Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17374
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Muayad Alkhouli
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT:
Muayad Alkhouli, Syria
Represented by MCA Sports Law Llp
RESPONDENT:
Abahani Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Represented by Uno-One Legal Partners
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17374
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 July 2024, the Syrian player, Muayad Alkhouli (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant),
and the Bangladeshi club, Abahani Limited, Dhaka (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
The duration of the Contract was stipulated in clause 1 of the Contract, as follows:
“1. Duration of Contract:
a. The Player shall become a member of the Club for the 2024-2025 season.
b. The contractual period will be for 09 (Nine) months which will commence upon the
Football Player's arrival in Dhaka (tentative date is 1st September, 2024), successful
completion of the medical examination, and readiness to participate, and shall remain
in effect until the conclusion of the 2024-2025 football season (likely completion date is
5th May, 2025)
c. In the event that the football season extends beyond (e.g. AFC & BFF league
tournament) or shortens from the original contract period, the Club reserves the right to
adjust the contract’s duration accordingly. The same salary terms will be maintained
until the season’s conclusion.”
3.
Clause 3 of the Contract established the Player’s remuneration:
“3. Compensation Package:
a. In acknowledgment of the Football Player's commitment to providing services to the
Club to the utmost satisfaction, the Club agrees to remunerate the Football Player with
a monthly salary of $8,000 (USD Eight Thousand) for the entire duration of his tenure
with the Club. The Football Player will be entitled to salary from the day of his arrival in
Bangladesh.
b. For the broken month, salary will be calculated only for the days which have been
covered. For example: The Football Player has stayed 15 days of the month, not 30 days.
In this regard, the player will be paid for those 15 days of the month which is $5,000 if
his actual monthly salary is $10,000.
c. The Club will provide a daily food allowance to the Football Player, amounting to BDT
1,000 per day.
d. The club will disburse the Football Player’s monthly salary by the 7th day of each
month for the preceding month. For example, the salary for the month of November will
be paid on the 7th of December, and so forth.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17374
e. Included in the compensation package, the Club will provide the Football Player with
furnished accommodation. Additionally, the Club will cover monthly utility expenses up
to a maximum of BDT 12,000 (Twelve Thousand Taka) per month for the Football Player.
Any charges exceeding this limit will be the responsibility of the Football Player.
f. The Club is responsible for providing the Football Player and his wife with a roundtrip
air ticket.
g. Throughout the Football Player’s association with the Club in Bangladesh, the Club will
ensure access to medical facilities.”
4.
In clause 4 of the Contract, the parties agreed upon the following:
“4. Termination:
a. Either party reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon providing written
notice to the other party in the event of a material breach of the terms and conditions
delineated herein.
b. Termination may also transpire under circumstances such as medical reasons or
other unforeseen events, subject to mutual agreement between both parties.”
5.
Between June and July 2024, there were several demonstrations in Bangladesh.
6.
On 4 and 5 August 2024, the protests in Bangladesh intensified and ultimately led to the
resignation of the prime minister.
7.
On 5 August 2024, the Club’s office was the target of a vandalism attack.
8.
On 7 August 2024, Mr. Hasib Alam, a Club’s employee (hereinafter: Mr. Alam), sent an email
to Mr. Riju Koley, who, according to the Club, was the Player’s agent (hereinafter: Mr. Koley),
informing him that the recent unrest in Bangladesh and the resignation of the government
had significantly impacted the Club. Therefore, Mr. Alam requested Mr. Koley to inform
“Mario (Head Coach), Pablo (Trainer), Alain (Player), Khuli (Player) and Kennedy (Player)” about
the situation and that they were at liberty to seek opportunities with other clubs.
9.
On 13 August 2024, Mr. Salman F. Rahman, who, according to the Club, was the Club’s
chairman, was arrested.
10. On 14 August 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Bangladesh Football Federation (BFF),
informing it that starting the season in the second week of September 2024 was not
feasible. In this regard, the Club referred to the attack it suffered on 5 August 2024, stating
that it had finalized contracts with foreign players and signed new ones. However, the Club
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17374
argued that achieving the financial capacity to integrate foreign players into the team would
not be possible under any circumstances. Thus, the Club proposed starting the season in
November / December 2024 instead of September 2024 and suggested that all teams
participating in the season be composed solely of local players.
