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/ COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by Legal Representative A
RESPONDENT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Club A, Country B
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 July 2023, the Country A Player A (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant / Counterrespondent), and the Country B Club B (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent / the
Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from the date of signature until 10 November 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a monthly salary
of Country B Currency 2,000,000 gross / Country B Currency 1,800,000 net.
3.
Furthermore, pursuant to the annexe to the Contract named “Additional Agreement”
(hereinafter: the Annexe), the Club undertook to pay the Player Country B Currency
17,955,555 gross / Country B Currency 16,160,000 net each month as an additional
amount.
4.
All remuneration stipulated contractually was payable by no later than the 10th day of the
following respective month.
5.
Lastly, the Contract foresaw that parties were obligated to engage in amicable negotiations
in the event that any dispute were to arise, failing which the case shall be submitted to FIFA.
6.
On 31 August 2023, the Club issued a collective bonus letter (hereinafter: the Bonus
Agreement), whereby it was agreed that an amount of Country B Currency 400,000,000 was
to be divided equally between the relevant signatories (amongst whom the Player was
included).
7.
On 9 January 2024, the Club allegedly paid the Player his share under the Bonus
Agreement.
8.
On 15 January 2025, the Player allegedly sustained an injury during the Club’s training camp
and returned to Country C on an unspecified date, with the Club’s authorisation, to be
treated for such injury.
9.
On 12 February 2025, after allegedly recovering from his injury, the Player returned to
Country B in order to join the Club as part of its second training camp. The Player was
allegedly not permitted to train with the rest of the squad “on a regular basis”, and instead
participated in such training sessions “occasionally”.
10. On 24 February 2025, the Player allegedly sent the Club a reminder for “unpaid bonuses
and previous achievements”.
11. By the time the season had officially started (March 2025), the Player was allegedly left
unregistered and unable to participate in the first three matches of the Club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
12. On 22 March 2025, the Player allegedly was informed by the Club that he would no longer
be participating in any first team training sessions due to the “President’s decision”.
13. On 24 March 2025, the Player put the Club in default of payment and requested his salaries
for the months of December 2024, January 2025 and February 2025 to be remitted,
amounting to Country B Currency 53,880,000. The Player equally requested to be
registered for the current season, be paid for the collective bonus under the Bonus
Agreement, be reimbursed for any travel and medical expenses incurred thus far and be
reintegrated into the squad, as he alleged having been unlawfully excluded. A deadline of
15 days was issued for the Club to remedy these alleged breaches.
14. On 26 March 2025, the Club (as acknowledged by the Player), made two payments of
Country B Currency 1,800,000 each, representing partial salary payments for the months
of December 2024 and January 2025.
15. On 8 April 2025, the Club replied to the Player, informing him that it had complied with all
its financial and other contractual obligations, referring to various payment orders
between November 2023 and March 2024. The Club further referred to the other
allegations made by the Player, arguing that he would be registered before the end of the
registration window, but that being selected for matches was at the discretion of the
coaching staff. Moreover, the Club alleged that the Player was not physically fit and had to
complete an additional “training course”. Lastly, any travel or medical expenses were
allegedly incurred at the Player’s own discretion and without prior communication with the
Club.
16. On 9 April 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract stating that the Club failed
to remedy all the breaches laid out in the default notice dated 24 March 2025 within the
timeline provided therein.
17. On 25 September 2025, the Player concluded an employment agreement with the Country
D Club B (hereinafter: the New Club), valid as from its signature until 31 December 2025 and
with a monthly salary of USD 5,000 (hereinafter: the New Contract).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 29 April 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
19. In his claim, the Player requested overdue payables and compensation for breach of
contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
20. The Player argued that the Club failed to pay various salaries and conditional amounts, as
well as remuneration in kind – such as travel expenses and medical expenses, which the
Player was forced to bear himself. In particular, the Player argued that the salaries between
December 2024 and February 2025 had not been paid, and that he incurred costs related
to the flights to pre-season training and the completion of an MRI by himself.
