Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player A
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by Legal Representative A
RESPONDENT:
Club A, Country B
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 December 2022, the Country A player A (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and
the Country B club formerly known as Club B or Club C, and currently known as Club A
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid for two seasons from the date of signature.
2.
According to clause 1 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to, inter alia, the following
amounts (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 1. CONSIDERATION AND DURATION OF CONTRACT
1. That effectively from this 06th day of December 2022, in a consideration of USD
SEVENTY THOUSAND ONLY(USD 70,000$) hereinafter to be known as SIGNING FEE and
the player has agreed to sign, play and offer other related services to the CLUB and the
player will receive this money in two instilment thirty five Thousand USD each year
(35,000$), thirty five thousand dollar (35,000$) will be paid the day of signing this
contract remain balance will be when next season of 2023 start.
2. The Gross Salary shall be USD Four thousand and five hundred only (USD 4,500$)
hereinafter to be known as MONTHLY SALARY, the player has agreed to sign, play and
offer other related services to the CLUB.
3. The Winning Bonus in competitive football games for the club will be offer as discretion
of the club.
4. There shall be SIX MONTHS of Evaluation of Performance off which the said Net Salary
(in Art. 1(2) above) can be reduced to lower amount if upon the finish of SIX MONTHS of
EVALUATION OF PERFOMANCE from the day of signing this contract it shall be found that
the performance of the player has dropped.
5. That regarding the payment issue of Signing fee, the registered player of Club B, will
be paid for the first round part of the payment and will be finished in the second part of
the payment in the season depending on the duration of the contract. Such payments
shall be subject to the tax as per the laws for the time being applicable in the Country B.
(…)
8. For the avoidance of doubts, in case for any reasons whatsoever the league does not
end by 30th June of each Year, this contract shall be deemed to be valid until after the
last game of the said league season.
(…)”
3.
Clause 2 of the Contract established (quoted verbatim):
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
“ARTICLE 2. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY CLUB
1. Respecting the principle that none can prevail from his own faulty behavior, each of
the parties can immediately and permanently terminate the contract for just courses.
2. The following are notably considered as just courses on the side of a club:
(…)
Provided that in the event that the club terminates this contract without notice, the player
shall be paid one month's salary in the lieu of notice and shall have no any other claim
save for arrears of previous payments to which he was entitled before the event of
termination.”
4.
Clause 3 of the Contract stipulated the following (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 3. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY PLAYER.
1. Respecting the principle that none can prevail from his own faulty behavior, each of
the parties can immediately and permanently terminate the contract for just courses.
1. The following are notably considered as just courses on the side of player:
i. When a club fail to pay salary for more than two consecutive months.
ii. When a player is able to buyout his contract at the value of USD 200,000 (TWO
HUNDRED THAUSAND USD ONLY) this will be a released payment when a player want to
terminate this contract or when the any club need to signed this player.
iii. When a club is declared bankruptcy by a competent organization.
iv. The player may mutually terminate this contract by giving a notice of three months or
pay full salary in lieu of notice to Club B. Whichever the case and his age notwithstanding,
he shall also pay compensation fees as shall be agreed between the player and the club.
In working out the compensation fees, the club shall consider the duration he has been
with the club, role in the club the signing fees he was paid at the time he joined the club,
the transfer and compensation fees paid to his previous club among other factors.
v. The Contract may also terminate on proof of just cause and/or sporting just cause
whichever the case; the player shall give a notice of two months or pay the club twomonth salary in lieu of notice. In applying this clause, the player shall state clearly the
cause that informed his decision to terminate the contract.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
5.
Clause 33 of the Contract set forth:
“ARTICLE 33. RESPECT OF ASSOCIATIONAL RULES.
1. The contracting parties commit themselves to respect the statutes, regulations, rules
and directives of Federation A, Confederation A and FIFA as well as those of the
club/employer.
2. The player confirms to have knowledge of the above mentioned documents which are
at his disposal at the Secretary / Office of the club / employer, before signing the present
contract. He can get copies if he demands.
