Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player A
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by Legal Representative A
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Club A, Country B
Represented by Legal Representative B
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 July 2021, the Country A Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or
the Player) and the Country B Club A (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counterclaimant or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract or the Memorandum)
valid as from its date of signature until 1 January 2024.
2.
Clause 3 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“3.1 The Parties hereby undertake the obligation of signing for registration and tax purposes,
three separate agreements (hereinafter the Agreements"), each of the duration of one season
for which the present Contract shall be in force (2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively).
[…]
In the event the club will not prolong the contract of 2022 after the 2021 season finished, the
club shall compensate EUR 2.400.000,00 net (two million four hundred thousand EUR) to the
player. In the event the club will not prolong the contract of 2023 after the 2022 season finished,
the club shall compensate EUR 1.200.000.00 net (one million two hundred thousand EUR) to the
player.
3.2 The Agreements of 2022 and 2023 season shall be signed by the Parties by no later than
January 15th of 2022 and 2023 season and registered with the Federation A within the following
10 (ten) days.
3.3 In case of any discrepancy between the Agreements and the present Contract, the latter shall
prevail in any case.
3.4 Any breach of any of the Agreements shall constitute a breach of the present Contract in its
entirety, and vice versa.”
3.
According to clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as follows:
“4.1 2021 Season (5th July 2021 to 1st January 2022) 6 months
The Club agrees to pay the Player a basic salary in the total amount of €600.000,00 (€) net (Six
hundred thousand EUR) for 2021 season, payable in 5 (five) monthly instalments.
[…]
This "net" means that the club shall pay the tax for the player in Country B.
[…]
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
The Basic Salary shall be paid at 25th day of every month from August to December of 2021
season (Basic Salary") in the following manner:
[…]
4.2 2022 and 2023 Season
The Club agrees to pay the Player a basic salary in the total amount of EUR 2.400.000,00 net
(two million four hundred thousand EUR) for 2022 and 2023 season, payable in 22 (twenty-two)
monthly instalments. For the avoidance of doubt, the basic annual salary is EUR 1.200.000,00
net (one million two hundred thousand EUR).
[…]
This “net” means that the club shall pay the tax for the player in Country B.
[…]
The Basic Salary shall be paid at 25th day of every month from February to December ("Basic
Salary"): […]”
4.
Furthermore, clause 8.1 of the Contract read as follows:
“The breach by the Player of any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a severe breach
of contract and thus subject to the consequences established by Clause 11 of the present
Contract.
[…]
D) The Player agrees not to use substances that are harmful to his health or banned by the World
Anti-Doping Agency and or any football governing body, and to submit himself to drug tests as
set out the applicable laws, regulations and/or if requested by the Club. […]”
5.
Lastly, clause 11 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“Just cause: in the event of breach of this Contract or termination by either party with just cause,
article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players shall be applied.”
6.
On 28 July 2021, the Player and the Club concluded, in accordance with clause 3.1 of the
Contract, an agreement (hereinafter: the Agreement), valid as from 5 July 2021 until 1
January 2022, to proceed with the registration of the Player with the Federation A
(hereinafter: the FA) for the season 2021/2022.
7.
On 17 October 2021, the Player provided a doping control sample following an
Confederation A (hereinafter: the CA) Champions League match of the Club.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
8.
On 6 December 2021, the Player was notified that the analysis of his A Sample had returned
an Adverse Analytical Finding for Molecule A.
9.
On 8 December 2021, the Player was provisionally suspended by the Chairperson of the
CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee (hereinafter: the CA)
10. On 12 January 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] I am Attorney A and a Attorney at law in Country B. It is a pleasure to have the chance to
contact you. I am representing Club A (hereinafter referred to as "the Club".) regarding the
"Professional Football player Contract" and "Memorandum" signed by Mr. Player A and the Club,
and the anti-doping case of Mr. Player A. Please contact me if you have any further questions
about these [sic] case.
Player A is now sanctioned worldwide with a provisional suspension from all football-related
activities,
(1) The Club will support for Player A regarding the anti-doping case as far as possible, but as
Player A is sanctioned worldwide with a provisional suspension from all football-related
activities, please understand that the Club will suspend all payments of remuneration etc. by the
Club to Player A.
(2) If the B sample tests positive, the Club would like to discuss whether or not to continue the
"Professional Football player Contract" and "Memorandum" signed by Player A and the Club.
[…]”
11. On 25 January 2022, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] We understand (from your email to Mr A and Mr B of 12 January 2022) that the club intends
to withhold Player A’s salary whilst he is provisionally suspended.
If the club proceeds as it has proposed, then Player A ability to fund his defence in the antidoping proceedings will be severely handicapped.
Accordingly, please could you:
1. Confirm that the club is proposing that it will pay for any medication / supplement analysis
that is performed by Corporation A.
2. Set out how else the club proposes to support Player A as regards the anti-doping proceedings
(given your indication, in your email to Mr A and Mr B of 12 January 2022, that the club will
support Player A as far as possible).
In addition, please could you confirm that the club has now paid the Country C Institute of
Science and Technology’s (CIST) invoice, as the CA has previously informed us that no payment
has been received.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Please kindly note that nothing in the above email should be taken to amount to an acceptance
of the club’s proposal to withhold Player A’s salary whilst he is provisionally suspended, or of
any of the other proposals that the club has made regarding Player A’s contract of employment.
[…]”
12. On 8 February 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] I have been able to discuss the matter with the club and reply as follows.
1. The cost of analysis by Corporation A.
The Club will bear the cost of analysis by Corporation A for the medicines in the attached file
No.1 and No.2 which the Club prescribed to Player A. For all other medicines and supplements,
Player A will need to pay for the cost of analysis by Corporation A and send them to Corporation
A himself, but the Club can act as a contact point for analysis by Corporation A if you wish.
2. Regarding the support for Player A.
The club is currently supporting Player A by paying the rent for his house in Country B, if possible,
we would firstly like to know the current progress of the anti-doping process. We will then
consider on a case-by-case basis whether or not we can provide the support you require.
However, please note that we will not be able to provide any financial support such as legal fees
for anti-doping proceedings.
3. Payment to Organization X
The Club has already paid the costs to Organization X. Please see the attached file. […]”
13. On 15 February 2022, the Player replied to the latest correspondence of the Club as
follows: “[…] 1. Analysis by Corporation A
As the club will appreciate, any analysis will be most useful if supplements / medications of the
correct batch number are submitted for analysis.
Accordingly, before requesting the analysis of any supplements or medications, please could the
club confirm whether it has retained the packaging or batch numbers of any of the supplements
or medications (including Med A and Med B) that were given to Player A by the club in September
and October 2021.
2. Support for Player A
Player A notes the club’s position.
3. Payment to Organization X
Many thanks for providing the proof of the payment to Organization X, and thank you to
the club for making that payment.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Finally, please kindly note that nothing in the above email should be taken to amount to an
acceptance of the club’s proposal to withhold Player A salary whilst he is provisionally
suspended, or of any of the other proposals that the club has made regarding Player A’s contract
of employment. […]”
14. On 20 February 2022, the Club informed the Player that it wished to know the progress of
his anti-doping proceedings, including the proceedings of the B sample, and that it
recognized the packaging and batch numbers of the medicines listed in No. 1 and No. 2 of
the file attached to its email.
15. On 23 February 2022, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] As to the progress of the anti-doping proceedings, we can inform you that the B Sample has
not yet been analysed.
This is because the B Sample has been transferred to the WADA-accredited laboratory in
Lausanne, Switzerland, where it will be analysed. We have repeatedly reiterated to the CA that
the B Sample needs to be analysed as soon as possible, and thus hope that the B Sample will be
analysed soon. We will continue to pressure the CA in that regard.
As to the batch numbers, are you saying that the club has retained either the packaging or a
record of the batch number of the Medication A and Medication B that was administered to
Player A in October 2021? If so, please could we be sent a photograph of the packaging or
provided with the batch numbers, as applicable.
In addition, has the club retained the packaging or batch numbers of any of the other
supplements or medications that were given to Player A by the club in September and October
2021? […]”
16. On 4 March 2022, the Player was notified that analysis of his B Sample had confirmed the
A Sample result.
17. On 14 March 2022, the Player admitted that an anti-doping rule violation had inadvertently
been committed and confirmed that he had “never knowingly or intentionally used Molecule
A”.
18. On 15 March 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] 1 Agreed termination of contract
First of all, the club had been hoping for a good result, therefore the club was very disappointed
to learn that he had tested positive for the B sample.
A positive test for the B sample could result in Player A being suspended by the CA, which would
be a lengthy process, even if he were to contest it at CA or CAS.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
During the period in which Player A will contest the suspension by CA, as you know, he will be
banned from all football-related activities, which means that he will not be able to play football
as a professional footballer.
