Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Player, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Club, Country B
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 11 July 2024, the Country B Club, Club A (hereinafter: club or Respondent) invited the
Country A player, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant or player) in writing to travel to Country B
with the purpose of negotiating and eventually concluding an employment contract, at the
Respondent’s expense.
2.
On 13 July 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant a draft employment contract via email,
requesting him to sign such contract and return it at his earliest convenience. Such draft
contract was in the standard form of the Country B Football Federation, and stipulated inter
alia the following terms:
[Translated from French into English]
“Professional Football League
Player Contract
-
Object of the contract: employment relationship between: “the employer” (the club) and
“the employee” (the player)
Term: 2 seasons, i.e., between 15 July 2024 – 30 June 2026
Remuneration: gross monthly salary of Country B currency 3,378,844 and bonuses
according to the club’s
internal regulations
Signed in Club A on 15 July 2024
The professional football player
(thumbprint and notarised signature)
Read and approved
[Claimant’s signature and thumbprint]
The President of the club / employer
(Name and Forename)
(Stamp and notarised signature)
Reserved for the Professional Football League A
3.
On the same day, the Claimant replied to the Respondent, informing the latter that the
draft should be sent to his agent.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
4.
Between 13 July 2024 and 14 July 2024, a representative of the Respondent and the
Claimant’s representative exchanged various messages on the messaging platform
WhatsApp. The Respondent informed the latter that he had previously sent a copy of the
draft contract via email for the Claimant’s signature. Furthermore, the parties discussed
the terms of the Contract; in particular:
-
-
The Claimant asked how much the amount stipulated therein would be in USD;
What the method of payment would be;
If there was any advance payment on the agreed remuneration – which the
Respondent indicated would “generally” be two monthly salaries, but this could be
discussed once the Claimant arrived in Country B;
When the Respondent wished for the Claimant to arrive in Country B;
How to proceed with the visa requirements.
5.
On 14 July 2024, the Respondent sent a letter to the Country B embassy in City A in Country
C (where his previous employer was located) requesting the acceleration of his visa / work
permit, as the former intended to recruit the Claimant as a professional football player.
Simultaneously, the Respondent requested the Claimant to go to the embassy in order to
submit further documents for his visa.
6.
On 15 July 2024, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he had been to the embassy,
submitted the requisite documents, and that the issuance of his visa would occur soon.
The Claimant requested the Respondent to make contact with the embassy again to finalise
the obtention of the visa.
7.
On 17 July 2024, the Claimant returned the signed copy of the draft employment contract
to the Respondent via email. The Respondent replied on the same day stating “we are
waiting for you received your visa”.
8.
Between 17 and 18 July 2024, the parties’ respective representatives exchanged further
WhatsApp correspondences whereby the Respondent requested the exact location of the
player in order to assist the obtention of the visa, and subsequently informed the Claimant
that the Claimant’s visa should be expected very soon.
9.
Between 21 and 22 July 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent exchanged messages via
WhatsApp in which the Claimant disclosed that the Respondent had allegedly never
contacted the embassy and that he was still waiting for his visa. This message remained
unanswered by the Respondent.
10. On 22 July 2024, the Claimant sent an email to the Respondent, sending the latter the
release letter from his previous club. This email remained unanswered by the Respondent.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
11. On 9 August 2024, the Claimant addressed the Respondent in a formal letter, requesting
the latter to complete the necessary administrative steps and integrate the Claimant within
15 days as the parties had completed a valid and binding employment contract.
12. On 26 August 2024, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the allegedly concluded contract.
13. On 31 August 2024, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Country C club,
Club B (hereinafter: the New Club) valid as from 1 September 2024 until 30 July 2025.
(hereinafter: the New Contract).
14. In accordance with the New Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
total remuneration of Country C currency 180,000,000 over the course of the New Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 19 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
16. On 19 December 2024, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant.
17. A summary of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
18. In his claim, the player argued that the parties signed a valid and binding contract with all
the essential elements of an employment agreement (i.e., essentialia negotii).
19. The Claimant emphasised that the Contract, as validly negotiated between the parties, was
returned to the Respondent signed, via email, thereby putting the mutual agreement of the
parties to be legally bound to each other beyond doubt.
20. The Claimant argued that, notwithstanding the above, the Respondent fell short of its
contractual obligations, failing to give effect to the Contract.