11. On 18 August 2024, the Club sent a new letter to the BFF, informing it that, due to the
circumstances, it had decided to terminate the contracts with the foreign players by virtue
of the force majeure clause in their contracts. The Club requested the BFF’s support in this
matter, including the involvement of FIFA in the termination process.
12. On 20 August 2024, the BFF issued a communication informing the Club, inter alia, that (i)
the registration period had been extended until 22 August 2024, (ii) clubs could register 40
players instead of 36, but the number of foreign players would remain unchanged, and (iii)
the start of the season, which was originally scheduled for the second week of September
2024, would be delayed, with the fixture to be announced at a later date.
13. On 21 August 2024, the Club sent a termination letter to the Player dated 19 August 2024.
The letter was sent by Mr. Alam to Mr. Koley and its content was as follows:
“Dear Mr Moaiad Alkhouli,
We are writing in relation to the agreement dated July 29, 2024, between Abahani Limited
(the Club) and yourself, regarding your participation as a football player for the 20242025 season in Bangladesh (the ’Football Player Agreement’).
As you are aware, Bangladesh is currently experiencing significant political unrest,
leading to widespread disruptions in various sectors, including sports. These unexpected
developments have severely affected the operations of our club, Abahani Limited. The
Board of Directors has been significantly impacted, creating uncertainty about the club's
funding and overall financial stability. Given that these events are beyond our control,
we find ourselves unable to fulfill our obligations under the Agreement.
In light of the ongoing political crisis in Bangladesh, which we believe constitutes a force
majeure event under FIFA regulations and Clause 4(b) of our Agreement, we regret to
inform you that we have to terminate the Football Player Agreement. The conditions set
forth in Clause 1(b) for the contract to come into effect—namely your arrival in Dhaka,
the successful completion of a medical examination, and your readiness to participate—
have not yet been met. Therefore, we are exercising our right to terminate the Agreement
without further obligations or liabilities.
We deeply regret the necessity of this decision and fully acknowledge the impact it may
have on your professional plans. We want to emphasize that this decision does not
diminish our desire to maintain a positive relationship with you in the future. After
thoroughly evaluating all available options, we have concluded that this course of action
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17374
is the most feasible for Abahani Limited given the extraordinary and unforeseen
circumstances currently affecting the club.
We thank you for your understanding and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
(…)”
14. Also on 21 August 2024, the Club sent a new letter to the BFF, requesting that arrangements
be made to hold all matches of the season within Dhaka, due to the Club’s financial
situation.
15. On 29 August 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, stating that the Contract had
entered into force and that, by means of the termination letter, the Club had terminated it
without just cause. In this respect, the Player asserted that the political unrest did not
constitute a force majeure event but rather appeared to serve as an excuse to terminate
the Contract. However, the Player expressed his willingness to resolve the matter amicably
and requested payment of USD 80,000 by no later than 10 September 2024.
16. On 1 September 2024, according to the Club, its bank accounts were frozen.
17. On 4 September 2024, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, the Club’s manager in the FIFA Transfer
Matching System (TMS), filed a report on behalf of the Club, informing the police about the
events that occurred on 5 August 2024.
18. Also on 4 September 2024, according to the Club, it received a letter from the IFIC Bank,
informing it of the restrictions imposed on its bank account.
19. Also on 4 September 2024, the Club sent a letter to the IFIC Bank requesting that its bank
accounts be unfrozen.
20. On 5 September 2024, the Club sent a new letter to the BFF, referring to its previous letters
and requesting the BFF to inform FIFA of the circumstances that led the Club to terminate
the contracts with the foreign players, and to provide the necessary support for a favorable
resolution of the issue, in order to assist the Club during this extraordinarily difficult
situation.
21. On 7 September 2024, the BFF sent a communication informing that the Challenge Cup
would be held on 4 October 2024, the Federation Cup would begin on 8 October 2024 and
the Premier League would begin on 11 October 2024.
22. On 9 September 2024, the Club sent a new letter to the BFF, requesting that the start of
the season be postponed by at least six weeks as of 8 October 2024.