Therefore, with great regret, the club would like to conclude an agreed termination regarding
the Memorandum and the professional footballer contract between Player A and the club for
the sake of their respective futures.
We would like to discuss the terms of the agreed termination, so first of all, please give us an
answer by 22 March on whether Player A accepts or rejects the agreed termination. Please
understand that the club must move forward.
2 Regarding housing and luggage in Country B
The lease agreement for the Country B residence in which Player A resided is still in force. We
would like to terminate the lease agreement because the rent continues to accrue day by day,
which is a financial burden for the club, and also because Player A’s status of residence in
Country B has already expired and it would take a certain amount of time if he were to go
through the immigration procedure again.
Therefore, please provide us with the address to which we should send Player A belongings to
Country A, after terminating the lease agreement. We also request that Player A’s Country B
agent is present when the luggage is packed.
Please reply to this question by 22 March. […]”
19. On 22 March 2022, the Player replied to the latest correspondence from the Club as follows:
“[…] 1. The club’s proposal of mutual termination of the contract Player A is very sorry to hear
that the club wants to terminate the contract as he has no wish to leave the club. That is
especially the case since he hopes that the provisional suspension will be lifted shortly, such that
he will be free to return to football.
However, it would appear, given your email, that the club has made its decision and wishes to
terminate the contract.
Consequently, Player A would like to know what the club’s proposal is regarding the conditions
of such a termination agreement.
2. Housing and luggage in Country B
In the current circumstances, and since the club authorised him to stay in Country A during his
provisional suspension, Player A accepts the termination of the lease.
Player A would like his possessions to be sent to: Address A, Country A. His Country B agent would
be willing to attend the packing of his possessions.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Please note that the above does not constitute in any way an acceptance by Player A of the
termination of the contract. He simply understands that while he is not in Country B (for an
undetermined duration), it makes more sense for the lease to be terminated such that the club
does not have to pay rent on an empty property (and in such circumstances it makes sense for
his possessions to be returned to him) However, once he is able to return to play (and assuming
that the Memorandum is still in force), the club would need to provide Player A with new
accommodation (pursuant to Article 5 of the Memorandum). […]”
20. On 30 March 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] 1.Proposal of mutual termination of the contract
Thank you for your response regarding the mutual termination of the contract. The Club is
grateful for Player A’s achievements at the club so far and would like to continue to negotiate
amicably with him.
The club considers the terms of the mutual termination of the contract as outlined below. Please
note that the following conditions may be withdrawn if an early resolution cannot be reached.
(1) Player A shall receive no remuneration from February 2022 onwards to the present, as he
has not been able to perform any football-related activities since December 2021 due to his antidoping problems.
(2) Although the Club has incurred significant losses due to the large amount of money spent to
acquire Player A, including transfer and agent fees and legal fees to deal with the matter, the
Club will not make any claim for damages or other claims against Player A.
(3) We will continue to co-operate with Player A's anti-doping proceedings as far as possible
(except for financial assistance.).
(4) the club pays the shipping costs of Player A’s remaining luggage in Country B to Country A.
2. Housing and luggage in Country B
Thank you for your understanding of housing and luggage. We will work with the club's football
agent. In order to send Mr Player A’s package, we need the following information, please provide
it to us by 10 April 2022.
[…]
Please note that Player A will have to compensate the lessor financially if the key of his Country
B home is not returned by 15 Apr 2022 to the following address. […]”
21. On 11 April 2022, the Player answered the latest correspondence from the Club as follows:
“[…] I make a reference to your last email dated 30 March 2022, in particular its point no. 1
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
related to the proposed conditions of termination of the contractual relationship between Player
A and the club by mutual consent.
Please note that as of today I am the only person responsible for further discussions related to
the contractual matters of Player A in the club as well as any potential termination of the
contract between the club and Player A. I am remaining available in case any conference call is
deemed by the club necessary to further discuss the contractual matters.
In the view of the above-mentioned, I would like to state as follows:
1. Firstly, I was requested to pass on a statement from Player A that he is very disappointed by
the club’s officials behaviour during last weeks. Despite the fact that Player A left his health and
heart for the Club A on the pitch, scored some important goals and has been a major player for
the team, in this difficult time he has been left without any meaningful support and backing,
both emotionally and financially.
2. Furthermore, he considers the proposal to immediately terminate the contractual relationship
between the parties without any compensation payable to the player, as included in the email
of 30 March 2022, grossly unfair and is unable to accept it.
3. Meanwhile we would like to emphasize that Player A is receiving lot of support from the fans
of the Club A via his social media channels and also lot of questions when he will be back with
the team.
4. In this context, we believe several matters shall be emphasized:
i. Player A has never deliberately breached any contractual, CA or FIFA rules;
ii. Player A has never willingly taken any prohibited substance, including any recreational drug
and/or any substance prohibited by WADA;
iii. as of the moment no binding decision confirming any breach of either WADA or CA regulations
by Player A was undertaken – as such the club has no ground to claim that Player A breached
any provision of the contract signed with the club and/or that the club is entitled to terminate
unilaterally the contract;
iv. Player A is convinced that he will not be considered responsible for breaching applicable antidoping regulations, the provisional suspension will be lifted shortly and will be able to return to
the professional competitive football in the upcoming weeks;
v. prior to Player A’s arrival to Country B, he was tested during Competition A 2020 (on June
2021). The test was negative. Since then, Player A has not taken any supplements, pills or any
other substances which were not approved by the club doctor or physio. Therefore, it seems to
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
be apparent that some of the supplements approved by the club (or some contaminated
product) could have caused a positive test and current proceedings in front of CA;
vi. in fact Player A was left without any material financial and/or legal help from the club as
regards the ongoing proceedings, which undoubtedly has crucial importance for the player, but
also for the club, including the binding contract between the parties until end of 2023 and the
current inability of the player to represent the club in official matches; nevertheless, Player A has
undertaken all relevant actions on his own; in particular, he hired a top-notch antidoping legal
firm and has undertaken during last weeks numerous actions in order to lift the provisional
suspension and clear his name and dismiss all allegations;
vii. despite stressful circumstances Player A stays in shape, undertakes daily individual workouts
with football and physical trainers and is fully prepared to resume anytime football trainings
with the club.
5. It shall be emphasized that Player A has held significant financial cost in relation to the
proceedings in question, including large amount of legal and experts fees. What is more, such
costs shall increase multiple times in case further legal proceedings before CA (and – potentially
– Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne) is needed.
6. In view of the above-mentioned, Player A is unable to agree on the proposed terms of
termination of the contract by mutual consent. At the same time, as Player A fully understands
that the sole intention of the club is to terminate the contract and that the club does not wish to
support him in the proceedings and continue the contractual relationship irrespectively of the
outcome of the proceedings, he remains open for an amended - fair and adequate - proposal
of the club related to the termination of the contract.
7. Nevertheless, whilst Player A intention is not to terminate his contract with the Club, he still
believes that he could play for the Club A after all of this doping proceedings will come to an
end, but taking into consideration above mentioned Club’s intention to the termination of the
contract, Player A could take into consideration earlier termination of the contract on condition
that the Club will pay him 50% of his remaining salary, which is amount of 1.200.000 EUR net.
[…]”
22. On 19 April 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] The club will co-operate with you in sending medicines and supplements. The club staff will
be present during the process of sending the medicines or supplements, however I would like to
avoid any influence on the anti-doping procedure due to the club staff touching the medicines
or supplements, therefore the club ask that a third party designated by Player A will be
responsible for packing and sending the medicines or supplements. We are really sorry but we
request that you carry out the procedure.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
We would like to discuss the cost of this sending in conjunction with the Professional football
player contracts, etc. between Player A and the club.
Please note that the fact is that there are no drugs or supplements in the possession of the club,
but that Player A's own drugs or supplements are kept in the clubhouse. […]”
23. On the same day, i.e.,19 April 2022, the Club sent the following additional correspondence
to the Player:
“[…] The club will cooperate with Player A on his luggage in Country B if he will cover the costs,
so please specify how you would like your luggage sent. Please note that the club is not
responsible for the packing and storage of this luggage. Furthermore, the club does not intend
to bear the costs of transporting this luggage if Player A asks to pay 1.200.000 EUR as a condition
of the mutual termination. In addition, the club has still not received the keys of Player A Country
B residence, as requested below in a previous email sent to you. Please let us know the situation.
Please note that Player A will have to compensate the lessor financially if the key of his Country
B home is not returned by 15 Apr 2022 to the following address. […]”
24. On 29 April 2022, the Player informed the Club that CA had postponed the date of his
decision until 6 June 2022.