21. Beyond the salaries and reimbursement for expenses, the Player argued that he was owed
a collective bonus of Country B Currency 21,052,631 – which he shared with 18 other teammembers from a collective pot of Country B Currency 400,000,000 under the Bonus
Agreement.
22. The Player based his claim for compensation on the Club’s failure to pay the contractually
agreed amounts, and on its allegedly abusive behaviour, such as excluding him from
training sessions. Therefore, the Player argued that he had just cause to terminate the
Contract under both art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
23. The Player’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1. To rule that the FIFA claim is admissible and accepted.
2. To determine that the Claimant terminated his Employment Contract with the Respondent
for just cause.
3. To award the Claimant compensation for unilateral Employment Contract termination in
the amount of 195,760,000 Country B Currency net.
4. To oblige the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the following outstanding amounts:
- salary and bonus for March 2025 in the amount of 50,280,000 Country B Currency net
- bonus for the Championship title 2023 of 21,052,631 Country B Currency net
- reimbursement of air ticket 779 Euros net
- reimbursement of medical expenses 800 Country E Currency net.
5. In accordance with the consistent jurisprudence of the FIFA Football Tribunal, award the
Player an interest of 5% per annum on the delayed amounts as follows:
- 5% per year from 195,760,000 Country B Currency starting from 10 April 2025 until paid
- 5% per year from 50,280,000 Country B Currency starting from 11 March 2025 until paid
- 5% per year from 21,052,631 Country B Currency starting from 1 April 2024 until paid.
6. Since the premature termination of the Employment Contract occurred within the protected
period, impose sporting sanctions on the Club as per Article 17 (4) FIFA RSTP, i.e., a ban on
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and
consecutive registration periods.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
24. On 25 May 2025, the Club submitted its reply and lodged a counterclaim against the Player.
25. In its submission, the Club argued that it was a municipal organisation, whose funding was
subject to “specific procedures under national legislation”. Based on this, it was outlined
that the Club experienced a “financial shortfall” at the beginning of 2025.
26. The Club equally argued that the amounts outlined by the Player as outstanding were
misrepresented. It was argued that the Player’s entire remuneration under the Contract
and Annexe was Country B Currency 50,400,000, and that it owed the Player an amount of
Country B Currency 48,480,000 by 10 April 2025, which was not more than 60 days
outstanding at the time it was put in default.
27. The Club wished to also affirm that it made two payments of Country B Currency 1,800,000
to the Player (as acknowledged by the latter himself), on 26 March 2025, thereby absolving
any default existing at that time.
28. As for the amounts claimed under the Bonus Agreement, the Club argued that it was still
“investigating its origin”. The Club recognised that there were claims by other parties on
the basis of the same Bonus Agreement, however, requested that its (in)validity be
assessed separately and on a case-by-case basis.
29. In any event, the Club argued that the termination of the Contract entailed that any bonus
payments or remuneration under the Contract would not be due following such date. The
Club also challenged the allegation that the Player was not duly registered, arguing that he
had been registered, but that he was excluded from match squads and sent to a designated
/ specific training programme for himself due to insufficient match fitness.
30. Lastly, as for the flight ticket and medical reimbursements, the Club argued that the Player
incurred these costs after informing the Club that he would travel independently to the
training camp, and equally, undergo his medical analysis at a doctor of his choice, rather
than the Club designated doctor.
31. Consequently, the Club argued that the Player lacked just cause to terminate the Contract
prematurely and lodged a counterclaim in the value of Country B Currency 50,280,000 net.
