Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-xxxx
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
BY:
Khadija TIMERA, Senegal
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by Lawyer A
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Club A, Country B
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-xxxx
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 August 2023, the Country A player Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / CounterRespondent or the Player) and the Country B club Club B (hereinafter: the Respondent /
Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2024.
2.
According to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as follows:
“[…] SIGNING-ON FEE:
For the whole term of the Contract and subject to continuation of the Contract on the relevant
due dates, the Club shall pay to the Player a one-time signing-on fee of EUR 76.363,62 net in two
instalments as follows: (i) EUR 56.363,62 net shall be paid on 30 September 2023; and (ii) EUR
20.000 net shall be paid on 28 February 2024.
2023/2024 SEASON:
Salary of the Player: The Player shall receive a total salary of EUR 163.636,38 net in eleven equal
instalments, i.e., the Player shall receive a monthly salary of EUR 14.876,03 net on the last day
of each month as from August 2023 to June 2024 (including August 2023 and June 2024).
Appearance bonus: For every 10 starting appearance the Player makes in the official Country B
League matches of the Club, the Club shall pay the Player an appearance bonus of EUR 10.000
net. Any applicable appearance bonus shall be paid on 30th day of the month in which a 10th
start is made by the Player. The bonus set forth in this clause is subject to a cap of EUR 30.000
net. Play-off matches of the Club shall not be taken into account.
Goal/assist bonus: For every 10 attacking points achieved by the Player in the official Country B
League matches of the Club, the Player shall receive a bonus of EUR 10.000 net. For the purposes
of this clause, a goal scored by the Player (except for penalty goals) shall correspond to “1”
attacking point; whereas an assist produced by the Player – i.e. the last pass given by the Player
to the goal scorer - correspond to “1” attacking point. Any applicable goal/assist bonus shall be
paid on 30th day of the month in which a 10th attacking point is achieved by the Player. Playoff matches of the Club shall not be taken into account.
Points & promotion bonus: In case the Club achieves promotion to Country B League while the
Player is under contract with the Club, the Club shall pay to the Player a points & promotion
bonus in accordance with the collective bonus scheme of the Club. The bonus set forth in this
clause is subject to a cap of EUR 35.000 net.
Life support payment: On a monthly basis, the Club shall pay up to EUR 1.000 net as life support
payment to the Player on the last day of the relevant month, provided that the Player submits
to the Club the proof of rental contracts he has signed for housing & car in Country B. No
payment shall be made to the player until the submission of the proof. This clause shall apply
for the period between 1st July and 30th June of 2023/2024 season.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-xxxx
[…]
All taxes resulting from this Contract to which the employer, i.e., the Club, is responsible as an
employer shall be paid by the Club to the local tax authorities in Country B. […]”
3.
On 1 September 2023, the Club remitted EUR 14,876.03 to the Player.
4.
On 2 October 2023, the Club remitted EUR 84,739.65 to the Player.
5.
On 3 October 2023, the Club remitted Country B Currency 32,062.50, i.e., EUR 1,108.32, to
the Player.
6.
On 1 November 2023, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
7.
On 1 December 2023, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
8.
On 8 December 2023, the Club remitted Country B Currency 21,375, i.e., EUR 685.34, to the
Player.
9.
On 2 January 2024, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
10. On 10 January 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 64,125, i.e., EUR 1,957.06, to the
Player.
11. On 1 February 2024, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
12. On 9 February 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 3,562.50, i.e., EUR 108, to the
Player.
13. On 1 March 2024, the Club remitted EUR 48,376.03 to the Player.
14. On 8 March 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 46,312.50, i.e., EUR 1,332.36, to the
Player.
15. On 2 April 2024, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
16. On 17 April 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 28,500, i.e., EUR 825.96, to the
Player.
17. On 2 May 2024, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
18. On 9 May 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 60,562.50, i.e., EUR 1,745.79, to the
Player.
19. On 20 May 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 14,250, i.e., EUR 406.07, to the
Player.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-xxxx
20. On 3 June 2024, the Club remitted EUR 15,876.03 to the Player.
21. On 1 July 2024, the Club remitted EUR 14,876.03 to the Player.
22. On 30 September 2024, the Club remitted Country B Currency 331,300, i.e., EUR 8,679.30, to
the Player.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-xxxx
23. On 18 December 2024, the Player’s representative sent the following message to an alleged
representative of the Club via WhatsApp, quoted verbatim:
“[…] I am writing you regarding Player A’s bonuses, because I am his representative and big
brother, he still didn’t receive them yet.