3. By appending his signature to the contract, he declares expressly that he accepts all
these documents which are an integral part to the contract in their present form.”
6.
On 23 April 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD 35,000
net, corresponding to the second instalment of the signing fee, and USD 20,309 gross
corresponding to the overdue monthly salary, with 5% interest p.a. The Player granted the
Club a 15-day deadline to comply with the payment.
7.
On 10 May 2024, the Player terminated the Contract, citing just cause based on art. 14bis
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). In
this regard, the Player requested payment of USD 35,000 net, corresponding to the second
instalment of the signing fee, USD 24,809 gross, corresponding to the overdue monthly
salaries from June 2023 to April 2024, and USD 9,000 gross as compensation for breach of
contract, within 10 days.
8.
Allegedly, on 28 May 2024, the Player submitted a complaint against the Club before the
Federation A. The Player allegedly claimed USD 64,309, based on the following breakdown:
“a. A total amount of USD 4,500 being unpaid salary of month of June 2023;
b. A total amount of USD 2,550 being the remaining balance for the month of July 2023
salary;
c. A total amount of USD 900 being the remaining balance for the month of August 2023
salary;
d. A total amount of USD 900 being the remaining balance for the month of September
2023 salary;
e. A total amount of USD 900 being the remaining balance for the month of October
2023 salary;
f. A total amount of USD 4,500 being unpaid salary for the month of January 2024;
g. A total amount of USD 4,500 being unpaid salary for the month of February 2024;
h. A total amount of USD 1,559 being the remaining balance for the month of March
2024 salary';
i. A total amount of USD 4,500 being unpaid salary for the month of April 2024;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
j. A total amount of USD 4,500 being unpaid salary’ for the month of May 2024 and
k. A total amount of USD 35,000/= being the remaining balance for signing fee which
was due to be paid on the start of 2023 season;”
9.
The Player disputed the authenticity of this claim.
10. On 13 June 2024, Club B announced its official name change to Club A.
11. On 10 September 2024, the Federation A issued the following decision (hereinafter: the
Decision) as a consequence of the Player’s purported claim:
“Decision
After thoroughly examining the evidence presented and acknowledging that both parties
failed to reach an agreement as directed in previous meetings, the Committee has
reached the following decision:
• Player A is to be compensated by Club A a total of USD 29,309 for salaries owed.
• The claim for the signing fee of USD 35,000 has been excluded as it pertains to a
season during which the player did not serve, and the player has already received a
Release Letter from the club.
Payment Instructions
The Committee has mandated that the player be compensated for the awarded claims
by the end of September 2024. Failure to comply with this directive will result in the
amounts being deducted from the club’s revenue sources.
Conclusion
This communication instructs that Player A shall receive his dues through the revenue
sources of Club A.”
12. The Player also disputed the authenticity of this document.
13. On 8 October 2024, the firm A, represented by Legal Representative A, requested the
Federation A’s intervention in the execution of the Decision on behalf of the Player,
arguing that the Club had failed to pay the amount ordered. The Player once again disputed
the authenticity of this document.
14. The Player remained unemployed as from the alleged termination of the Contract until its
expiry date.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 18 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
16. The Player stated that the parties concluded the Contract, which was valid for two seasons.
According to the Player, the football season in Country B typically ends on 30 June each
year and, even though the Contract’s duration was literally stipulated as “two seasons”, the
intention was to be bound for the remainder of the 2022/2023 season and the full
2023/2024 season, meaning that the Contract was intended to be valid as from 6 December
2022 until 30 June 2024.
17. In this regard, the Player argued that, although the Contract did not specify the exact
payment date for the monthly salary of USD 4,500, it clearly stated that salaries were to be
paid monthly. Therefore, the Player considered it fair to establish that the deadline for
these payments was the 15th day of the following month.