25. On 9 May 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] Regarding the mutual termination of the contract
In the first place, the Club will never accept the proposal to pay EUR 1.200.000 to Player A, as
the anti-doping issue is the responsibility of the athlete himself, who has ingested the banned
substance, and basically the club has no responsibility whatsoever. If you continue negotiations
with such a proposal, the club may not be able to provide more co-operation than is stated in
the contracts.
The club has incurred significant losses due to the large amount of money spent on transfer fees
and agent fees to acquire Player A, as well as legal fees to deal with this matter. Please
understand that if the agreement cannot be amicably terminated and CA imposes a definitive
suspension on Player A, the Club may claim against him damages. In addition, the club may
claim [sic] against him any costs related to housing, moving and anti-doping procedures, etc.,
which the club has considered covering.
Player A asserted that "the provisional suspension will be lifted shortly and will be able to return
to professional competitive football in the upcoming weeks". However, as a practical matter,
Player A is not currently able to engage in any football-related activities. In this regard, the club
can terminate Player A’s default of the contract as he has not provided any labour as a footballer
to the club for a long period of time from December 2021 to the present.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
In addition, the club has the right to terminate the contract because Player A may have violated
the following provisions.
・”MEMORANDUM” Clause 8.1.D.
・”MEMORANDUM” Clause 12.3 & 12.4
・”Professional Soccer Player Contract” Article 7(1)
・”Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 8
・”Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 11⑦ & 11⑬
・”Professional Soccer Player Contract” Articles 17⑤
As we have already informed you by email, the Club is grateful for Player A achievements and
have wanted to continue to negotiate amicably with him. However, there is a large perception
gap between Player A and the club regarding the termination of his contract, I don't think that
any progress can be made at this point in time through web conferencing discussions. Therefore,
the club would like to wait for a definitive disposition from CA before negotiating again. If you
are able to terminate the agreement on 30 March 2022 under the conditions stated in the email,
please contact us. […]”
26. On 10 June 2022, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] I would like to address employees of the Club, mentioned in our previous correspondence,
which are clearly hiding behind their lawyer, with following:
1. First of all, Player A did not know about what kind of help you mentioned in last email from
Attorney A? Player A hope that you are not consider 1000 USD that you paid for some tests as
any relevant help… One thousand USD during half year period.
2. Player A, also did not understand about what legal fees Attorney A is writing? The Club has
not provide [sic] the Player with any legal help, any advice, any idea which could help him to win
his legal battle about his future career.
3. Player A is still very disapointed [sic], he has been left alone by his Club, employees of the
Club, Country A agency which has manage his transfer to the [sic] Country A. The Club did not
contact the Player during last 6 months. The Club has denied call meeting with the Player. Those
are very strange standards, unknown in serious Continent A clubs, in clubs which stand with his
player till the end.
4. The Club actions in this case is against fair play rules and is very dishonorable to the Player.
5. To your information, Player A has submitted to voluntary test SI that confirms that he never
knowingly take [sic] Medication C.
6. Test A confirms that there is no fault of the Player regarding his positive test.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
7. Moreover we would like to inform you that we probably found source of contamination and
how Medication C entered to the Player’s body. As far as we know that one of the products sent
by the Club to Prof. A has likely to be contaminated.
8. At the same time, we would like to insist that the Club has not keep register of supplements
and medications administered to the Players on daily basis.
9. Employees of the Club administered supplements and medications to the Players without
packaging. The Players has no possibility to verify what they [sic] taking from the Club staff.
10. Having above in the mind, it is obvious that contrary to your statement mentioned in
Attorney A last email, the Club will not have just cause to terminate the Players contract and to
requesting any compensation from him.
11. In our opinion, it is quite opposite - the Player would have just cause to terminate the contract
and request compensation from the Club, if it will be confirmed that supplements provided by
the employees of the Club has been contaminated.
12. Once again, we would like to emphasize that the Player has not revealed to the media any
details of his current proceedings and also any details regarding how he has been treated by
the Club during last 6 months.
13. Additionally, we would like to remind you that according to the Memornadum [sic] signed
by the Player and the Club, if the Contract will not be prolonged the Club shall paid to the Player
amount of 2.400.000 EUR net. (point 3.1. Memorandum).
14. The Contract and Memorandum has not been formally suspended as far.
15. Taking into consideration above mentioned arguments, we would like to inform you that we
expect serious offer including compensation for the Player for earlier termination of the Contract
before 17th June 2022. I would like also kindly inform you that in case if we will not receive any
offer or receive again offer with 0 EUR compensation, we consider taking further legal and media
steps to protect rights of the Player. […]”
27. On 15 June 2022, the Player sent the following additional correspondence to the Club:
“[…] I write further to my email of 10 June and as regards the cause of Player A’s positive test
(which will be relevant to the contractual dispute).
Please note that this information is being provided on a strictly confidential basis in order to
assist with reaching a swift resolution to the contractual dispute. In that regard, I wish to stress
that Player A is not authorising the Club to provide any of this information to the CA. That also
applies to the information included in my email of 10 June.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
That having been noted, I set out the following points regarding the cause of Player A’s positive
test:
1. Player A has established, by way of analytical testing, that the cause of the positive test was
the Supplement A, which was contaminated with Molecule A.
2. Whilst at the Club, the Club procured Supplement A from an online store for Player A.
3. Moreover, via the use of the triangle (“△”) symbol in the attached spreadsheet, the Club
confirmed that the Club doctor or trainer had seen Player A using Supplement A (as was
explained in your email of 28 April 2022 to Legal Representative Firm C). That is not surprising
as the Suppliement A was stored at the clubhouse and was used by Player A whilst at the
clubhouse.
4. Therefore, the Club not only knew that Player A was using Supplement A, and implicitly
authorised its use, but it actually procured the product that caused the positive test. As the Club
knows, Player A never previously had any anti-doping issues with the supplements used at other
clubs.
Given the above, and as explained in my email of 10 June, Player A would have just cause to
terminate the Contract with the Club and to request compensation from the Club due to its role
in causing the positive test.
Therefore, and as explained in my email of 10 June, we expect to receive a serious offer from the
Club, including compensation for early termination of the Contract, before 17 June 2022. As
mentioned, should we not receive any offer or receive an offer which provides for no monetary
compensation, Player A will have to consider taking further legal and media steps to protect his
rights. […]”
28. On 17 June 2022, the Club answered the latest correspondences from the Player as follows:
“[…] You have not disclosed any evidence to the club regarding the claim that Molecule A was
contained in the Supplement A. If you wish to negotiate with the club on the basis of this
allegation, please disclose evidence to substantiate your claim.
Even if Molecule A was contained in the Supplement A, the Supplement A was purchased and
consumed by Player A on his own responsibility, and the club never condoned this, therefore the
club has no legal liability whatsoever, however as no evidence has been disclosed at this stage,
we would refrain from further specific objection.
The Club, as you are aware through Mr C, has cooperated with Player A as follows.
• The Club followed procedures to request analysis of the B sample within 48 hours of
receipt of the CA's notification (6 December 2021).
• The Club, having confirmed its wishes with Player A, completed the documentation
and formally requested the analysis of the B sample by email.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Club arranged for a representative of Player A to be available for the analysis of
the B sample in Country C and explained to him in advance via a web conference.
The club paid the costs of Player A's representative for the B sample analysis, including
remuneration and travel expenses: a total of 800,000 Country C Currency.
The Club has covered the cost of a detailed report after the positive A sample in
Country C (payment to the Country C Institute of Science and Technology: USD 1,000).
The club has compiled information on the drugs and supplements Player A has taken
since his arrival in Country B, and compiled a list.
The club shared information on the medications prescribed by the club.
Being present at the handover of medicines or supplements stored in Player A locker.
Sending medications or supplements that were in the club house.
Explaining the purpose of the Molecule A questionnaire to 28 team members and
obtaining responses from them.
Responding to emails and requests from Mr C and Mr D (including during holidays).
The Club had a very heavy burden, both in terms of time and manpower, to cooperate with the
above-mentioned, and it would be a great pity if Player A did not realise this.
Please refrain from giving factual information to third parties, such as the mass media, by Player
A, despite the above-mentioned cooperation of the clubs, as it is not in the interest of either
party.
On the contrary, the anti-doping proceeding at the CA have been repeatedly extended due to
Player A's situation, which would be to his disadvantage if the fact that he has been unable to
provide any football-related activities to the club became public knowledge.
Please note that if Player A gives factually incorrect information to third parties, such as the
mass media, the club will have no choice to make the truth known to the public.
Although there is a significant discrepancy in the understanding of Player A and the Club
regarding his anti-doping proceedings and the Club cannot accept the facts and legal opinion
claimed by Player A, the Club will await the CA’s definitive disposition and reasons for it to be
discussed.