21. In particular, the Respondent failed, according to the Claimant, to obtain the requisite work
permit / visa, despite several written reminders.
22. Equally, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent abandoned all contact after the
signature of the Contract, constituting a breach of its obligations. Despite a final reminder
on 9 August 2024, the Claimant stated that the Respondent failed to comply with its
obligations.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
23. Thus, the Claimant invoked just cause when terminating the Contract prematurely on 26
August 2024.
24. The Claimant formulated the following request for relief:
-
Country C currency 79,402,834 as compensation for breach of contract;
Interest on the above amount (no specific date requested).
b. Counterclaim of the Respondent
25. In its submission, the Respondent denied the existence of a valid and binding contract.
26. The Respondent denounced the fact that the Claimant was in Country C - the country of his
last employer from whom he was released during the negotiation with the Respondent – as
the visa procedure was complicated, and that he should have travelled to Country A where
obtaining a visa would have been easier.
27. The Respondent equally outlined that the Claimant allegedly never signed a contract with
the Respondent, and that the signed version of the Country B Football Federation standard
contract with the agreed terms did not constitute a valid employment contract, rather it was
only sent to the Claimant after a verbal request by his representative for him to “examine
it”.
28. The Respondent equally asserted that the Claimant never played an official match for the
Respondent, which further supported its line of argument that there was no formal
employment relationship between the parties.
29. Lastly, the Respondent emphasised that the fact that the Claimant signed a new contract
so quickly demonstrates the Claimant’s bad faith in lodging the present claim.
30. Based on all the above, the Respondent requested damages for the “abusive behaviour of
the Claimant” in the amount of Country B currency 10,000,000.
c. Reply of the Claimant to the counterclaim
31. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant reiterated his main arguments and his
request for relief, and briefly replied to the Respondent’s allegations by stating that he has
not acted contrary to any of the relevant FIFA Regulations or in bad faith.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 19 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 15 May 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
33. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
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.
34. 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 January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
35. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
36. 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
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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of an employment contract, and the liability
arising therefrom.
38. The Chamber, prior to entering its analysis, briefly recalled the parties’ submissions. On
one hand, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to give effect to the purported
contract, which was validly concluded, and abandoned all contact after the signed version
of the contract was returned via email.
39. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Claimant failed to cooperate in the
obtention of his visa, and that, by not travelling to Country B, signing a separate contract
at the club’s premises, and not playing an official match for the Respondent, no
employment relationship may be established.
40. Having outlined the above, the Chamber briefly recalled the principle of the burden of
proof, pursuant to which a party that asserts a certain fact also bears the burden of proving
its veracity.
41. With this established, the Chamber deemed it opportune to highlight the questions it
deemed relevant in the case at stake. Firstly, it understood that it had to determine the
existence (or not) of a valid and binding employment contract between the parties. If
affirmative, the Chamber would have to analyse the circumstances in which such
employment contract was terminated. Finally, should the Chamber reach a conclusion that
the supposed contract was terminated with (or without just cause), it would have to
determine the consequences thereof for the party in breach.
42. The Chamber thus proceeded with the first question, namely the existence of a valid and
binding employment contract between the parties.
43. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber noted that the evidence adduced by the Claimant –
in particular all WhatsApp correspondence and emails between the parties – was not only
adequately corroborated by the Claimant (including the proper identification of the
Respondent’s representative), but also left uncontested by the Respondent.
44. The Chamber equally recalled that the parties engaged in lengthy negotiations which
involved, on one hand, discussions as to the terms of the purported contract, and on the
other, the obtention of the Claimant’s visa in order to be able to travel to Country B.
45. In particular, the Chamber revisited the timeline of the dispute at stake and deemed the
following facts essential:
-
On 13 July 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant a draft employment contract
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
via email; in this respect, we are not in possession of the actual document – only
the email containing the file
-
The subsequent communications between the parties via WhatsApp, which are
duly corroborated with proper contact identification and remained uncontested
by the Respondent, in our opinion, corroborate that a draft employment contract,
the terms of which subsequently remained uncontested, was sent to the
Claimant. Equally, it appeared that the parties agreed on the essential terms of
this contract (specifically, concerning term, remuneration, and the fact that the
Claimant was to be engaged as a professional football player).
