred that, as the Club alleged, only the finalisation
of the agreement was missing. Moreover, the Chamber emphasised that there was no
evidence of any communication between the parties regarding the Player’s registration
status. In other words, the Chamber considered that the parties never agreed on the
Player’s deregistration at the time the Club carried it out.
79. Based on this, the Chamber determined that the Club unilaterally deregistered the Player
while the Contract was still in force, before reaching a mutual agreement for the
termination.
80. At this point, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition,
p. 136 and 137), which established that:
“The issue of just cause may also occur in connection with players being deregistered or
not registered to play for their clubs. Such situations often arise, for example, when a
club has already used up its entire quota of foreign players but wishes to register
another foreign player. As it has already used up its quota, the club proceeds to
deregister a foreign player it wishes to replace with a new foreign player without,
however, terminating the deregistered player’s contract.
The jurisprudence provides that the player generally has just cause to terminate their
contract in such cases. As previously mentioned, a club – as an employer – has the duty
to protect the personality rights of the player – as an employee. The career development
of a footballer may be prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty
to allow its players to engage in the activity for which, in principle, they have been
employed and are qualified to perform. The DRC has already confirmed that ‘among a
player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a
timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be given
the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official matches’ and
that ‘by ‘de-registering’ a player, even for a limited time period, a club is effectively
barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to competition and, as
such, is violating one of his fundamental rights as a football player’ and that therefore
‘the de-registration of a player could in principle constitute a breach of contract since it
de facto prevents a player from being eligible to play for his club’.
(…)
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
In line with the well-established approach of the DRC, a 2014 award confirmed that the
deregistration of a player to participate in a national championship entitles the player
to unilaterally terminate their contract with just cause, with no requirement to send a
default notice to the club. The rationale for this is that players have a fundamental right
to train and to be able to play official matches. In order for a player to be eligible to
participate in organised football, they must be registered to participate in
championships for their club. If they are not registered, they will not be able to play
competitive football, irrespective of their commitment, general attitude and
fundamental rights. Even stronger language was used in a 2015 award, where it was
stated that deregistering the player constituted the ‘factual termination of the
employment contract’.
In a 2018 award, CAS confirmed once again that deregistering a player from
participating in national championships is itself enough to justify premature
termination of the contract.”
81. In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s deregistration from the
national competition constituted a severe breach by the Club, which was considered to be
a material breach of contract.
a.1.2) Outstanding salaries and accommodation expenses
82. In addition to the deregistration, the Player argued, in his default notice, that the Club failed
to comply with its financial obligations, as it failed to pay him the salaries for June and July
2025, totalling USD 25,456 net, and at least Country B currency 38,100 net in
accommodation expenses.
83. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Club acknowledged not having paid the
prorated salary for February 2025 due to administrative issues but argued that it would be
paid in due course, along with the salary for September 2025. Moreover, the Club alleged
that the salaries for July and August 2025 had already been paid.
84. Nevertheless, the Chamber pointed out that the Club failed to provide evidence of these
alleged payments in its reply to the claim and also failed to provide its duplica within the
time limit granted. Based on this, the Chamber found that it did not provide any evidence
of having paid these amounts, let alone evidence that they were paid at the time the Player
put the Club in default or before the termination. While the Player himself provided
evidence of the payment for June 2025, which occurred before the date of the notice of
default, the Chamber considered that the Club still failed to pay him the salary for July 2025
at that time, which was already due.
85. Moreover, while the Club acknowledged that the Player was entitled to reimbursement of
accommodation expenses, it alleged that the non-payment was due to the Player’s failure
to provide the corresponding evidence. However, the Chamber noted that there was no
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
evidence demonstrating that at any time - particularly after the notice of default - the Club
requested the Player to provide any documents to proceed with the payments.
86. Based on the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Club was also in default with
respect to its financial obligations, although the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations were not met as (i) the Player did not grant the Club 15 days, and (ii) the debt
was lower than two monthly salaries. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Club
consistently failed to pay the Player on time, which also constituted a breach of the
Contract.
a.1.3) Further abusive conduct
87. Lastly, the Player argued that the Club displayed abusive behaviour towards him by not
allowing him to train and participate in matches, and he provided an exchange with the
assistant coach to demonstrate this.
88. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Club did not deny that the Player was separated
from group training and was not called up for matches but stated that this occurred
because the parties had reached an agreement. However, as established above, the
Chamber emphasised that there was no evidence of any such agreement - or any
agreement specifically regarding this issue.