18. The Player then contended that, from June 2023 until April 2024, he received USD 24,691
out of the USD 49,500 contractually agreed. The Player provided the following breakdown:
Monthly salary of the
Claimant
for June 2023
for July 2023
for August 2023
for September 2023
for October 2023
for November 2023
for December 2023
for January 2024
for February 2024
for March 2024
For April 2024
Total:
Amount due
Amount received
Difference
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
49 500,00 USD
0,00 USD
1 950,00 USD
3 600,00 USD
3 600,00 USD
3 600,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
4 500,00 USD
0,00 USD
0,00 USD
2 941,00 USD
0,00 USD
24 691 USD
-4 500,00 USD
-2 550,00 USD
-900,00 USD
-900,00 USD
-900,00 USD
0,00 USD
0,00 USD
-4 500,00 USD
-4 500,00 USD
-1 559,00 USD
-4 500,00 USD
= 24 809.00 USD
19. Therefore, the Player argued that the Club failed to pay him USD 24,809. Moreover, the
Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him the second instalment of the signing fee,
which was to be paid at the start of the 2023/2024 season, i.e., 1 July 2023. Thus, the Player
argued that the Club failed to pay him USD 35,000.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
20. Based on the above, the Player argued that he put the Club in default on 23 April 2024, to
no avail, and hence terminated the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations on 10
May 2024. In this sense, the Player argued that the Club must pay him USD 9,000 as
compensation equal to the residual value (the salaries for May and June 2024).
21. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“45. Taking into account the foregoing, the Claimant hereby requests FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
1. order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the overdue monthly salaries arising from
the Contract, in the total amount of 24 809,00 USD (say: twenty four thousand eight
hundred nine American dollars 00/100) increased by the 5% interest per annum as
follows:
i.
regarding the overdue full monthly salary for June 2023 in the amount
of 4 500,00 USD (say: four thousand five hundred American dollars 00/100) calculated from the 18,h of July 2023 until the date of effective payment,
ii.
regarding the overdue part of the monthly salary for July 2023 in the
amount of 2 550,00 USD (say: two thousand five hundred fifty American dollars
00/100) - calculated from the 16th of August 2023 until the date of effective
payment,
iii.
regarding the overdue part of the monthly salary for August 2023 in
the amount of 900,00 USD (say: nine hundred American dollars 00/100) calculated from the 16th of September 2023 until the date of effective
payment,
iv. regarding the overdue part of the monthly salary for September 2023 in the
amount of 900,00 USD (say: nine hundred American dollars 00/100) calculated from the 17th of October 2023 until the date of effective payment,
v. regarding the overdue part of the monthly salary for October 2023 in the
amount of 900,00 USD (say: nine hundred American dollars 00/100) calculated from the 16th of November 2023 until the date of effective payment,
vi.
regarding the overdue full monthly salary for January 2024 in the
amount of 4 500,00 USD (say: four thousand five hundred American dollars
00/100) - calculated from the 16th of February 2024 until the date of effective
payment,
vii.
regarding the overdue full monthly salary for February 2024 in the
amount of 4 500,00 USD (say: four thousand five hundred American dollars
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
00/100) - calculated from the 16th of March 2024 until the date of effective
payment,
viii.
regarding the overdue part of the monthly salary for March 2024 in the
amount of 1 559,00 USD (say: one thousand five hundred fifty nine American
dollars 00/100) - calculated from the 16th of April 2024 until the date of
effective payment,
ix.
regarding the overdue full monthly salary for April 2024 in the amount
of 4 500,00 USD (say: four thousand five hundred American dollars 00/100) calculated from the 16th of May 2024 until the date of effective payment,
and
2. order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the overdue second instalment of the
signing fee arising from the Contract, in the amount of 35 000,00 USD (say: thirty five
thousand American dollars 00/100) increased by the 5% interest per annum calculated
from the 4th of July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
and
3. order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the compensation for the termination of
the Contract equal to the residual value of the Contract (May 2024-June 2024), i.e. 9
000,00 USD (say: nine thousand American dollars 00/100) increased by the 5% interest
per annum calculated from the 21st of May 2024 until the date of effective payment
and
4. impose on the Respondent a fine and a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for three consecutive registration periods, or any other
sanction specified in art. 12bis sec. 4 of the RSTP that the Chamber deems appropriate,
and
5. decide that the Respondent shall bear all costs related to these proceedings (if any),
including any advance of costs.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. On 13 December 2024, the FIFA general secretariat granted the Club a deadline until 19
January 2025 to respond to the Player’s claim.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
23. On 7 January 2025, the Club submitted a response in “.docx” format, stating that the matter
at hand had already been reviewed and concluded by the appropriate committee under
the jurisdiction of the Federation A. In this regard, the Club argued that a binding decision
had been reached on 6 September 2024 and, therefore, this dispute was no longer eligible
to be lodged with FIFA for further legal review or action.