-
On 17 July 2024, the Claimant returned the signed employment contract to the
Respondent.
-
On the same day, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the signed contract, and
stated that they were awaiting confirmation of the Claimant’s visa.
46. Based on the above, the Chamber was able to conclude that the Claimant and the
Respondent had engaged in negotiations in which the Respondent had made a binding
offer to the Claimant, the essential terms of which remained unamended, and which the
Claimant unequivocally and demonstrably accepted by signing the document and
returning it via email.
47. The Chamber wished to further emphasise that the Respondent’s confirmation of receipt
of the signed contract further supports the line of argument that the parties were in
agreement as to the alleged contract’s essential terms, and that the finalisation of the
employment contract was only subject to – in the Respondent’s words – awaiting the
Claimant’s visa.
48. It followed, in the Chamber’s unanimous view, that the essential elements of an
employment contract were present in the case at hand – namely, duration, remuneration,
subordination / player being engaged as a professional football player, and – in particular
– mutual intention to be legally bound.
49. As a result, the Chamber reached the interim conclusion that the parties had concluded a
valid and binding employment contract on 17 July 2024 (hereinafter: the Contract).
50. Having established the existence of the Contract, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the
ramifications of the departure therefrom by the parties.
51. Preliminarily, the Chamber wished to recall the well-established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, pursuant to which a premature contractual termination may only be the
result of a severe or consistent breach of contract, where its continuation can no longer be
reasonably expected by the damaged party. Where the parties have more lenient
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
measures available to remedy the relationship, these should be readily turned to before
putting an end to the contract. A premature contractual termination may only be a
measure of last resort – or ultima ratio.
52. The Chamber hereby recalled that the Claimant invoked just cause on the basis of the
Respondent refusing to provide him with a work permit / visa to travel to Country B, despite
several written requests and a formal deadline of 15 days being granted.
53. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Respondent justified its behaviour by arguing that
the Claimant made the visa obtention process unnecessarily difficult by not travelling to
Country A.
54. Following the signature of the Contract, the Chamber recalled that the parties discussed
the Claimant’s visa situation at length, with the Respondent instructing the Claimant’s
representative to contact the Country B embassy in City A.
55. After the Claimant contacted the Respondent again, informing him that the latter failed to
contact the embassy in City A, the Respondent ceased to reply to the Claimant.
56. On 9 August 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the
latter to give effect to the Contract, put all administrative requirements in place, and
comply with its obligations as an employer in light of the fact that they had a valid and
binding contract, within 15 days, to no avail.
57. In light of these facts, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent was indeed in breach of
its obligations under the Contract; in particular, despite several reprimands, it failed to
obtain a visa for the Claimant, which falls within its general obligation as an employer.
58. Furthermore, and overarchingly, pursuant to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, an
employment contract may not be made subject to the grant of a work permit / visa in any
event.
59. Despite this breach, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant provided a
generous grace period of 15 days to the Respondent to remedy the situation and
commence the relevant steps to give effect to the Contract, in vain.
60. Thus, the Chamber firmly concluded that the threshold of ultima ratio was met in the case
at hand, and that the Claimant had a just cause to terminate the Contract unilaterally
before its term on 26 August 2024.
ii. Consequences
61. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
62. The Chamber observed that the Contract was terminated shortly after its conclusion, and
that, as a result, no remuneration had yet fallen due. Therefore, the Chamber proceeded
to the calculation of compensation due to the Claimant.
63. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
64. 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.
65. As a consequence, the members of 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 the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
66. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of Country B currency 79,402,834 (i.e. the residual value of the
Contract, or 23.5 monthly salaries of Country B currency 3,378,844 each between 15 July
2024 and 30 June 2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
67. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would 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 player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
68. Indeed, the player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to a total figure of Country C currency
180,000,000, OR approximately Country B currency 18,178,759.96 during the overlapping
period between the prematurely terminated Contract and the New Contract. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of
Country B currency 18,178,759.96.
69. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reason. Hence, no additional compensation was
due in the case at hand.
70. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
Country B currency 61,224,074.04 to the Claimant (i.e. Country B currency 79,402,834
minus Country B currency 18,178,759.96), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
71. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 November 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
75. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
76. 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
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Player, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, the Club, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent Country B currency 61,224,074.04 as compensation for breach of contract
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 November 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
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. 15