Please could you regularise them as soon as possible.
The Total amount due is : 55.000 EUR NET.”
24. On 20 January 2025, the Club remitted EUR 20,000 to the Player.
25. On 2 August 2025, the Player’s legal representative put the Club in default by means of the
following correspondence, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Sirs,
I write to you in my capacity as legal counsel to Mr. Player A, professional football player, with
respect to the employment contract concluded between your Club and Mr. Player A dated
11August 2023 (the “Contract”).
Pursuant to Clause 3 – Remunerations & Special Conditions of the Contract, it was explicitly
agreed that Mr. Player A is entitled to a promotion bonus of EUR 35,000 net, in case the Club
achieves promotion to the Country B League while he is under contract with the Club.
The Club did indeed secure promotion to the Country B League for the 2024/25 season, thus
triggering the Player’s contractual entitlement to the aforementioned bonus. However, to date,
no such payment has been made, and no justification has been provided.
This constitutes a breach of the Club’s payment obligations under the Contract.
Accordingly, we hereby place the Club in formal default and request the immediate payment of
the amount of EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros) net to the Player within 10 days of receipt
of this notice, failing which Mr. Player A reserves all rights to initiate legal proceedings before
FIFA.
We trust this matter can be resolved amicably and without the need for further escalation.
Please consider this letter as a final opportunity to regularize the Club’s outstanding contractual
obligation. […]”
26. On 7 August 2025, the Club informed the Player’s legal representative that he
misinterpreted the wording of the Contract, and that it fulfilled its financial obligations
towards the Player in accordance with the collective bonus scheme.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-xxxx
27. On 12 August 2025, the Player’s legal representative sent the following correspondence to
the Club, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Sir,
I refer to your latest correspondence, the content of which is fully rejected.
Notwithstanding the above, and without prejudice, I would be grateful if you could provide me
with a copy of the alleged collective bonus scheme, duly signed and approved by my client. […]”
28. On 14 August 2025, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player’s legal
representative, quoted verbatim:
“[…] In response to your latest correspondence, we provide our reply as follows.
i. The Contract does not provide for any automatic entitlement; any bonus is subject to the Club's
collective bonus scheme.
As already made clear, the Contract stipulates that any ''points & promotion bonus" shall be
determined in accordance with the Club's collective bonus scheme and is subject to a maximum
limit of EUR 35.000.
This provision does not establish an automatic or fixed entitlement upon promotion. The
reference to a "cap" denotes a ceiling on the amount payable, not a guaranteed sum, and any
interpretation to the contrary disregards both the wording and the underlying purpose of the
clause, as well as its commercial rationale.
ii. The collective bonus scheme is a season-based policy set by the Club and requires no separate
annex or signature.
As is standard practice in professional football, the collective bonus scheme is an internal,
season-based policy established and applied uniformly by the Club to all first-team players. It is
not - and has never been - an individualized bonus arrangement requiring the execution of a
separate annex, written acknowledgment, or the Player's additional signature. The Contract
contains no provision, condition, or wording that makes the validity or applicability of the
scheme contingent upon such separate acceptance.
By signing the Contract, your client expressly accepted that any ''points & promotion bonus"
would be determined strictly "in accordance with the Club's collective bonus scheme", and
therefore subject to the terms defined by the Club for the relevant season. This is a standard
incorporation-by-reference mechanism, widely recognized in contractual interpretation, and it
binds the Player without the need for further documentation.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-xxxx
In addition, at the start of the 2023/24 season, the scheme was verbally explained in detail to
the entire first-team squad and accompanied by the distribution of a written information note
setting out its structure and application. Your client, along with all other players, was thus fully
informed of the scheme and its terms from the outset.
The mechanics of the 2023/24 scheme - including participation tiers, per-match point
calculations, the promotion trigger, and the season-fixed exchange rate - were implemented
transparently, objectively, and without deviation. All players were subject to exactly the same
rules, and no exceptions or preferential treatment were granted.
iii. The Player accepted all payments without reservation, which constitutes acceptance of the
scheme; otherwise, retaining such amounts would amount to unjust enrichment.
Your client received and accepted all in-season and post-season payments made under the
collective bonus scheme in full knowledge of its terms and without raising any reservation,
objection, or protest at the time. This conduct amounts to clear acceptance of both the scheme
itself and its implementation.