24. Also on 7 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat requested that the Club submit its
response in PDF format within the deadline previously granted.
25. On 21 January 2025, the Club submitted its response to the claim in PDF format.
26. On 31 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that it would be up
to the Football Tribunal to rule upon the admissibility of the reply and any subsequent
procedural acts.
c. Replica of the Claimant
27. In his replica, the Player first requested that the Club’s response be disregarded on the
grounds that (i) the submission of 7 January 2025 was uploaded in “.docx” format instead
of PDF format, thereby failing to meet the formal requirements and (ii) the submission of
21 January 2025 was uploaded outside the prescribed time limit.
28. Moreover, the Player alleged that he had no knowledge or awareness of any such
proceedings before the Federation. The Player denied ever being informed of, summoned
to, or involved in any such proceedings. Consequently, he argued that any alleged decision
arising from such proceedings cannot be considered valid or binding. In this sense, the
Player also stated that the Club had not presented any evidence that his legal
representative was ever notified of or involved in any alleged proceeding before the
Federation A.
29. In any event, the Player contended that any decision issued by a Federation A decisionmaking body would lack jurisdictional validity as the Contract did not include any
jurisdictional clause in favour of the Federation A, nor had he ever provided written consent
to submit disputes to the Federation A. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the tribunal
referenced by the Club is not recognised by FIFA and does not meet FIFA’s requirements.
Thus, he argued that any decision purportedly rendered by such a body has no legal effect
in the present dispute. The Player recalled that the present dispute has an international
dimension.
30. Based on the above, the Player made the following requests:
“26. The Claimant hereby kindly requests the honourable FIFA to:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
a. declare the Respondent’s letter of 6th of January 2025 uploaded to the FIFA Legal
Portal on the 7th of January 2025 inadmissible as it was filed in violation of the Rules
and of the formal requirements of FIFA, and
b. declare the Respondent’s Submission inadmissible as it was filed after the prescribed
deadline and in violation of the Rules and of the formal requirements of FIFA, and
c. disregard any arguments submitted by the Respondent, and to proceed with
adjudicating the case solely based on the existing case file, i.e. the Claimant’s claim, and
d. affirm FIFA’s exclusive jurisdiction over the present dispute, and
e. (if the Claimant’s requests in let. a.-c. are not accepted) recognize that the alleged
decision by the Federation A body cannot be considered binding and preventing FIFA
from hearing the present dispute, in particular as:
i.
it violates fundamental procedural rights, including the right to be
heard and the right to due process, in particular as the Claimant was never
informed, summoned or involved in any such proceedings;
ii.
the Respondent failed to provide any verifiable evidence of the
proceedings’ existence, legal framework or procedural compliance, i.e. the
Respondent has failed to discharge its burden of proof in accordance with
article 13 par. 5 of the Rules;
iii.
the Federation A tribunal referenced by the Respondent is not
recognized under FIFA’s NDRC Recognition Principles and thus lacks
jurisdiction under article 22 par. 1 point b) of the RSTP; and
f. proceed with adjudicating the Claimant’s claim on its merits and grant the relief
requested therein.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
31. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club failed to provide its duplica.
e. Additional comments from the Claimant regarding the proceedings before
the Federation A
32. On 6 February 2025, at the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Federation A
provided the documents related to the alleged proceedings before the Federation A.