23. On 10 September 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s letter of 29 August 2024, arguing
that the political unrest in Bangladesh led to several difficulties to the Club, including the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17374
arrest of its chairman, frozen bank accounts and an attack on the Club that made it
impossible to continue normal operations. Furthermore, the Club stated that, on 7 August
2024, it informed the Player’s agent about the difficulties and communicated that the
Player was free to explore opportunities with other clubs. The Club also assured that the
Contract was merely a preliminary agreement subject to conditions precedent. Moreover,
the Club disputed the Player’s allegations that the termination was made without just
cause, insisting that it was due to force majeure. Lastly, the Club informed the Player that it
was financially unable to offer compensation but was open to exploring non-monetary
settlement or alternative solutions.
24. On 12 September 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s last letter and first stated that the
Contract was not a preliminary agreement but a final and binding contract. Then, the Player
argued that the Contract could not be subject to a medical examination, based on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), and insisted
that the political unrest did not constitute a force majeure event. Notwithstanding, the
Player remarked that any termination due to force majeure had to occur through mutual
agreement, based on the Contract. Lastly, the Player proposed having further
conversations regarding a possible settlement.
25. On 23 September 2024, the Player signed a contract with the Syrian club, Al Wathba Sport
Club (hereinafter: Al Wathba), valid as from 1 October 2024 until 31 May 2025 or until the
end of the last official match of the 2024/2025 season. The total value of this contract was
SYP 150,000,000 and the Player was supposed to be paid a monthly salary of SYP 6,250,000
and SYP 100,000,000 between the first and second legs of the 2024/2025 season.
26. On 29 November 2024, the Bangladesh Premier League began.
27. On 30 November 2024, the Club won 2-0 against Fakirapool YMC.
28. On 15 January 2025, the Player and Al Wathba concluded a termination agreement. As a
result of the termination, the Player undertook to pay Al Wathba USD 10,000 in four
instalments: USD 7,000 on 15 January 2025, USD 1,000 on 15 February 2025, USD 1,000 on
15 March 2025 and USD 1,000 on 15 April 2025.
29. On 20 January 2025, the Player signed a contract with the Omani club, Sohar Sports Club
(hereinafter: Sohar), valid as from that date until 20 May 2025. According to this contract,
the Player’s monthly salary was OMR 1,345, equivalent to USD 3,500.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 5 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17374
a. Claim of the Claimant
31. The Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause. In this regard,
the Player first stated that the Contract was executed by the parties on 29 July 2024 and
was valid for one season, i.e., the 2024/2025 sporting season.
32. According to the Player, on 19 August 2024 he received a letter from the Club informing
him of the Club’s decision to terminate the Contract without further obligations and
liabilities, citing force majeure. The Player also recalled that the Club had mentioned that
the requirements of clause 1.b of the Contract had not yet been met, as he had not
successfully completed the medical examination.
33. The Player disputed the above arguments in both correspondence and in his claim, as
follows.
34. The Player asserted that the Contract was valid and binding, in that it included all the
essentialia negotii: (i) the date, (ii) the name of the parties, (iii) the duration, (iv) the
remuneration and (v) the signature. In any case, the Player highlighted that administrative
formalities such as filling out the BFF standardized contract do not invalidate the Contract.
35. Regarding the medical examination, the Player stated that a contract signed under the
circumstances that the player has not yet undergone a medical examination will still be
considered valid and binding, and the club cannot terminate it unilaterally if the player fails
the medical examination or fails to undergo it. Therefore, the Player alleged that despite
the condition stipulated in the Contract, the Contract remained valid, and the Club
terminated it without just cause.
36. Then, regarding the force majeure scenario alleged by the Club, the Player asserted that
clause 4.b of the Contract provided that it could be terminated on grounds of unforeseen
circumstances by the mutual agreement of the parties. However, the Player pointed out
that the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract without any attempt to reach a mutual
agreement. Notwithstanding, the Player also stated that the political unrest did not amount
to a force majeure event, as the Club had failed to submit any convincing evidence to
support its assertions and there had been no formal notification from FIFA to categorize
the alleged political unrest as force majeure. Furthermore, the Player assured that the Club
had failed to demonstrate that such political unrest rendered the performance of the
Contract impossible.
37. The Player insisted that the political unrest appeared to serve as an excuse to terminate
the Contract. According to the Player, financial problems or the lack of financial means
cannot be invoked as a justification for the non-compliance with an obligation. In this sense,
the Player stated that, due to the political unrest, the Club might find it financially
burdensome to carry out the Contract, but it would not be impossible to do so, therefore
it would not constitute a valid ground for force majeure.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17374
38. The Player also contended that a contract may only be terminated prior to the expiry of the
agreed term where there is a valid reason to do so. In contrast, if a party terminates a
contract without just cause, it has to compensate the injured party. As a result, he stated
that the parties were unable to come to an agreement and that he had no other choice but
to lodge this claim.