89. While the Chamber acknowledged that the Player only provided a single message
purportedly sent to the Club’s coach during the entire period, the Chamber also remarked
that he subsequently put the Club in default and requested to be reinstated in training, to
which the Club failed to react. Therefore, the Chamber could only conclude that the Club
separated the Player from training before the termination of the employment relationship.
a.1.4) Interim conclusion
90. Based on all the above, the Chamber considered that the Player’s deregistration
constituted a severe breach that could, in itself, justify the Player’s termination. This, in
addition to the other breaches, confirmed that the Club was failing to comply with several
terms of the Contract.
91. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded to analysed whether the termination was an ultima
ratio act.
b) Ultima ratio
92. The Chamber observed that the Player put the Club in default on 19 August 2025 and
requested (i) to be immediately registered, (ii) to be immediately reinstated in training, and
(iii) that the Club pay the outstanding remuneration within seven days. The Club, however,
failed to reply to the letter and merely attempted to settle the dispute. The Chamber
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
further observed that the Player, on 1 September 2025, i.e., 13 days later, terminated the
Contract.
93. In this context, the Chamber observed that the deregistration carried out by the Club
implied that it no longer intended to rely on the Player’s services. Taking this into account,
together with the Club’s failure to reply to the letter and its failure to take any further action,
the Chamber concluded that the termination constituted an ultima ratio measure.
c) Conclusion
94. In light of all the above findings, the Chamber determined that the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations, as he could no longer
reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue the contractual relationship.
B. What are the consequences of the termination?
95. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
b.1) Outstanding salaries
96. The Chamber noted that the Player claimed the prorated salary for February 2025 and the
full salaries for July and August 2025. While the Club argued in its response to the claim
that the salaries for July and August 2025 had already been paid and that the salary for
February 2025 would be paid in due course, the Chamber remarked that it failed to provide
any evidence in this regard in its response to the claim and failed to timely submit its
duplica, with the late submission being fully disregarded.
97. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to these salaries. The
Chamber observed that the Player was entitled to USD 200,000 gross and USD 140,000 net
during the entire Contract, i.e., 10 months and 11 days, but the Contract did not establish
the monthly remuneration, i.e., how this amount was distributed. Considering that the
Player stated that the salary was USD 13,425 net per month, which was not disputed by the
Club, and in the absence of any further calculation, the Chamber determined that he was
entitled to USD 13,425 net per month for 10 months, i.e., USD 134,250 net, and to USD
5,750 net for the prorated amount for February.
98. Based on this, the Chamber decided to award the Player USD 5,750 net for February 2025,
with 5% interest p.a. as from 16 March 2025; USD 13,425 net for July 2025, with 5% interest
p.a. as from 16 August 2025; and USD 13,425 net for August 2025, with 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 September 2025, based on the termination date.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
b.2) Reimbursement of accommodation expenses
99. Regarding the reimbursement for accommodation expenses, the Chamber noted that the
Player provided evidence demonstrating that he signed the Rental Agreement and
attached several proofs of payment allegedly corresponding to accommodation expenses.
Although the Club argued that the decision to rent a different apartment than the one it
provided was solely the Player’s decision, the Chamber pointed out that it failed to provide
any evidence in this respect and, ultimately, acknowledged that it had to reimburse the
Player. In this context, it merely alleged that no payment was made because the Player
failed to provide receipts.
100. While the Chamber considered that the evidence provided by the Player could have been
more precise, as the proof of payment referred to an individual who did not appear to be
identified in the Rental Agreement, the Chamber also noted that the Club did not dispute
any of the evidence submitted by the Player.
101. Based on the above, considering that (i) the Club was contractually obliged to provide the
Player with accommodation, (ii) it was undisputed that the Player paid for his own
accommodation, and (iii) the Club did not dispute the evidence provided by the Player, the
Chamber decided to award reimbursement of expenses. However, although the payment
proofs submitted demonstrate payments totalling Country B currency 47,586, the
Chamber decided to limit reimbursement to Country B currency 44,400 net, as stipulated
in the Rental Agreement (Country B currency 38,400 for 12 months and Country B
currency 6,000 deposit), plus interest as from 23 April 2025, i.e., the day after the signature
of the Rental Agreement, which was also the date of payment under the Rental
Agreement.