By accepting these payments - including the promotion-related payment made even after the
expiry of the contractual relationship - your client unequivocally acknowledged that the amounts
were calculated in accordance with the scheme and that no further sums were due.
If, as you now contend, such payments were allegedly not due because there was no separately
signed document, this argument is entirely misplaced. In such a scenario, the only legally
consistent outcome would be restitution to the Club for unjust enrichment, not the creation of
an additional entitlement. Put simply, your client cannot retain the benefits received without
objection and then later claim further payment under a contradictory interpretation of the same
provision.
It is also worth emphasizing that at no point during the 2023/24 season did the Player raise any
objection, reservation, or formal notice regarding the Club's application of the collective bonus
scheme. On the contrary, he consistently accepted multiple payments issued under the scheme
without protest and continued to perform his duties until the natural expiration of his contract.
Notably, the Player's first and only claim for the amount of EUR 35.000 surfaced only long after
the Club had achieved promotion and significantly, after the Player's departure. This prolonged
silence, combined with the absence of any objection, renders the current claim not only factually
and legally inconsistent, but also contrary to the principle of venire contrafactum proprium,
which precludes a party from later challenging a position it had previously accepted without
objection.
iv. All payments were made in full and even exceeded the Player's actual entitlement, evidencing
the Club's good faith, with the overpaid amount expressly reserved for recovery.
The complete payment history is already documented, including both the total amounts paid
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-xxxx
and the subsequent promotion-related payment made after the contractual relationship had
ended. It is obvious that all entitlements calculated under the scheme were paid in full. In
addition, Country B Currency 331.300 was paid on 30 September 2025, after the Contract had
ended. This post-contractual payment clearly illustrates the Club's good faith and its fair and
transparent approach toward the Player. Also, as previously notified, this exceeded the
promotion-bonus entitlement of your client, and therefore the overpaid amount is reserved for
recovery by the Club.
v. The concept of "caps" must be interpreted consistently, and your client's attempt to apply a
different interpretation to the collective bonus cap while accepting other caps undermines his
position and demonstrates the inconsistency of his claim.
Separately, your client's own individual bonuses (e.g., appearance, goal/assist included in the
Contract) are likewise subject to caps. He has never construed those caps as fixed, guaranteed
sums regardless of conditions. Attempting to read the collective bonus cap differently is a
selective and self-contradictory interpretation that undermines your position and confirms the
lack of merit in this claim. The Contract's language on the collective cap speaks for itself.
vi. Conclusion.
There is no outstanding amount due under any interpretation consistent with the Contract and
the Club's collective bonus scheme. On the contrary, your client has already received more than
his entitlement according to the collective bonus mechanism applied by the Club during the
2023/24 season. If you choose to escalate, the Club will defend its position before the competent
bodies and seek recovery of the overpaid sum, interest, and costs. […]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
29. On 14 November 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
30. In his claim, the Player argued that he is entitled to EUR 35,000 net under the Contract as
the bonus for the promotion to the Country B League (hereinafter: the Country B League).
31. Accordingly, the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. Order the Club to pay the Player the NET sum of €35,000, plus interest at 5% per annum from
June 30, 2024, until the date of actual payment;
2. Order the Club to provide proof of payment of all taxes on the sum mentioned in point 1;
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-xxxx
3. To impose a transfer ban on the Club until the sums due have been paid.”
(Freely translated from French)
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
32. In its reply, the Club stated that it fulfilled its financial obligations towards the Player under
the Contract.
33. In particular, the Club argued that the Player’s request for the payment of EUR 35,000 net
as the bonus for the promotion to the Country B League is based on a fundamental
misinterpretation of the Contract. In this respect, the Club noted the wording of the
Contract, which refers to the collective bonus scheme and limits the aforementioned bonus
to a maximum of EUR 35,000 net. In other words, it is the position of the Club that the
bonus for the promotion to the Country B League is not a fixed and guaranteed payment
but is subject to its collective bonus scheme.
34. In addition, the Club stated that the Player was informed about the mechanism of the
collective bonus scheme, and that, by signing the Contract, the Player accepted that the
bonus for the promotion to the Country B League would be determined strictly in
accordance with its collective bonus scheme.
35. The Club further argued that, in accordance with its collective bonus scheme, the Player
was only entitled to EUR 19,000 for the 2023/2024 season, i.e., EUR 9,500 as the bonus for
the promotion to the Country B League and EUR 9,500 as in-season point bonuses. In this
respect, the Club noted that the Player was in fact paid an exceeding amount of EUR
2,214.56.