33. On 20 February 2025, the Player was invited to provide his comments regarding the
documents provided by the Federation A to the FIFA general secretariat.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
34. In this regard, the Player first argued that he identified significant concerns regarding the
authenticity, reliability, and underlying intent of the documents. The Player stated that the
documents submitted by the Federation A were presented to him for the first time in FIFA’s
correspondence, without any verifiable proof of their delivery or service to him. Therefore,
the Player alleged that there is no possibility of accepting the alleged proceedings when
there is no evidence of his participation in said proceedings.
35. The Player then remarked that the Club had failed to submit these documents to the
present dispute, which suggests that the documents were created recently, likely
backdated, and never delivered to any party. In this respect, the Player denied any
involvement, awareness or participation in the alleged proceedings before the Federation
A. Additionally, the Player stated that he immediately contested Federation A’s jurisdiction
from the moment the Club raised arguments regarding the alleged proceedings before the
TFF.
36. Furthermore, the Player denied having signed the document presented by the Federation
A to FIFA dated 28 May 2024 and stated that his signature included therein is fraudulent.
37. The Player also pointed out that the amount claimed in the alleged complaint was incorrect,
as it was lower than the amount he had claimed in his termination notice dated 10 May
2024, which would not make any sense. Additionally, the Player highlighted that in his
termination notice he requested interest, which was omitted in the alleged letter dated 28
May 2024.
38. In any event, the Player alleged that this letter contained explicit requests for assistance
and therefore constituted a solicitation for remedial intervention rather than the initiation
of any formal legal proceedings. In this respect, he argued that this letter neither bears the
title of a lawsuit nor presents any evidence. Furthermore, it was addressed to the
Federation A rather than to a specific jurisdictional body. Thus, even if it were to be
considered that he signed the letter, the Player argued that it could not constitute a letter
initiating legal proceedings.
39. Regarding the Decision, the Player explained that it was the first time he saw or became
aware of it. In this respect, he remarked that the Decision failed to indicate that he was
represented by a legal representative, as suggested by the documentation presented by
the Federation A. The Player pointed out the inconsistencies in this documentation.
40. Moreover, the Player contended that the Decision was contradictory, as it ordered the Club
to pay him the salaries for the 2023/2024 season but justified the Club’s non-payment of
the signing fee – due at the start of the 2023 season - by stating that it pertained to a season
during which the Player did not serve. Furthermore, the Player alleged that he was never
provided with a release letter, as the Decision claimed. Additionally, the Player argued that
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
the Decision failed to acknowledge the Club’s obligation to pay compensation for early
termination.
41. The Player clarified that he had never received any funds corresponding to the Decision
and that there is no proof of such payment.
42. Based on the above, the Player concluded that the Decision is flawed, inconsistent, and
unreliable. In particular, the Player stated that multiple factors indicate that the Decision
might have been fabricated recently and backdated to create the appearance of a prior
ruling: (i) the lack of any prior service or notification of the Decision to the Player; (ii) the
Club’s failure to submit the Decision in these proceedings; (iii) the inconsistencies and
contradictions within the Decision; and (iv) the absence of any transfer or deducted sums
from the Club’s revenues to the Player. The Player argued that, given these irregularities,
the Decision cannot be considered valid or enforceable.
43. On another note, the Player alleged that this was the first time he had become aware of
the existence of Legal Representative B, the author of the letter dated 8 October 2024, as
someone allegedly authorised to act on his behalf. The Player assured that he had never
granted any power of attorney to this individual.
44. The Player remarked that it is hardly believable that he would first engage a foreign lawyer
in April 2024 - through whom he demanded payment from the Club on 23 April 2024 and
duly terminated the Contract on 10 May 2024, each time signalling his intent to purse his
case before FIFA - and then suddenly engage a second Country B lawyer, employed by the
Federation A, with the purported aim of initiating proceedings in the Country B jurisdiction.
The Player also pointed out that this letter is dated almost one month after the Decision
and cannot serve as proof of the Player’s participation in the Federation A proceedings
during their course.
45. According to the Player, this letter was drafted in bad faith to falsely suggest that the
Claimant had participated through legal representation.