The club is not refusing to hold talks with Player A, rather it is of the view that the difference
between Player A’s demands and the club's ideas is so great that we do not consider it necessary
to hold talks. […]”
29. On 26 October 2022, the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee found that the Player had
been unable to rebut the presumption that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation
intentionally and thus imposed a four-year period of ineligibility on him (hereinafter: the CA
Decision).
30. On 31 October 2022, the Player notified the CA Decision to the Club.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
31. On 10 November 2022, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] As you are aware, Player A was banned by the CA from football-related activities for four
years on 27 October 2022.
It is hereby clarified that Player A has violated each of the following clauses and the club has the
right to terminate the contract.
"MEMORANDUM" Clause 8.1.D.
MEMORANDUM" Clause 12.3 & 12.4.
Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 7(1).
Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 8.
Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 11(7) & 11⑬.
"Professional Soccer Player Contract" Articles 17⑤.
However, as we have already informed you by email, the club is grateful for Player A
achievements and would like to continue to negotiate amicably with him.
Therefore, the club would like to offer the following conditions for the mutual termination
agreement, as outlined below. Within 10 days of receiving this email, please reply with whether
or not you wish to terminate the mutual agreement under the following conditions.
a. Player A shall not receive any remuneration from December 2021 to the present, as he has
not been able to perform any football-related activities since December 2021 due to his antidoping problems.
b. The club has incurred significant losses due to the large amount of money spent to acquire
Player A, including transfer fees, agent fees, and legal fees to deal with this matter, but if the
agreement can be amicably terminated, there will be no claim for damages or other
compensation against Player A.
c. Player A has no financial claim against the Club, including any claim for damages.
d. We will continue to cooperate with Player A's anti-doping proceedings as far as possible
(except for financial assistance).
The Club has incurred significant losses due to the large expenditure on transfer fees and agent
fees to acquire Player A. The club's right to claim these losses is stipulated in article 17 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In addition, it is recognised in cases such as
FIFA DRC 27 February 2013, no.0213412 and FIFA DRC 24 November 2020, no. 00766.
Please understand that if an amicable termination of the agreement is not possible, the club
may claim damages against Player A after withdrawing the above proposed mutual termination
agreement.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
As we have already informed you, if Molecule A was contained in the Supplement A, the
Supplement A was purchased and consumed by Player A on his responsibility, and the club never
condoned this, therefore the club has no legal liability whatsoever, however, as no evidence has
been disclosed at this stage, we would refrain from further specific objection.
And Player A still pays rent to the club every month by way of automatic bank transfer. Through
Player A’s football agent, the club has repeatedly told Player A to stop the automatic transfers,
and please take immediate action. The over-deposit will be refunded after the automatic
transfers have been stopped and after deducting the amount of Player A’s unpaid utility bills.
Please note that the transfer costs shall be borne by Player A. […]”
32. On 19 November 2022, the Player replied to the latest correspondence from the Club,
noting his interest in finding an amicable solution to their contractual dispute and that the
Club does not have just cause to terminate the Contract as the anti-doping proceedings
are still in progress. In addition, the Player stated that no unilateral action regarding the
termination of the Contract should be taken before the final and binding decision of the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter: CAS). Lastly, the Player stated that if the Club
wishes to terminate the Contract as soon as possible, he would agree on condition of
receiving EUR 600,000 net.
33. On the same day, i.e., 19 November 2022, the Player provided the Club with evidence
regarding their contractual dispute, namely the report of Professor A, the witness
statement of Mr. E and the report of Doctor A.
34. On 8 December 2022, the Player appealed the CA Decision to CAS.
35. On 28 December 2022, the Player made an urgent application for provisional measures by
which he requested CAS the immediate suspension of the period of ineligibility imposed by
the CA Decision, pending the determination of his appeal.
36. On 24 January 2023, CAS granted the Player’s application for provisional measures and
confirmed that he was immediately eligible to participate in all football activities pending
the determination of the appeal.
37. On the same day, i.e., 24 January 2023, the Player sent the following correspondence to the
Club:
“[…] 1. I write on behalf of my client, Player A (hereinafter: „ [sic] the Player”) to inform you that
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 24/01/2023 in Order on request for provisional
measures ruled that:
a) The application for provisional measures filed by the Player on 28 December 2022 against
decision A of the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee issued on 26 October 2022 is granted;
b) Player A is as of the date of this Order eligible to participate in all football activities.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
2. Having in mind the above, the Player is happy to return to the Club as soon as possible to
continue his career with Club A.
3. Therefore, we would like to kindly ask you to immediately prepare and providing us with all
documents necessary to register the Player with FA (see: Clause 3 - Agreements for Registration
Purposes of the Memorandum).
4. Moreover, according to the Clause 7.1 of the Memorandum, we would like to ask you to
provide the Player with 2 business class flight tickets from Country A to Country B the date
previously agreed with the Player. […]”
38. On 29 January 2023, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] We are concerned about the lack of response for our letter from 24/01/2023 despite 5 days
having passed since we sent to the Club the CAS order ruled that Player A is eligible to participate
in all football acitivities.
The player is happy to come back to Club A and wants to return to training and playing for the
Club as soon as possible.
Please respond to our letter dated 24/01/2023 without any further delay. […]”
39. On 31 January 2023, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] Dear Sir, I am writing on behalf of Club A (hereinafter referred to as “the Club”) as follows.
As stated in the email sent on 25/1/2023, the Club is currently checking with the FA whether
Player A can be registered as a player. No response has yet been received from FA, however, the
Club considers that the CAS order on 24/1/2023 is a provisional measure and not a final
decision.
As already informed, the fact that Player A tested positive for prohibited substances in both the
A and B samples (the DRC has confirmed that the fact that the urine samples tested positive is a
justification for the termination of the contract. FIFA DRC 17595, FIFA DRC 26493 and others.),
plus Player A has not provided the Club with any value as a football player for more than
approximately one year constitute a breach of the “MEMORANDUM” (signed on 5 July 2021.
Hereinafter referred to as 'the MEMORANDUM') Clause 8. l.D, Clause 12. 3, and Clause 12.4, etc.,
and therefore the Club formally terminates the MEMORANDUM between the Club and Player A
with effect from today.
Please understand that, although it was a difficult decision for the Club, the termination notice
was given at this time, taking into account that it would also enable Player A to transfer to
another team. The Club will not prevent Player A from playing football in Country B, Continent
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
A or any other club. Please do not hesitate to ask for any necessary documentation regarding
the transfer.
Finally, could you please disclose all the claim documents and evidence submitted by Player A
to CAS, as it is up to CAS' s final decision and Player A's transfer, the club would like to consider
its future actions based on all the claim documents and evidence. […]”
40. On 7 February 2023, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] 1. I write on behalf of my client, Player A (hereinafter: „ [sic] the Player”) in reply to your
Notice of termination dated 31/01/2023 (hereinafter: „ [sic] the Termination Notice”) by virtue
of which Club A, a professional football club affiliated to the Country B Football Association
(hereinafter: „ [sic] the Club”) unilaterally and prematurely terminated the employment
relationship between the Player and the Club.
2. At the outset, the Player wishes to express his surprise and disappointment at the Club’s
Termination Notice, noting that he is eligible to resume training and playing and that the Club
has been aware of the positive A Sample for almost 14 months, and of the positive B Sample for
almost 11 months.
3. Further, the Player wishes to highlight that the Club has no just cause to unilaterally terminate
the employment relationship between the Player and the Club, noting in particular that the
Player–on the basis of the Provisional Measures Order issued on 24 January 2023 (hereinafter:
„ [sic] the Order”) by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne (hereinafter: “the CAS”) and
already provided to the Club on 24 January 2023–has been eligible to resume all football
activities as a professional football player since 24 January 2023, including participating in
trainings and playing for the Club in all competitions.
4. In this context, as set out in the Order, the Player wishes to highlight one more time that he is
eligible to resume all football activities as a professional football player immediately (and has
been so eligible since 24 January 2023).
5. A final CAS Award confirming the Player’s immediate eligibility is expected imminently (the
terms of a settlement having been agreed in principle with the CA –one of those terms being the
CA’s agreement to the granting of the Order), and the Club ought to at least wait for that final
CAS award to be issued before making any decision.
6. Thus, the Player objects to any premature termination of the employment relationship
between the Player and the Club.
7. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Player would reiterate his commitment to the Club and
his desire to resume playing for the Club immediately. Accordingly, the Player would respectfully
urge the Club to reconsider its decision and to allow him to resume playing for the Club.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
8. As regards the Club’s request for the disclosure of documents submitted by him to the CAS,
the Player currently does not understand that request, for various reasons. Firstly, as the Club
will be aware, CAS proceedings are confidential. Secondly, the Club has not shown any interest
in the Player’s proceedings before CA disciplinary bodies and the CAS until the Order was issued
(which renders the Player immediately eligible to resume football activities). Thirdly, such
disclosure request was included in a Termination Notice which purported to end the contractual
relationship between the Club and the Player (such that it is unclear why the Club wishes to be
provided with documents).