36. In continuation, the Club held that, by accepting the payment on 30 September 2024 for
the bonus for the promotion to the Country B League without raising any objection, the
Player acted inconsistently, making his current claim months later incompatible with both
the facts and the legal principle of venire contra factum proprium.
37. Having stated the above, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player for the overpaid
amount of EUR 2,214.56.
38. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“a. Accept this answer and counterclaim.
b. Dismiss in its entirety the Claimant’s claim for EUR 35.000. In any event, and solely for the
sake of argument, should the Tribunal uphold any portion of the Claimant’s request, to deduct
from any amount awarded to the Claimant the collective bonus payments already made to him,
so as to prevent double recovery.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-xxxx
c. Uphold the Respondent’s counterclaim and order the Claimant to reimburse the Club the
amount of EUR 2.214,56 (two thousand two hundred fourteen euros and fifty-six cents),
representing the overpayment resulting from unjust enrichment, pursuant to Articles 62–67 of
the Swiss Code of Obligations, together with interest at a rate of 5% per annum on this amount,
payable from 30 September 2024, being the date of the final payment made to the Claimant.
Alternatively, in the event that the Tribunal does not order reimbursement in EUR, to order the
Claimant to reimburse the Club the corresponding amount of Country B Currency 60.550 (sixty
thousand five hundred fifty Country B Currency), calculated on the basis of the fixed exchange
rate of 28.50 Country B Currency/EUR applied under the collective bonus scheme, together with
interest at a rate of 5% per annum on this amount, payable from 30 September 2024, being the
date of the final payment made to the Claimant.
d. Order the Claimant to bear all procedural and administrative costs, if any.
e. Impose a restriction on the Claimant from playing in official matches until the due amounts
are paid.”
c. Reply to the Club’s counterclaim by the Player
39. In his reply to the Club’s counterclaim, the Player argued that the Club failed to provide any
evidence supporting the existence and his acceptance of the alleged collective bonus
scheme.
40. In addition, the Player argued that the proof of payment submitted by the Club is
incoherent, notably because the payments were made in the wrong currency, contain no
reference to the bonus for the promotion to the Country B League, and are unsupported
by any tax documentation despite the bonus being contractually defined as net.
41. In this context, the Player reiterated his initial requests for relief and stated that the Club’s
counterclaim must be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 14 November 2025 and
submitted for decision on 16 March 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and
35 of the January 2026 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. 11
REF. FPSD-xxxx
43. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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), 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.
44. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
45. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she 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
46. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
47. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Player and the Club strongly dispute the payment of certain financial obligations by the
Club as per the Contract, namely the bonus for the promotion to the Country B League.
48. In particular, the Single Judge took note that, according to the Player, the Club failed to
remit EUR 35,000 net under the Contract as the bonus for the promotion to the Country B
League.
49. In addition, the Single Judge recalled the position of the Club, according to which it fulfilled
its financial obligations towards the Player in accordance with the Contract and its collective
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-xxxx
bonus scheme, that the Player had in fact been overpaid by EUR 2,214.56, and that the
Player’s position is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the Contract.
50. In this context, the Single Judge considered that her 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 latter had a valid justification for not having
complied with its financial obligations.
51. The Single Judge then acknowledged that it remained undisputed by the Club that it
achieved promotion to the Country B League at the conclusion of the 2023/2024 season.
Accordingly, the Single Judge recalled the following wording of the Contract:
“[...] Points & promotion bonus: In case the Club achieves promotion to Country B League while
the Player is under contract with the Club, the Club shall pay to the Player a points &
promotion bonus in accordance with the collective bonus scheme of the Club. The bonus set
forth in this clause is subject to a cap of EUR 35.000 net. […]”
52. In light of the aforementioned wording of the Contract, it appeared to the Single Judge that
the Player agreed that any promotion bonus would be determined in accordance with the
Club’s collective bonus scheme. Therefore, in the Single Judge’s view, the Player could, in
principle, be subject to the Club’s collective bonus scheme for the 2023/2024 season.
53. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge recalled that the Player expressly denied ever
having received, reviewed or agreed to such collective bonus scheme. In addition, the
Single Judge observed that the Club did not submit any version—signed or unsigned—of
the alleged collective bonus scheme.