32. The Club’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1. To reject the claim of Player A in its entirety as unfounded and unsubstantiated;
2. To recognize that the Player unilaterally terminated the employment contract without just
cause on 9 April 2025;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
3. To order the Player to pay compensation in the amount of 50,280,000 (fifty million two
hundred eighty thousand) Country B Currency (net) for the unlawful termination of the
contract in accordance with article 17 of the FIFA RSTP;
4. To take any other measures the Tribunal deems appropriate, including possible sporting
sanctions in accordance with article 17.4 of the FIFA RSTP.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
33. In his reply to the counterclaim filed on 25 July 2025, the Player effectively reiterated his
previous arguments, emphasising that the Club’s calculations were incorrect and
arguments incongruent with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
34. The Player particularly stressed that the entitlement to amounts after the contractual
termination would be dealt with under the header of “compensation” in line with art. 17 of
the Regulations, and further, that the Club’s partial payments did not absolve it from its
financial obligations. In any event, the Player asserted that these amounts were already
acknowledged in the initial statement of claim.
35. Therefore, the Player insisted on his requests for relief.
d. Unsolicited correspondence of the Club
36. On 12 August 2025, the Club submitted an unsolicited correspondence outside any
timeframe granted by the FIFA general secretariat. In such correspondence, the Club
mentioned that the Player allegedly filed a petition with a court in Country B, requesting
the invalidity of the jurisdiction clause which required pre-trial amicable negotiations and
settlement, prior to any application being made to FIFA.
37. On 29 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat, inter alia, acknowledged receipt of the
Club’s unsolicited correspondence, stressing that its admissibility would be assessed by the
Football Tribunal in due course.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. 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 29 April 2025 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
39. 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 an Country A player and a Country B club.
40. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s unsolicited
correspondence should be disregarded, for two reasons. Firstly, in accordance with art. 11
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, as the correspondence was submitted without any invitation
from the FIFA general secretariat and outside any time-limit granted within the scope of
the proceedings. Secondly, the Chamber upon examination of the evidence presented,
deemed that it bears no procedural or substantive merit to the present case, as it appears
from the content of the submission that no actual claim has been lodged by the Player. The
Player appears to have merely made an application to exclude the necessity of amicable
negotiations, and in any event, the jurisdiction clause in the Contract expressly mentions
that FIFA is competent to hear the present matter. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that
FIFA has jurisdiction to hear the present claim, which is admissible.
41. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
42. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
43. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
44. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the
Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations under the
Contract and abusive conduct by the Club, in accordance with art. 14 and 14bis of the
Regulations.
45. The Chamber recalled that according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just
cause due to outstanding remuneration and alleged abusive conduct by the Club as he had
not been registered, he was unlawfully excluded from training and forced to bear various
expenses which the Club was obligated to cover, on his own.
46. On the other hand, the Club argued that it had complied with its payment obligations, and
furthermore, that it never excluded the Player unlawfully, that it had registered him
(contrary to his assertions), and that any travel and medical expenses were incurred at his
own discretion.
47. Preliminarily, the Chamber noted that the question of whether or not the Player was
excluded from training has not been established through adequate evidence by either
party in the case at hand. On one hand, the Player acknowledged that this was brief,
particularly as it occurred shortly before the termination of the Contract, and on the other
hand the Club equally did not challenge this assertion significantly, stating that any
exclusion from matches or tailoring of players’ training programmes was at the discretion
of the technical staff. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that this could not be determining
factor in establishing just cause for early termination of the Contract.
48. In this context, the Chamber noted that what remains undisputed in the case at hand is
that the Player claims having not received additional remuneration under the Annexe of
Country B Currency 16,160,000 net each between December 2024 and February 2025.
Therefore, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
49. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
50. The Chamber recalled, as noted above, that the Player claims not having received his
remuneration corresponding to December 2024 until February 2025 – which far exceed
two monthly salaries under the Contract. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
has provided written evidence of having put the Club in default on 24 March 2025, i.e. at
least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 9 April 2025.
51. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the parties.
However, the Club did not submit any further proofs of payment in respect of the amounts
claimed by the Player, thereby leaving the default uncontested.
52. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
53. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the counterclaim of the Club is rejected in its
entirety.
ii. Consequences
54. 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.
55. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination (9
April 2025), coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is equivalent to three
instalments of Country B Currency 16,160,000 net between December 2024 and February
2025, as well as one instalment of Country B Currency 1,800,000 net for the month of
February 2025 as outstanding salaries under the Contract, amounting to Country B
Currency 50,280,000 net.
56. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the following amounts,
inclusive of the payments due under the Contract for March 2025, amounting to Country B
Currency 68,240,000 net:
a. Country B Currency 16,160,000 net as outstanding remuneration for December 2024
under the Annexe;
b. Country B Currency 16,160,000 net as outstanding remuneration for January 2025
under the Annexe;
c. Country B Currency 16,160,000 net as outstanding remuneration for February 2025
under the Annexe;
d. Country B Currency 1,800,000 net as outstanding salary for February 2025 under the
Annexe;
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
e. Country B Currency 16,160,000 net as outstanding remuneration for March 2025
under the Annexe; and
f.
Country B Currency 1,800,000 net as outstanding salary for March 2025 under the
Annexe.
57. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request, the principle of ne ultra petita, as
well as the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided
to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 11
March 2025 until the date of effective payment.
58. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Player has also requested an amount of
Country B Currency 21,052,631 net as his share of the bonus allotment under the Bonus
Agreement as outstanding remuneration. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the
Club alleged that it paid the Player his dues under the Bonus Agreement, however, has not
provided adequate evidence to this effect. More specifically, the Chamber noted that proof
of payment included by the Club refers to a bank account which bears no specific name on
the relevant receipt, and for which the payment reference is “salary for first team football
players for November 2023”. Equally, the Chamber noted that a document from the Club’s
payroll team has been adduced, however, as this is an internal document, the Chamber
concluded that it cannot be taken as conclusive proof of payment of the bonus. Therefore,
the Chamber was of the opinion that the bonus allotment for the Player remained
outstanding under the Bonus Agreement.
59. In this regard, in line with previous decisions concerning the same document and in
accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided
that the Club is liable to pay to the Player an amount of Country B Currency 14,814,814.18
net (i.e., the total amount of Country B Currency 400,000,000 equally divided between the
27 signatories).
60. In addition, 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 1 April 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
61. The Chamber then turned to the Player’s request for reimbursement of flight ticket and
medical expenses in the amounts of EUR 779 net and Country D Currency 800 net,
respectively. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the costs were directly related to
the Player’s duties and fell under the Club’s contractual responsibility. Further, the
Chamber concluded that the Club’s argumentation that they were incurred at the Player’s
own discretion, not only because they do not detract from the Club’s responsibility, but
more so, because they are not adequately corroborated, shall be disregarded.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
62. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player an amount of
EUR 779 net and Country D Currency 800 net for reimbursement of flight ticket and medical
expenses respectively.
63. In addition, 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the above-mentioned amounts as from 11 March 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
64. 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.
65. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the Contract at the basis of
the matter at stake.
66. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
67. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of Country B Currency 143,680,000 net (i.e., 8 times (Country B
Currency 16,160,000 net plus Country B Currency 1,800,000 net)) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
68. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
69. Indeed, the Player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the New
Contract, the Player was entitled to approximately USD 5,000 per month. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD
7,666.66 (i.e., for 5 days in September 2025, the full month of October 2025, and 10 days
in November 2025), or an equivalent of Country B Currency 4,090,271.
70. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
71. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
Country B Currency 53,880,000 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the
Player.
72. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of Country
B Currency 143,680,000 net to the Player (i.e., the residual value of the Contract as the
mitigated amount is less than the additional compensation), which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
73. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request, the principle of ne ultra petita, as well
as the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to
award the Player interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 10 April 2025
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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
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. 14
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Club A, must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
the following amount(s):
- Country B Currency 14,184,184.18 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 1 April 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- Country B Currency 68,240,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 11 March 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 779 net as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 March
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- Country D Currency 800 net as reimbursement for expenses plus 5% interest p.a.as
from 11 March 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- Country B Currency 143,680,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counterclaimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-XXXXX
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
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. 17