9. Nevertheless, the Player is not necessarily rejecting the above-mentioned request of the Club.
He thus may be willing to disclose certain documents, on a confidential basis (noting that the
CAS proceedings were confidential), were the Club to nullify its decision to terminate the
contractual relationship between the parties.
10. Finally, the Player prefers to act in good faith and thus still remains open to potentially
reaching an amicable settlement in relation to this matter. The Player believes that it is in the
interests of both parties to the employment relationship to resolve this issue amicably without
unnecessary legal procedures and expenses.
11. Therefore, we would like to confirm whether the Club confirms its decision expressed on the
basis of the Termination Notice to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between
the Player and the Club.
12. Please provide us with a reply by 10/02/2023 12:00 CET.
13. We inform you that lack of response by the given deadline will be considered as confirmation
by the Club of its unilateral termination of the employment relationship by its letter of 31 January
2023.
We trust that the above-mentioned information is clear and of assistance, and we will look
forward to your reply.
The Player reserves all his rights, including the right to take appropriate legal action. […]”
41. On 9 February 2023, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] Dear Sir, I am writing on behalf of Club A (hereinafter referred to as "the Club") as follows.
The Club considers that the "Memorandum" (signed on 5 July 2021) entered into between Player
A and the Club formally terminated, as stated in the "Notice of Termination" (dated 31 January
2023) and remains of the opinion that. Please note that this termination is based on the fact
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
that Player A tested positive for prohibited substances in both the A and B samples, plus Player
A has not provided the Club with any value as a football player for more than approximately
one year.
The transfer of Player A has been reported in the Country A press, and then in the Country B
press as well. We do not believe that this is a leak of information on the side of Player A. However,
if Player A transfers to another club, the club will accept it. Please do not hesitate to ask for any
documents required for the transfer process.
In addition, as Player A has stated "The Player believes that it is in the interests of both parties
to the employment relationship to resolve this issue amicably without unnecessary legal
procedures and expenses" the club also would like to continue amicable relations with Player A.
[…]”
42. On 10 February 2023, the Player signed an employment contract with the Country A club
B. valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2023.
43. According to his employment contract with Club B, the Player is entitled to a signing bonus
of Country A Currency 150,000, as well as a monthly salary of Country A Currency 119,000.
44. On 11 February 2023, the Club produced a document entitled “Proof of last contract end
date”, which stated that the Contract expired on 31 January 2023.
45. On the same day, i.e., 11 February 2023, the Player sent the following correspondence to
the Club:
“[…] 1. I write on behalf of my client, Player A(hereinafter: „ [sic] the Player”) in reply to your
letter dated 09/02/2023 (hereinafter: „ [sic] the Letter”) in conjunction with the notice of
termination dated 31/01/2023 (hereinafter: „ [sic] the Termination Notice”) by virtue of which
Club A, a professional football club affiliated to the Country B Football Association (hereinafter:
„ [sic] the Club”) confirmed that it unilaterally terminated the Memorandum concluded between
the Parties, and hence the employment relationship existing between them, as of 31/01/2023.
2. Nevertheless, despite the receipt of the Termination Notice effectively terminating the
contractual relationship between the Club and the Player, the Player has intended to continue
to perform his obligations of a professional football player and provide his services to the Club.
Until the receipt the Letter, the Player has been hoped for change of the approach of the Club
and continuation of cooperation with the Club. However, in view of the Letter, the Player notes
that the decision of the Club to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with the Player
is definitive and irrevocable.
3. As the Club by means of the Letter maintained its decision regarding the unilateral termination
of the contractual relationships between the Club and the Player as of 31/01/2023 as stipulated
in the Termination Notice and offered help with any documents required for the registration
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
with another club, the Player hereby requests to provide him “Proof of Last contract end date“
which will enable him to continue his professional football career with another club. […]”
46. On 12 February 2023, the Club informed the Player that it will release his transfer to the
Country A club.
47. On 14 February 2023, the Player asked the Club what the current status of the International
Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: the ITC) proceedings through the Transfer Matching
System (hereinafter: TMS) is and if it has already confirmed the termination of the Contract
on TMS.
48. On 15 February 2023, the Club answered the Player that the ITC proceedings have been
completed, but still need to be approved by the FA.
49. On 22 February 2023, the Player and the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee submitted
a settlement agreement (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement) to CAS and requested that
it be incorporated in a consent award (hereinafter: the Consent Award).
50. On 27 March 2023, CAS issued the Consent Award, which incorporated the Settlement
Agreement concluded between the Player and the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee.
51. On 1 July 2023, the Player signed an employment contract with the Country B club C, valid
as from its date of signature until 30 June 2024.
52. According to his employment contract with Club C, the Player is entitled to a monthly salary
of EUR 80,000 net from August 2023 until December 2023 and to a monthly salary of EUR
120,000 net from January 2024 until May 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
53. On 30 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
54. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract without
just cause on 31 January 2023. In this regard, the Player argued that his positive doping
control to Molecule A did not constitute a breach of clause 8.1 d) of the Contract, as he did
not knowingly or intentionally use any substances that are harmful to his health or banned
by the World Anti-Doping Agency and/or any football governing body. In fact, the Player
noted that his positive doping control to Molecule A was caused by his inadvertent
ingestion of a health supplement that was contaminated. Therefore, it is the position of the
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Player that there was nothing he could have done to have known that the health
supplement was contaminated with Molecule A, as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement
and the Consent Award.
55. In addition, the Player argued that when the Club terminated the employment relationship,
i.e., 31 January 2023, he was eligible, willing and available to perform all of his obligations
under the Contract. In this respect, the Player added that he had informed the Club
accordingly on two occasions, i.e., on 24 January 2023 and 29 January 2023.
56. Subsidiarily, the Player argued that even if his positive doping control to Molecule A did
constitute a breach of clause 8.1 d) of the Contract, it was not sufficiently serious to justify
the Club’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship. In this regard, the Player
noted that if the Club considered his positive doping control to Molecule A to be a serious
breach of the Contract, it would have terminated it upon being informed on 4 March 2022
that the analysis of his B sample had confirmed the result of the A sample or at the latest
upon its notification of the CA Decision in October 2022. Therefore, it is the position of the
Player that the inaction of the Club until 31 January 2023 to terminate the Contract tacitly
created a reasonable expectation that the employment relationship would continue, as per
the principle venire contra factum proprium.
57. Lastly, the Player argued that the Club’s termination of the Contract was not an action of
last resort as it could and should have waited until the end of CAS proceedings to make a
decision on termination of the employment relationship. In this respect, the Player notably
pointed out that (i) the Club knew that his application for provisional measures had been
granted by CAS; (ii) that his explanation for his positive doping control to Molecule A was
that he had inadvertently ingested a contaminated product that it provided him; and (iii)
that the Club’s doctor had seen the said contaminated product in his possession on the
day of the positive test and that the doctor had not suggested him to not use it.
58. In view of the above considerations, the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“(a) Find that the Club unilaterally terminated the Memorandum on 31 January 2023 without
just cause;
(b) Order the Club:
(i) To pay the Player EUR 1,200,000 net plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. from 1 February 2023
until the date of effective payment as compensation for breach of the Memorandum; or
(ii) Alternatively, to pay the Player EUR 687,171.41 net plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. from 1
February 2023 until the date of effective payment as compensation for breach of the
Memorandum.
(c) In any event impose a registration ban upon the Club in accordance with Article 17(4) of the
RSTP.”
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
b. Club’s reply and counterclaim
59. In its reply to the claim lodged by the Player, the Club argued that it terminated the Contract
with just cause on 10 November 2022, thus the Player’s claim filed on 30 January 2025 is
inadmissible pursuant to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations as more than two years have
elapsed. In this regard, the Club argued that the Player accepted its decision to terminate
the Contract in its correspondence dated 10 November 2022 as he failed to object to it.
60. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that it agreed with the Player not to register him with the FA
for the season 2022/2023, through the signing of an updated version of the Additional
Contract. In addition, the Club stated that the Consent Award does not relieve the Player
of having committed the Anti-Doping Rule Violations (hereinafter: the ADRV), which it denied
having any responsibility with. In fact, the Club noted that it acted with good faith by (i)
informing the Player of its will to terminate the Contract once the analysis of the B sample
had confirmed the result of the A sample; and by (ii) trying to negotiate with the Player an
amicable settlement. In this regard, the Club stated that because of the unsuccessful
negotiations with the Player, it decided to await the CA Decision before terminating the
Contract on 10 November 2022.