39. Consequently, the Player asserted that the Club must pay compensation based on art. 17
of the Regulations, as the Contract did not include any compensation clause.
40. According to the Player, the compensation payable by the Contract shall be USD 88,000 as
salaries for 11 months, i.e., August 2024 until June 2025, considering that reports from the
press state that the season would end on 25 June 2025. Additionally, the Player argued that
he was entitled to receive BDT 1,000 per day as food allowance and BDT 12,000 as monthly
utility expenses. Thus, the Player asserted that he is entitled to BDT 336,000 for the monthly
food expenses and BDT 132,000 for the monthly utility expenses. Since the Player argued
that he mitigated his damages in USD 11,500, he stated that he is entitled to USD 76,500,
as well as to BDT 468,000, plus interest as from 20 August 2024.
41. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. To fully accept the present Claim.
2. To order the Club to pay the Player compensation in the total amount of USD 76,500
(Seventy-Six Thousand Five Hundred United States Dollars) for the unilateral termination
of the Employment Contract without just cause along with 5% default interest per annum
as from 20 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3. To order the Club to pay the Player a food allowance in the total amount of BDT
336,000 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Six Thousand Bangladeshi Taka) along with 5%
default interest per annum as from 20 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4. To order the Club to pay the Player the monthly utility expenses in the total amount
of BDT 132,000 (One Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand Bangladeshi Taka) along with
5% default interest per annum as from 20 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
5. To impose sporting sanctions against the Club banning it from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration
periods pursuant to Article 17 par. 4 FIFA RSTP.
6. To impose against the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods pursuant to Article 24 FIFA RSTP.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17374
7. To order the Club to pay any legal expenses or costs and other costs related to the
current proceedings faced by the Player in an amount prudently estimated at USD 10,000
(Ten Thousand United States Dollars).”
b. Reply of the Respondent
42. In its reply, the Respondent first clarified that it did not dispute that the Contract was valid
and binding, even though the standard contract, as per the BFF’s requirements, was to be
signed when the Claimant would have arrived in Bangladesh. In this respect, the Club
stated that the dispute between the parties was around the issue of force majeure and rebus
sic stantibus, and whether the political unrest in Bangladesh and attack on the Respondent
amounted to a force majeure event, thereby justifying the termination of the Contract
without further obligations.
43. Based on the above, the Club referred to jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) and highlighted that, for force majeure to exist, there must be an objective
impediment, beyond the control of the party, that is unforeseeable, that cannot be resisted
and that renders the performance of the obligation impossible.
44. In this context, the Club explained the events occurred in Bangladesh and argued that:
a) There was an objective impediment: according to the Club, the events following the
government’s collapse created multiple objective impediments. In this sense, the Club
argued that the violent attack on the Club’s premises resulted in severe infrastructure
damage and loss of resources, creating a physical impossibility to provide the facilities and
services required under the Contract. This impediment was compounded by the financial
paralysis resulting from the freezing of the Club’s bank accounts and the severance of its
primary funding source following the chairman’s arrest. The Club stated that it was not in
a position to fulfil the contractual obligations and guarantee the Player’s safety, and
therefore it terminated all the contracts with foreign players and coaches.
b) The objective impediment was beyond the Club’s control: the Club asserted that on 29
July 2024, it could not foresee that (i) the prime minister would flee with the government
collapsing, (ii) that its premises would be vandalized, (iii) that its chairman would be
arrested and (iv) that its bank accounts along with those of its board members would be
frozen.
c) The factors were impossible for the Club to resist, rendering the performance
impossible: the Club alleged that the situation in Bangladesh, along with the frozen bank
accounts, absence of primary funding, and damaged infrastructure, created an
insurmountable barrier to fulfil the financial and operational obligations required under
the Contract. The Club explained that it could not guarantee the foreign players’ safety, and
that due to the vandalism it had no training facilities, no equipment, and no coaches.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17374
Furthermore, the Club alleged it could not use any money from its bank accounts because
they were frozen.