46. The Player stated that the alleged proceedings were neither legitimate nor conducted with
his knowledge or participation, and that the documentation might have been created
retroactively in an attempt to fabricate a false appearance of due process. Based on this,
the Player argued that this documentation and the claims based on it must be entirely
disregarded.
47. The Player made the following requests:
“57. In light of the above, the Claimant respectfully submits that the only reasonable and
fair course of action for FIFA, when assessing the documents submitted by the Federation
A, would be to:
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
a. disregard the documents submitted by the Federation A, as they lack authenticity and
procedural validity; and
b. acknowledge that the Claimant was neither notified of nor participated in any
Federation A proceedings; and
c. reject any attempts by the Respondent to rely on Federation A documents to bypass
FIFA’s jurisdiction; and
d. confirm that FIFA retains exclusive jurisdiction over this matter.”
f. Additional comments from the Respondent regarding the proceedings
before the Federation A
48. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club failed to provide its additional comments.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
49. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 18 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 13 November 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.
50. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Country A player and a Country B club.
51. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Admissibility
52. Having stated the above, the Chamber then noted that (i) the admissibility of the Club’s
response to the claim and (ii) the admissibility of the Player’s claim are disputed by the
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
parties. Therefore, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the admissibility of both
submissions, starting with the Club’s response, as this formed the basis for subsequently
assessing the admissibility of the Player’s claim.
(i)
Admissibility of the Club’s response to the claim
53. The Chamber first started analysing the admissibility of the Club’s response to the claim
and recalled that the Player argued that this response shall be considered inadmissible, as
it was not filed in PDF format within the prescribed time limit.
54. In this regard, the Chamber observed that on 7 January 2025, within the time limit, the Club
filed its response to the claim in “.docx” format, i.e., in a format different than PDF, as
specifically requested by the FIFA general secretariat. Additionally, the Chamber noted that
on the same day, the FIFA general secretariat requested that the Club submit its response
in PDF format within the deadline previously granted. However, the Club only submitted
the response in PDF format on 21 January 2025, i.e., after the deadline had elapsed.
55. Notwithstanding the above, in the Chamber’s opinion, considering the Club’s response
inadmissible solely due to the format in which it was submitted would be overly formalistic,
particularly given that the substance of the submission remained unchanged. Therefore,
despite acknowledging the Club’s failure, the Chamber decided that the Club’s response to
the claim is admissible.
(ii)
Admissibility of the Player’s claim
56. Having established the above, the Chamber then moved on to analyse the admissibility of
the Player’s claim, a review initially prompted by the Club but which, in any event, the
Chamber considered necessary to conduct ex officio.
57. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that this dispute was no longer
eligible to be lodged with FIFA for further legal review or action, as it had already been
reviewed and concluded by the appropriate committee under the jurisdiction of the
Federation A. In other words, the Chamber interpreted that the Club alleged that the claim
was inadmissible, guided by the principles of lis pendens and/or res judicata.
58. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Federation A confirmed that the Player
lodged a claim before it on 28 May 2024, requesting payment of USD 64,309, of which USD
29,309 corresponded to unpaid salaries and USD 35,000 to the balance of the signing fee.
Additionally, the Chamber recalled that on 10 September 2024, the Legal and Players Status
Committee of the Federation A issued the Decision, ordering the Club to pay USD 29,309
corresponding to the salaries. The Federation A, however, did not award USD 35,000
corresponding to the signing fee.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
59. The Chamber then noted that the Player did not disclose this information in his claim and,
when confronted with the documents shared by the Federation A, argued, inter alia, that
(i) they were fabricated and backdated, (ii) his signature was forged and, in any event, the
communication was not a formal claim, (iii) the Decision was contradictory and contained
irregularities, (iv) the documents were inconsistent with the facts of the dispute, (v) in any
event, the Contract did not include any jurisdictional clause in favour of the Federation A
and the tribunal issuing the Decision does not meet FIFA’s recognition requirements, and
(vi) the documents were never forwarded to him and he did not sign any power of attorney.