61. Notwithstanding the above, the Club argued that, even if it is determined that it terminated
the Contract on 31 January 2023, it must be considered that it had just cause to do so for
the following reasons:
“(i) the Player, in bad faith, in spite of recognized its violation of the Contract, requested a high
compensation - before of EUR 1,200,000 and subsequently the CA' s decision of the amount of
EUR 600,000 - to sign a mutual termination;
(ii) the purchase of the supplement has been ordered by the Player and, hence, it was under his
exclusive responsibility;
(iii) even if the supplement was contaminated the Player has, in any case, violated the antidoping rules - and, thus, the Contract signed with the Club - agreeing with the CA a suspension
of 6 months;
(iv) the Player before the letter dated 31 January 2023 (or immediately after) started negotiations
other clubs and, in fact, on 10 February 2023 already signed a new employment contract with
the Country A club;
(v) the Player never objected the letter dated 31 January 2023 accepting the termination of the
Contract;
(vi) it is clear the conditions to continue the contractual relationship were no longer
there, in particular the Club's trust in the Player was lost.”
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
62. In continuation, the Club argued that because the Player committed an ADRV and did not
comply with his obligations under the Contract for more than a year, it had just cause to
terminate the employment relationship and it is entitled to be compensated accordingly.
In this context, the Club claimed being entitled to the remaining value of the Contract, the
unamortized amount concerning the transfer fee to acquire the Player, the related
solidarity contribution and bonuses, as well as the unamortized amount regarding the
agent fee paid to acquire the Player.
63. On account of the above considerations, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player
and submitted the following requests for relief:
“a) to declare inadmissible the claim filed by the Player and, in any case,
b) to ascertain that the Club A has terminated with just cause the Memorandum; and, as a
consequence
c) to reject in full the Claim filed by Player A.
In any case, to accept the present Counter-Claim and, hence
d) to condemn the Player to pay the Respondent a compensation equal to:
d.1. EUR 2,400,000 (two million four hundred thousand euros) as remaining value of the
Contract; or, subsidiarily,
d.2 EUR EUR [sic] 1,740,856 (one million seven hundred fourty [sic] thousand eight hundred
fifty-six euros) as unamortized amount concerning the transfer fee, solidarity contribution and
bonuses paid by the Club in relation to the Player;
plus
d.3 EUR 316,666.67 (three hundred sixteen thousand six hundred sixty-six/67 euros) as
unamortized amount concerning the agent fee paid by the Club in relation to the Player;
d.4 and any other amount that the honourble [sic] DRC deems opportune to consider in order
to quantify the compensation;
In subordinate way:
e) in the case the DRC will consider - quod non - the Respondent's termination of the Contract
without just cause and it will recognize a compensation to the Claimant:
- to reject - preliminary - the request of payment of the amount EUR 1,200,000 applying the
mitigation principle in accordance with article 17 FIFA RSTP and, hence, to take into
consideration only the request of payment of EUR 687,171.41; and, thus,
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
- to reduce the amount requested by the Player, taking into account the contributory negligence,
at least of 50% awarding him the amount of EUR 343,585.70;
Or
- to condemn the Club to pay an amount that the DRC will consider fair and proportionate for
the reasons above illustrated, reducing in any case the amount of EUR 687,171.41 requested by
the Player.
f) Apply any other measures it considers necessary in decision of the case at stake”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
64. In his reply to the counterclaim lodged by the Club, the Player argued that the counterclaim
is inadmissible pursuant to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations as it was filed more than two
years after the event giving rise to the dispute. In this regard, the Player pointed out that
the Club’s counterclaim was filed on 1 March 2025, i.e., more than two years after the date
of termination of the Contract, whether that date was 10 November 2022, as argued by the
Club, or 31 January 2023 as he claims.
65. Subsidiarily, the Player reiterated his initial position, noting that the Club terminated the
Contract without just cause on 31 January 2023. In this regard, the Player argued that the
Club\s correspondence dated 10 November 2022 was a proposal for the mutual
termination of the Contract, which he rejected with his correspondence dated 19
November 2022. In addition, the Player referred to the document produced by the Club on
11 February 2023, which states that the Contract expired on 31 January 2023.
66. Furthermore, the Player reiterated his position that the Club’s termination of the Contract
was not an ultima ratio measure, as he did not knowingly or intentionally ingest Molecule
A and an employment contract cannot be automatically terminated by a positive doping
test. Further, the Player held that Mr. E, the Club’s sporting director at the time, purchased
on behalf of the Club the contaminated product which he ingested and caused the ADRV.
67. Lastly, the Player stated that in the event that it is established that the Club terminated the
Contract with just cause, he should not be ordered to compensate the Club accordingly, as
the latter did not in fact suffer any loss and contributed significantly to the breakdown of
the contractual relationship.
d. Additional comments from the Club
68. In its additional comments, the Club argued that its counterclaim is admissible regardless
of the date of the date of the event giving rise to the dispute, in view of the wording of art.
21 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “The Respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim
with their response to the claim.”
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
69. In addition, the Club reiterated its initial position, noting that it terminated the Contract
with just cause with its correspondence dated 10 November 2022, as it contained its will to
terminate the Contract and its objections regarding the breaches of the Contract
committed by the Player. Therefore, it is the position of the Club that the Player’s claim is
inadmissible as it was filed more than two years since the event giving rise to the dispute.
With respect to the document dated 11 February 2023, which states that the Contract
expired on 31 January 2023, the Club stated that it is merely an additional notice of
termination of the Contract, which confirms its correspondence dated 10 November 2022.
70. Furthermore, the Club argued that the contaminated product was not purchased by Mr. E
on its behalf, but rather on behalf of the Player. In this regard, the Club stated that it was
not aware of the purchase, and that Mr. E was not in its medical staff and acted individually
without its authorization. In this regard, the Club added that Mr. E did not submit it an
expense report for the purchase of the contaminated product, thus his actions are
independent from itself.
71. Lastly, the Club argued that it lost trust in the Player and deemed impossible to continue
the employment relationship because (i) he breached the Contract, as well as the
antidoping regulations of the FA, CA and World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter: WADA); (ii)
he failed to inform its medical staff in relation to the consumption of the contaminated
product; and that (iii) he did not render his services for more than a year.
72. With respect to the compensation for the breach of the Contract, the Club reiterated its
initial request for payment by the Player of EUR 2,400,000. In this respect, the Club noted
that, according to the principle of positive interest, it should be put in the position it would
have been had the breach of the Contract not occurred.
e. Additional comments from the Player
73. In his additional comments, the Player reiterated that the counterclaim lodged by the Club
is inadmissible and subsidiarily that it is without merit and must be rejected as the Contract
was terminated without just cause by the Club on 31 January 2023. In any case, the Player
argued that the Club is not entitled to any compensation for the termination of their
employment relationship.
74. For the sake of completeness of the inadmissibility of the Club’s counterclaim, the Player
noted that the Procedural Rules do not revive a claim which has already become timebarred pursuant to the Regulations. In other words, it is the position of the Player that the
Club’s failure to file its claim against him within the two-year limitation period cannot be
remedied by its filing of the claim as a counterclaim.
f. Evidentiary request
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
75. During the submission phase, the Club submitted an evidentiary request for the Player to
disclose the following elements:
-
his complete employment agreement (full version) and other contracts, as well as
any possible annexes signed with the Country A club B. and the Country B Club C;
-
his monthly pay roll slips for his remuneration during his entire relationship with the
Country A Club B. and the Country B Club C, including any final assessment at the
end of such relationship; and
-
the compensation he obtained from the company involved in the contaminated
product in order to properly assess his loss and damages, if any.
76. The Player disclosed his employment contract with the Country A club B. as well as with the
Country B Club C. With respect to the third evidentiary request of the Club, the Player
argued that it should be dismissed as it is unclear, but nevertheless stated that he has not
recovered any monies from the company which manufactured the relevant supplement,
nor has any agreement been reached under which the relevant company will compensate
him.
77. Subsequently, the Player withdrew his statement regarding the third evidentiary request
of the Club as the circumstances have changed.
78. In this context, the FIFA general secretariat referred the Player and the Club to art. 13 par.
6 of the Procedural Rules, which reads as follows:
“Parties have the duty to collaborate to establish the facts and shall respond in good faith to
any evidentiary request from a chamber, the FIFA general secretariat or a party. A party
submitting an evidentiary request shall demonstrate that the evidence requested is likely to exist
and is relevant. An adverse inference may be drawn from a party’s reaction to an evidentiary
request.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
79. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 30 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 25 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
80. 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) (July 2025
edition), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Country A player and a Country
B club.