54. Although the Contract referred to the Club’s collective bonus scheme, the Single Judge
underlined that there is no further evidence that the Player was ever provided with such a
document, nor that he confirmed its receipt or acceptance. In fact, the Single Judge pointed
out that the Club failed to provide a version of the collective bonus scheme signed by the
Player, which suggests that he was not aware of them. Moreover, even if the Contract
stipulated that the Club’s collective bonus scheme was an integral part of the Contract, the
Single Judge observed that it was not attached to the Contract. In the Single Judge’s view,
this lack of evidence provided by the Club strongly indicates that the Player could not have
been aware of the specific conditions governing the bonus mechanism.
55. Having stated the above, and in the absence of further evidence provided by the Club, the
Single Judge considered that it is unreasonable to assume that a generic clause in the
Contract would imply that the Player was in agreement with the Club’s collective bonus
scheme. Put differently, the Single Judge considered that the Club has failed to discharge
its burden in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules to demonstrate that (i)
the promotion to the Country B League was not a fixed and guaranteed payment under
the Contract but was subject to the mechanism of the collective bonus scheme; (ii) that
the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-xxxx
Player was informed of, and agreed to, the operation of the mechanism of the collective
bonus scheme; and (iii) that, in accordance with the collective bonus scheme, the Player
was only entitled to EUR 19,000 for the 2023/2024 season, i.e., EUR 9,500 as the bonus for
the promotion to the Country B League and EUR 9,500 as in-season point bonuses.
56. Furthermore, based on the principle in dubio contra stipulatorem, the Single Judge
considered that any ambiguity with the wording of the Contract shall be interpreted against
the Club.
57. In view of the above considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the Player was entitled
under the Contract to EUR 35,000 net as the bonus for the promotion to the Country B
League.
58. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled 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. In this respect, the Single Judge deemed important to highlight that
the Player’s remuneration consisted of several distinct components, i.e., a sign-on fee, a
fixed monthly salary, a monthly allowance, as well as multiple bonus entitlements,
including variable performance-related bonuses.
59. The Single Judge further pointed out that the evidence provided by the Club does not
demonstrate the payment of the amount claimed as outstanding by the Player, namely
EUR 35,000 net under the Contract as the bonus for the promotion to the Country B
League. Although the Single Judge took note of the several proofs of payment submitted
by the Club, she observed that none of these documents contain any reference to the
promotion bonus or to any bonus entitlement whatsoever. In fact, the Single Judge
emphasised that all proofs of payment merely refer to salary payments, and the Club did
not provide any breakdown of the payments that would clarify which contractual
obligation each payment was intended to fulfil, nor any allocation demonstrating that a
portion of the salary payments should be attributed to the promotion bonus.
60. Taking the above into consideration, particularly the multiplicity of remuneration
components under the Contract and the Club’s failure to provide a clear and referenced
breakdown of its payments to the Player, the Single Judge concluded that the documents
on file cannot be relied upon to establish the fulfilment of the Club’s obligation to pay the
Player the bonus for the promotion to the Country B League.
61. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the Player was contractually entitled to
several variable, performance-based bonuses, and yet the Club did not submit evidence
explaining the calculation of such bonuses for the entire season 2023/2024. In the Single
Judge’s view, the Club’s payments referencing salary can therefore not be deducted, offset,
or otherwise recharacterized to satisfy its separate obligation to pay the Player the
promotion bonus, as the amount of the Player’s total performance-related remuneration
remains unknown.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-xxxx
62. Consequently, the Single Judge established that the Club failed to discharge its burden of
proof, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, to conclusively
demonstrate that it paid the Player EUR 35,000 net as the bonus for the promotion to the
Country B League, let alone that it had overpaid the Player for the duration of the
Contract.
63. In accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge
decided that the Club remains obliged to pay the promotion bonus contractually agreed
with the Player. In other words, in the absence of any proof of payment containing a clear
and explicit reference to the payment of the bonus for the promotion to the Country B
League, the Single Judge held that the Club failed to demonstrate that this specific
contractual entitlement had been discharged. Therefore, the Single Judge (i) rejected the
Club’s counterclaim; and (ii) accepted the Player’s claim and awarded him EUR 35,000 net
as the outstanding bonus for the promotion to the Country B League.
64. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 1 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
65. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
66. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the Club
with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
67. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
68. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Club within the last two years, the
Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4
lit. a) of the Regulations.
69. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-xxxx
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
71. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
72. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
73. 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.
74. The Single Judge 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
75. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
76. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge 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. 16
REF. FPSD-xxxx
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 A, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amount:
- EUR 35,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent / Counterclaimant.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-xxxx
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. 18