60. In this context, the Chamber considered that, despite the Player’s allegations, there are no
elements to establish that these documents were fabricated or backdated to create the
impression of a prior ruling. The Chamber highlighted that the FIFA general secretariat
requested the Federation A to confirm whether any procedure had taken place between
the parties on 31 January 2025 and only six days later, on 6 February 2025, the Federation
A provided the file.
61. Furthermore, the Chamber did not consider that there were elements to establish that the
Player’s signature was forged. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the signature
included in the letter addressed to the Federation A is similar - though not identical, which
suggest it was not copy-pasted - to the signatures included in the Contract, the power of
attorney, and the Bank Account Registration Form (BARF) submitted to this claim.
Therefore, based on a layman’s analysis, the Chamber found no evidence that the Player’s
signature was forged and/or that he was misrepresented. Additionally, the Chamber noted
that the Player’s contact details were included in his claim, which matches those provided
in this claim, e.g., the email address or the postal address. Likewise, the claim referenced
the Player’s personal documents and sensitive information, including his contractual terms
and alleged outstanding remuneration.
62. Regarding the claim that the letter addressed to the Federation A did not constitute a
formal claim, the Chamber observed that the Player clearly provided a breakdown of the
unpaid amounts and requested the Federation A’s intervention to order the Club to pay
the owed amounts. While the letter may lack certain formalities, the Chamber found it
undeniable that it amounted to a legal claim for payment of overdue payables.
63. As for the allegation that the Decision is contradictory or contains irregularities, the
Chamber remarked that this is not an issue to be analysed by the DRC, as the Chamber
cannot serve as an appeal body nor review the legitimacy of proceedings already
conducted by another decision-making body.
64. The Chamber also acknowledged that the Player contended that there were some
inconsistencies between this claim and the claim allegedly lodged before the Federation A,
such as the engagement of a foreign lawyer and the absence of a compensation claim.
While the Chamber accepted that these inconsistencies exist, it concluded that they do not
undermine the validity or legal relevance of the claim filed before the Federation A.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
65. The Chamber stressed that the same applies to the argument that the Contract did not
include a jurisdictional clause in favour of the Federation A or that the tribunal does not
meet FIFA’s recognition standards. The fact that the Player himself lodged a claim before
the Federation A implies acceptance of its jurisdiction, regardless of the Contract’s wording
or the tribunal’s procedural compliance.
66. Lastly, the Chamber noted that while the Federation A only shared the file and did not
provide evidence that the Decision was delivered to the Player, it cannot be established
that the Player did not receive it. The same applies to the absence of a power of attorney
in favour of Legal Representative B. However, the Chamber remarked that the document
submitted by Legal Representative B requesting execution included the same bank account
information of the Player as in the BARF provided to this claim. The Chamber also
considered that it would be unreasonable to fabricate an entire case file by including a
lawyer who was never involved in this dispute.
67. The Chamber emphasised that the timeline of events was not inconsistent with the Player
lodging a claim before the Federation A: the Player put the Club in default on 23 April 2024
and terminated the Contract on 10 May 2024. Then, only 18 days later, he lodged a claim
before the Federation A, which was decided on 10 September 2024. On 8 October 2024, he
requested execution and only on 18 November 2024 he lodged his claim before FIFA.
68. In light of the above, the Chamber considered that there are no elements to determine that
the Player did not file this claim before the Federation A or that the documents were
fabricated or forged. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player actually lodged a
claim before the Federation A, and that, consequently, the Decision was issued.
69. Hence, the Chamber moved on to determine the consequences of this conclusion.
70. First, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition, p. 456
and 457), which establishes:
“(…) if both parties recognise the jurisdiction of the national body by failing to contest it,
the DRC will recognise any decision passed by the national body, even if that body does
not comply with the procedural standards. In other words, a party that has recognised
(or failed to contest) a national body’s competence to hear a specific case – either by
lodging its claim with the national body or merely by submitting a response to the
substance of the claim without contesting the national body’s jurisdiction – will not be
allowed to claim that the national body concerned does not meet the minimum
standards provided for by article 22 paragraph 1b) (and FIFA circular no. 1010), or to
ask the DRC to reconsider the case on that basis.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC will not serve as a body of appeal in respect of
any decision made by a national body, nor will it enforce any decision made by a national
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
dispute resolution body.