81. At this point, the Chamber took note that the Club disputed the admissibility of the Player’s
claim on the basis that it is time-barred. In particular, the Chamber noted that, according
to the Club, it terminated the Contract on 10 November 2022, thus the Player’s claim filed
on 30 January 2025 is inadmissible pursuant to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations as more
than two years have elapsed.
82. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years
have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. In this respect, the Chamber
emphasized that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each
individual case.
83. With the above in mind, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front
of FIFA on 30 January 2025. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, the
Chamber stated that any amounts fallen due before 30 January 2023 are affected by the
statute of limitations.
84. In this context, the Chamber assessed the evidence on file and concluded that the event
giving rise to the dispute is the Club’s termination of the Contract with the following
correspondence sent to the Player on 31 January 2023:
“[…] As already informed, the fact that Player A tested positive for prohibited substances in both
the A and B samples (the DRC has confirmed that the fact that the urine samples tested positive
is a justification for the termination of the contract. FIFA DRC 17595, FIFA DRC 26493 and
others.), plus Player A has not provided the Club with any value as a football player for more
than approximately one year constitute a breach of the “MEMORANDUM” (signed on 5 July 2021.
Hereinafter referred to as 'the MEMORANDUM') Clause 8. l.D, Clause 12. 3, and Clause 12.4, etc.,
and therefore the Club formally terminates the MEMORANDUM between the Club and Player A
with effect from today.
Please understand that, although it was a difficult decision for the Club, the termination notice
was given at this time, taking into account that it would also enable Player A to transfer to
another team. […]”
85. For the sake of completeness of the above finding, the Chamber took into consideration
that, on 11 February 2023, the Club produced a document entitled “Proof of last contract
end date”, which stated that the Contract expired on 31 January 2023. In addition, contrary
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
to the Club’s assertion, the Chamber found that the Club did not in fact terminate the
Contract by means of the following correspondence sent to the Player on 10 November
2022:
“[…] As you are aware, Player A was banned by the CA from football-related activities for four
years on 27 October 2022.
It is hereby clarified that Player A has violated each of the following clauses and the club has the
right to terminate the contract.
"MEMORANDUM" Clause 8.1.D.
MEMORANDUM" Clause 12.3 & 12.4.
Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 7(1).
Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 8.
Professional Soccer Player Contract" Article 11(7) & 11⑬.
"Professional Soccer Player Contract" Articles 17⑤.
However, as we have already informed you by email, the club is grateful for Player A
achievements and would like to continue to negotiate amicably with him.
Therefore, the club would like to offer the following conditions for the mutual termination
agreement, as outlined below. Within 10 days of receiving this email, please reply with whether
or not you wish to terminate the mutual agreement under the following conditions.
a. Player A shall not receive any remuneration from December 2021 to the present, as he has
not been able to perform any football-related activities since December 2021 due to his antidoping problems.
b. The club has incurred significant losses due to the large amount of money spent to acquire
Player A, including transfer fees, agent fees, and legal fees to deal with this matter, but if the
agreement can be amicably terminated, there will be no claim for damages or other
compensation against Player A.
c. Player A has no financial claim against the Club, including any claim for damages.
d. We will continue to cooperate with Mr Player A's anti-doping proceedings as far as possible
(except for financial assistance).
The Club has incurred significant losses due to the large expenditure on transfer fees and agent
fees to acquire Player A. The club's right to claim these losses is stipulated in article 17 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In addition, it is recognised in cases such as
FIFA DRC 27 February 2013, no.0213412 and FIFA DRC 24 November 2020, no. 00766.
Please understand that if an amicable termination of the agreement is not possible, the club
may claim damages against Player A after withdrawing the above proposed mutual termination
agreement.
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
As we have already informed you, if Molecule A was contained in the Supplement A, the
Supplement A was purchased and consumed by Player A on his responsibility, and the club never
condoned this, therefore the club has no legal liability whatsoever, however, as no evidence has
been disclosed at this stage, we would refrain from further specific objection.
And Player A still pays rent to the club every month by way of automatic bank transfer. Through
Player A football agent, the club has repeatedly told Player A to stop the automatic transfers,
and please take immediate action. The over-deposit will be refunded after the automatic
transfers have been stopped and after deducting the amount of Player A unpaid utility bills.
Please note that the transfer costs shall be borne by Player A. […]”
86. Consequently, on account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that a new
statute of limitations period of 2 years started on 31 January 2023, thus the Player’s request
is admissible in full as it is not time-barred, and in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations.
87. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the issue of the admissibility of the
Club’s counterclaim. In this respect, the Chamber held that the Club’s counterclaim dated
1 March 2025 was timely submitted, irrespective of the date of termination of the Contract,
as it complied with the deadline provided by the FIFA general secretariat to file a reply to
the claim, i.e., 2 March 2025. In fact, the Chamber recalled the following wording of art. 21
par. 2 of the Procedural Rules:
“The respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the claim. A counterclaim
shall have the same form as a claim and shall be submitted within the same time limit as that
for the response to the claim.”
88. Subsequently, the Chamber assessed the Club’s evidentiary requests and considered that,
regardless of the Player’s reaction, and leaving aside the matter of his new employment
contracts with Club B. and Club C, which were disclosed, the Club failed to sufficiently
establish that all the evidence requested was likely to exist and that it was relevant. In
particular, the Chamber held that the Club’s third evidentiary request was not relevant for
the assessment of the compensation for the breach of the Contract in the present matter.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that said evidentiary request falls outside the scope of
the mitigation considerations it must undertake pursuant to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, i.e., the value of the new contract for the period corresponding to the time
remaining on the prematurely terminated contract, which shall be deducted from the
residual value of the contract that was terminated early.
89. Lastly, 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.
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
b. Burden of proof
90. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
91. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
92. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the circumstances and the justice of the early termination of
the Contract by the Club.
93. On one hand, the Chamber noted the Player’s argument that the Club terminated their
employment relationship without just cause as his positive doping control to Molecule A
did not constitute a breach of clause 8.1 d) of the Contract. In this regard, the Player noted
that he did not knowingly or intentionally use any substances that are harmful to his health
or banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and/or any football governing body, as
stipulated in the Settlement Agreement and the Consent Award.
94. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Club, because the Player
committed an ADRV and did not comply with his obligations under the Contract for more
than a year, it had just cause to terminate the employment relationship and it is entitled to
be compensated accordingly.
95. In this context, the Chamber first reiterated its finding that the Club terminated the
Contract by its correspondence to the Player dated 31 January 2023 and therefore
acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the Club had just cause to terminate the
Contract and, if so, to determine the consequences thereof.
96. The Chamber then recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, 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
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
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 in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment
of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
97. In addition, the Chamber recalled the following wording of the Contract:
Clause 8.1 of the Contract:
“The breach by the Player of any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a severe breach
of contract and thus subject to the consequences established by Clause 11 of the present
Contract.
[…]
D) The Player agrees not to use substances that are harmful to his health or banned by the World
Anti-Doping Agency and or any football governing body, and to submit himself to drug tests as
set out the applicable laws, regulations and/or if requested by the Club. […]”
Clause 11 of the Contract:
“Just cause: in the event of breach of this Contract or termination by either party with just cause,
article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players shall be applied.”
98. With the above in mind, the Chamber pointed out the following facts in the present matter:
•
•
On 17 October 2021, the Player provided a doping control sample following an CA
Champions League match of the Club.
On 6 December 2021, the Player was notified that the analysis of his A Sample had
returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for Molecule A.
•
On 8 December 2021, the Player was provisionally suspended by the Chairperson
of the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee.
•
On 4 March 2022, the Player was notified that the analysis of his B Sample had
confirmed the A Sample result.
•
On 14 March 2022, the Player admitted that an anti-doping rule violation had
inadvertently been committed and confirmed that he had “never knowingly or
intentionally used Molecule A”.
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
•
On 26 October 2022, the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee found that the Player
had been unable to rebut the presumption that he had committed an anti-doping
rule violation intentionally and thus imposed a four-year period of ineligibility on
him with the CA Decision.
•
On 31 October 2022, the Player notified the CA Decision to the Club.
•
On 8 December 2022, the Player appealed the CA Decision to CAS.
•
On 28 December 2022, the Player made an urgent application for provisional
measures to CAS by means of which he requested the immediate suspension of the
period of ineligibility imposed by the CA Decision, pending the determination of his
appeal.
•
On 24 January 2023, CAS granted the Player’s application for provisional measures
and confirmed that the Player was immediately eligible to participate in all football
activities pending the determination of the appeal. In addition, on the same day, the
Player informed the Club accordingly and demonstrated his commitment to
reintegrate the team and fulfill his obligations pursuant to the Contract.
•
On 22 February 2023, the Player and the CA Disciplinary and Ethics Committee
submitted the Settlement Agreement to CAS and requested that it be incorporated
in the Consent Award.