b.3) Unused paid leave
102. The Chamber then noted that the Player argued that he was entitled to an amount
equivalent to 30 days of unused paid leave, i.e., one monthly salary, based on the following
provision:
“7. [The Player] shall be granted a paid annual leave of (thirty) days per contractual year
upon prior written approval by [the Club], without prejudice to any training activities,
pre-season preparation and matches. [The Player] shall submit a written application to
[the Club] one month in advance when applying for paid annual leave, and shall obtain
the written consent from [the Club]. [The Player] undertakes that he will be reached by
[the Club] at any time during the holiday. If [the Club] deems it is necessary for [the
Player] to return to work, [the Player] shall cease his vacation and arrive at the place
designated by [the Club] to resume work. If [the Player] takes leave without obtaining
[the Club]'s prior written consent, or fails to return on time after the expiration of
vacation approved by [the Club] in writing, or fails to return within the specified time
after receiving [the Club]'s notice of return, [the Player] shall be deemed as taking leave
of absence without authorization. In such case, [the Club] has the right to deduct [the
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Player]’s remuneration during his absence based on his average daily salary. The
application procedures for sick leave and personal leave shall be separately agreed by
[the Club] and [the Player] or in accordance with [the Club]’s rules and regulations.”
103. In this case, the Chamber underscored that the provision did not establish that, in the event
the Player did not use this paid leave, he would be entitled to a lump sum equivalent to 30
days. It only established that he was entitled to enjoy 30 days of leave within the contractual
period.
104. In this regard, the Chamber was of the opinion that there was no contractual basis to award
the Player any additional amount for unused paid leave. Otherwise, awarding such amount
would effectively grant the Player a higher salary than the one stipulated in the Contract.
105. Based on the above, the Chamber decided to reject this part of the claim.
b.4) Compensation for breach of contract
106. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
107. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
108. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
109. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. The Chamber noted that the
Contract was terminated on 1 September 2025 and would have remained valid until 31
December 2025 had the Player not terminated it. Considering the Player’s salary of USD
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
13,425 net per month, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 53,700 net (USD
13,425 net times four) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
110. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Player requested that he be awarded a lump sum
regarding the flight tickets as compensation, as the Club failed to provide him with three
out of the four stipulated flight tickets. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Contract
provided the following (quoted verbatim):
“5. [The Club] shall provide [the Player] with (2) round-trip economy class flight tickets
and (0) round-trip business class flight tickets from City A in Country B to Country A
(country of nationality of [the Player]) for each contractual year (every 12 months from
the signing date of this Contract constitutes a contractual year). The above-mentioned
flight tickets are provided on a contractual year basis only and thus will not be
cumulative upon the entire duration of this Contract (i.e. no additional tickets will be
provided in the new contractual year in the event [the Player] does not use all of the
airline tickets provided during the previous contractual year, and the unused tickets
shall be deemed automatically void, nor shall [the Player] be compensated in any
form as a substitute compensation for the unused airline tickets.). The Parties agree
that the flight tickets can only be used by [the Player], [the Player]'s spouse and
children.”
111. While, in principle, this clause established that unused flight tickets should not be
compensated to the Player, the Chamber interpreted that this wording referred to a
different situation, i.e., where a contract remained valid for more than one year and the
Player did not use the tickets during one contractual year. In the present case, however,
the Player terminated the Contract with just cause before its original end date and,
therefore, the Chamber considered that this part of the clause did not apply. In this respect,
the Chamber noted that the Player was contractually entitled to four flight tickets and
alleged that the Club only provided him with one, which was not disputed by the Club.
112. Therefore, considering that there was a contractual basis as well as a specific request
submitted by the Player, and in line with the standard practice of the Football Tribunal, the
Chamber deemed it appropriate to award the Player a fixed amount for flight tickets as
part of the compensation. In this respect, the Chamber noted that FIFA Travel, as requested
by the Player, provided a fare of USD 2,287 for a round-trip ticket and USD 1,719 for a
one-way ticket, both of which exceed the amount requested by the Player - namely, USD
3,250 net. Consequently, the Chamber decided to limit the award under this head to USD
3,250 net.
113. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Player was, in principle, entitled to USD 53,700
net plus USD 3,250 net as compensation for breach of contract, i.e., USD 56,950 net.
114. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
115. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract and during the relevant period of time, i.e. until 31
December 2025. Consequently, no mitigation or additional compensation applied (cf., art.
17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
116. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of USD 56,950
net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
117. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
b.5) Tax certificates
118. Lastly, the Chamber noted that the Player requested that the Club be ordered to provide
him with the corresponding tax certificates related to the payment of all obligations.
However, the Chamber considered that there was no contractual basis for such request
and, therefore, it decided to reject it, while noting that all amounts were being granted as
net.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
119. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
120. In this regard, the DRC 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. 24
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
121. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
122. 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.
123. The DRC 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
124. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
125. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
126. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club A, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 32,600 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,750 net as from 16 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,425 net as from 16 August 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,425 net as from 1 September 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- Country B currency 44,400 net as reimbursement for expenses plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 23 April 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 56,950 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 September 2025 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.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
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. 28