The final considerations concern the practice known as “forum shopping” – a party taking
the same matter to multiple fora in the hope of obtaining the result that suits its
purposes. The relevant jurisprudence is designed to prevent such behaviour, which is
viewed as illegitimate. A party should not be able to game the system by having the same
argument heard in multiple fora in the hope one of them will hand down the judgment
it wants. For example, a party should not be allowed to ask a national body to confirm
that a contract has been breached without just cause, and then, having obtained a
favourable decision at national level, ask the DRC to set the compensation payable in the
case. The principle against “forum shopping”, namely that a party that has chosen to
have a case heard under one competent jurisdiction cannot then have recourse to
another, is consistently applied.”
71. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber found important to underline that in the spirit of the
applicable regulations, a player – or a club – who actively decides to bring forward a dispute
before a local deciding body, rather than making use of the alternative dispute resolution
process proposed within the legal framework of FIFA, must demonstrate consistency in
relation to the choice of the course of action. Accordingly, the Chamber stressed that it
could not condone the attitude of a party who at first decides to submit a labour dispute
to a local deciding body, and subsequently decides to submit this very same dispute
(between the same parties, based on the same legal framework) to FIFA; the same is to be
noted if the party submits a claim before FIFA and thereafter seeks to lodge the same claim
in front of different national bodies. Additionally, the Chamber emphasised that a party
who chooses a certain course of legal remedy may not then decide to change the legal
forum of the dispute, as this would jeopardise the credibility of the sporting dispute
resolution system.
72. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the principle of electa una via, non datur recursus ad
alteram and interpreted that in the present case the Player elaborated and developed an
inconsistent procedural strategy, known as “forum shopping”, by lodging two claims before
different deciding bodies with a view to obtain the most advantageous possible outcome.
73. In this sense, the Chamber recalled that the characteristics of forum shopping were
addressed in CAS 2022/A/9248, to which the Chamber adhered:
“Taking the above into account, the Panel is of the view that the unlawful forum shopping
practice is characterized by the intent of the claimant and his/her purposeful conduct
aimed at “gaming the system” to the detriment of the opponent. Its inherent element is
therefore bad faith of the party initiating the dispute.”
74. The Chamber highlighted that in the present case (i) the Player initiated a claim before the
Federation A, (ii) obtained a decision, in which he was not granted a substantial amount,
(iii) lodged a parallel claim before another tribunal, without disclosing this information, (iv)
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
denied having knowledge of the prior dispute after the Club referenced the Decision, and
(v) alleged that the documents were forged, without providing any supporting evidence or
explanation as to how the alleged representative could have accessed his personal
documents, request for relief, or signature. Moreover, the Player sought enforcement of
the Decision, thereby raising the risk of awarding the same amounts twice and resulting in
unjust enrichment.
75. In the Chamber’s opinion, the chronology of the case demonstrates the Player’s
controversial procedural behaviour, as he sought to obtain a new ruling for amounts that
were either not awarded or not claimed in the forum he initially elected. Hence, the
Chamber considered that the Player attempted to circumvent the system and that engaged
in unlawful forum shopping and, therefore, the claim shall be considered inadmissible.
76. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber stressed that the claim could also not be
upheld based on the legal principle non venire contra factum proprium. In this sense, as
previously mentioned, once the Player chose to file a claim before the Federation A, he is
precluded (estopped) from subsequently lodging a new claim before another tribunal,
aiming at obtaining amounts that were not awarded or claimed in the initial proceedings.
77. Similarly, the Chamber considered that the Player created a legitimate expectation on the
Club that it would pursue the claim submitted to the Federation A. By doing so, the Player
gave the Club reason to believe that the dispute would be resolved within that forum. The
Chamber remarked that it was the Player who initiated the proceedings before the
Federation A and not the Club.
78. In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s claim is inadmissible and,
in any event, must also be rejected.
c. Costs
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
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. 21