•
On 27 March 2023, CAS issued the Consent Award, which incorporated the
Settlement Agreement concluded between the Player and the CA Disciplinary and
Ethics Committee.
99. Considering the foregoing, the Chamber pointed out that the breach of the Contract cited
by the Club (quod non) had in fact been remedied by the date of its termination, insofar as
it pertained to the Player’s ability to render his services. In this respect, the Chamber
observed that the Club itself acknowledged, when it terminated the employment
relationship on 31 January 2023, that it was aware since 24 January 2023 that the Player’s
application for provisional measures had been granted by CAS.
100. In continuation, the Chamber deemed important to emphasize that, by the time the Club
terminated the Contract on 31 January 2023, the Player had already served his period of
ineligibility and was again eligible and willing to fulfil his contractual obligations.
Accordingly, the Chamber reiterated that the effects of the breach of the Contract had, by
that point, effectively been cured in practice since 24 January 2023, i.e., the day the Player
informed the Club that CAS granted his application for provisional measures and confirmed
that he was immediately eligible and willing to participate in all football activities.
pg. 35
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
101. In this context, the Chamber found that, if the Club considered the Player’s positive doping
control to Molecule A to be a serious breach of the Contract, it would have terminated it (i)
upon finding out about the ADRV in December 2021; (ii) upon being informed on 4 March
2022 that the analysis of his B sample had confirmed the result of the A sample; or (iii) at
the latest upon its notification of the CA Decision in October 2022.
102. In fact, the Chamber deemed that the inaction of the Club for a prolonged period of time
to make a decision on the termination of the Contract is not aligned with its jurisprudence
regarding just cause to terminate an employment relationship. In this respect, the
Chamber recalled that only a sufficiently serious breach of contractual obligations by one
party qualifies as just cause for the other party to terminate the employment contract and
that the said breach is considered sufficiently serious when there are objective
circumstances that would render it unreasonable to expect the employment relationship
between the parties to continue, such as a serious breach of trust.
103. In line with the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that, in the present matter,
the Player’s breach of his contractual obligations cannot be considered sufficiently serious,
as the circumstances demonstrate that it was not unreasonable for the Club to continue,
and it in fact did continue the employment relationship from December 2021 until January
2023, despite the Player not being eligible to play for the entire time. Conversely, had the
breach been sufficiently serious, the Chamber believed that the Club would have been
under a duty to act promptly and unequivocally to terminate the Contract. In particular,
the Chamber stated that the Club’s failure to do so for an extended period of time and only
terminating once the Player was once again eligible, undermines its assertion that the
breach of the Contract was of a gravity justifying its termination months later.
104. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Club terminated the Contract without just
cause on 31 January 2023.
105. Lastly, the Chamber held that the foregoing finding, i.e., that the Club terminated the
Contract without just cause, necessarily leads to the conclusion that the counterclaim of
the Club is rejected.
ii. Consequences
106. 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.
pg. 36
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
107. The Chamber first noted, in accordance with the specific requests for relief of the Player,
that the latter did not have any outstanding remuneration under the Contract at the time
of its termination.
108. 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.
109. 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 recalled
the following compensation clause which was included in clause 3 of the employment
contract at the basis of the matter at stake:
“3.1 The Parties hereby undertake the obligation of signing for registration and tax purposes,
three separate agreements (hereinafter the Agreements"), each of the duration of one season
for which the present Contract shall be in force (2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively).
[…]
In the event the club will not prolong the contract of 2022 after the 2021 season finished, the
club shall compensate EUR 2.400.000,00 net (two million four hundred thousand EUR) to the
player. In the event the club will not prolong the contract of 2023 after the 2022 season finished,
the club shall compensate EUR 1.200.000.00 net (one million two hundred thousand EUR) to the
player.
3.2 The Agreements of 2022 and 2023 season shall be signed by the Parties by no later than
January 15th of 2022 and 2023 season and registered with the FA within the following 10 (ten)
days.
3.3 In case of any discrepancy between the Agreements and the present Contract, the latter shall
prevail in any case.
3.4 Any breach of any of the Agreements shall constitute a breach of the present Contract in its
entirety, and vice versa.”
110. In view of the wording of clause 3 of the Contract, the Chamber deemed relevant to point
out the following facts:
pg. 37
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
•
The Contract ran from 5 July 2021 until 1 January 2024, i.e., for the seasons
2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 in Country B.
•
Based on the information on TMS, the season 2021/2022 in Country B started on 9
January 2021 and ended on 8 January 2022.
•
Based on the information on TMS, the season 2022/2023 in Country B started on 9
January 2022 and ended on 8 January 2023.
•
Based on the information on TMS, the season 2023/2024 in Country B started on 9
January 2023 and ended on 8 January 2024.
•
The Player and the Club only concluded an Agreement for the season 2021/2022 in
Country B.
•
The Contract was terminated on 31 January 2023, i.e., during the season 2023/2024
in Country B.
111. In this context, the Chamber held that the requirements of clause 3.1 of the Contract have
been fulfilled. In particular, the Chamber found that (i) the Player and the Club intended to
stipulate in advance the amount of compensation for an early termination of their
employment relationship; and (ii) based on the legal principle in dubio contra stipulatorem,
and in the absence of any argument to the contrary raised by the Club, the latter did not
prolong the employment relationship with the Player for the season 2023/2024, even
though he was eligible to perform his contractual obligations.
112. In other words, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s failure to sign the 2023/2024
Agreement by the stipulated deadline constituted a failure to prolong the Contract, thereby
triggering its compensation clause.
113. For the sake of completeness of the above finding, the Chamber noted that, in its
correspondence dated 31 January 2023, the Club first stated, before terminating the
Contract, that it was verifying with the FA whether the Player could be registered. In the
Chamber’s view, this indicates that the deadline set forth in clause 3.2 of the Contract was
not adhered to, despite the Club having had the opportunity to comply with it.
114. In addition, the Chamber took into consideration the wording of clause 3.3 of the Contract
and concluded that the absence of an Agreement for the 2023/2024 season does not
invalidate the Player’s request for compensation of EUR 1,200,000 net, as the Contract
remains the legally binding dominant document. In any event, the Chamber highlighted
that the conclusion of the Agreement for the season 2023/2024 was solely for registration
and tax purposes.
pg. 38
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
115. After analysing the content of clause 3.1 of the Contract, the Chamber concluded that it did
fulfil the criteria of proportionality in line with its longstanding jurisprudence. In this regard,
the Chamber also referred to such jurisprudence, according to which any clause providing
that the compensation payable amounting to the remaining value of the employment
contract is generally to be deemed proportionate. Accordingly, the Chamber held that, in
the present matter, the compensation to be paid by the Club to the Player in case of an
early termination of the Contract by the latter is not disproportionate since it is subject to
the time remaining under the Contract and is based solely on the salary the Club would
have paid the Player during the employment relationship.
116. In continuation, the Chamber observed that, while clause 3.1 of the Contract did not appear
reciprocal, it considered nevertheless that, given the particular nature and purpose of the
clause at hand, the principal consideration is the proportionality of said clause, in addition
to considering whether there was a potential for excessive commitment from either of the
contractual parties with respect to the clause in question.
117. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that the specific circumstances of the present
matter would not make sense for clause 3.1 of the Contract to be bilateral. In fact, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the purpose of the said clause was to protect the Player
against the Club’s discretion to not prolong the employment relationship with the Player
for another season at the end of the season 2022/2023. In other words, the Chamber
stressed that, although the Player and the Club had agreed on a guaranteed employment
term extending beyond a single season, the execution of each one-season agreement was
entirely at the Club’s discretion and effectively determined whether the Player could play.
118. Notwithstanding the foregoing consideration and that clause 3.1 of the Contract gave the
Club a seemingly straightforward way of terminating the employment relationship at the
end of the season 2022/2023, the Chamber pointed out that the Club did suffer real
consequences from doing so as the said clause is consistent with the principle of
contractual stability. In addition, based on the evidence on file and the position of the Club,
the Chamber considered that there has not been any excessive commitment from the Club
on agreeing on the content of clause 3.1 of the Contract. In fact, the Chamber was of the
opinion that the Club was well aware of the consequences of the said clause, given the
content of its correspondence dated 31 January 2023 and the fact that it did not argue why
the Player should be deprived from the application of clause 3.1 of the Contract.
119. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club is contractually obligated pursuant
to clause 3.1 of the Contract to pay the Player the sum of EUR 1,200,000 net, which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract.
120. 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
pg. 39
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 1 February 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
121. 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.
122. 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.
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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
126. 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.
127. 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.
pg. 40
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
128. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 41
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Club B, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amount:
- EUR 1,200,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 February 2023 until the date of effective payment.
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 / 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant /
Counterclaimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 42
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. 43