d) Rebus sic stantibus: according to the Club, all conditions for rebus sic stantibus to apply
are met: (i) a change in circumstances that has led to a fundamental distortion of the initial
agreement, (ii) this change was not reasonably foreseeable, (iii) the Club did not accept the
risk of such a change at the time of making the Contract, (iv) the Club is not liable for the
events and (v) the change in circumstances led to a significantly disparity between the
parties’ obligations. Consequently, the Respondent contended that both parties must be
released from their respective obligations. Subsidiarily, the Club mentioned that the
Contract can be adapted, and the Respondent should only be liable to pay the amounts for
the period of 30 November 2024 (the start date of the league) to 5 May 2025 (end date of
the Contract).
e) Art. 103 par. 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO): the Club sustained that, if the
Football Tribunal considered that the Respondent was at fault for terminating the Contract,
it did not cause the breach and the Claimant would have suffered damage and detriment
if the Contract had been enforced. The Club argued that, had the Claimant arrived in
Bangladesh at the end of August 2024 or on 1 September 2024, his safety could not have
been guaranteed. Furthermore, the Club would not have been able to provide him with
facilities to train, training kits or his salary, nor would he have had access to professional
football.
45. On another note, the Club highlighted the Player’s failure to respond to the email dated 7
August 2024. In this respect, the Club pointed out that on 7 August 2024, it contacted the
Club’s agent informing him of the current situation and requesting that the Player begin
exploring other employment opportunities. However, the Club remarked that the Player
never responded to the email, acting in bad faith by unilaterally controlling the fulfilment
of the condition.
46. According to the Club, the Player intentionally avoided contact with the Club and prevented
the fulfilment of the condition in clause 4.b of the Contract, since mutual agreement
required the consent of both parties. In this regard, the Club stated that, if the Player’s
argument were to be accepted, the Club could never have terminated the Contract, as
there was no mutual agreement.
47. Based on all the above mentioned, the Club concluded that, if the Chamber understood
that the situation constituted force majeure, both parties would be relieved of their
obligations and the Respondent would not be liable to pay compensation.
48. Nonetheless, if the Chamber decided that there was no force majeure, the Club stated that
the Contract shall be deemed to have started on 30 November 2024 (the start date of the
league) until 5 May 2025. Additionally, the compensation shall be mitigated with the
Player’s new contract and reduced to half due to the Player’s failure to actively seek
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17374
employment opportunities as from 7 August 2024. As an alternative, the Club mentioned
that the residual value shall be calculated as from 1 September 2024 until 5 May 2025, and
then mitigated and reduced to half, but the Claimant would never be entitled to salaries
for the period August 2024 to June 2025.
49. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Player is not entitled to fringe benefits, which would
have been provided had he been in Bangladesh. The Club also sustained that the Player
did not prove that he had suffered any damage.
50. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“IX. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
On these grounds, the Respondent hereby respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber to rule that:
1. The Claim filed by the Claimant must be rejected in full.
2. The Respondent has terminated the Agreement with just cause due to force majeure
and rebus sic stantibus.
3. In all cases, the Claimant is not entitled to any compensation.
4. In the alternative that the Agreement is adapted under the doctrine of rebus sic
stantibus to the circumstances of the case, in particular that any compensation due
(quod non) be calculated as from the date where the league in Bangladesh started i.e.
30 November 2024.
5. In relation to point 4. if FIFA DRC concludes that the Respondent did not have just
cause to terminate the Agreement then the Claimant is entitled to the following amount
for the period 30 November 2024-5 May 2025:
• An amount of USD 15.028.5 NET (fifteen thousand twenty-eight US dollars and fifty
cents) along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 22 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment; OR
• An amount of USD 30,057 NET (thirty thousand fifty-seven US dollars) along with
interest of 5% p.a. as from 22 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
2. In the alternative to points 4 and 5, the Claimant is entitled to the following amount
for the period of the Agreement (i.e. 1 September 2024 to 5 May 2025):
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17374
• An amount of USD 26.895 NET (twenty-six thousand eight hundred ninety-five US
dollars) along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 22 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment; OR
• An amount of USD 53,790 NET (fifty-three thousand seven hundred ninety US dollars)
along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 22 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
2. In all cases to reject the claim and request of the Claimant for salaries and/or
compensation for the full period of August 2024 to June 2025 as the same is not reflected
in the Agreement.
3. In all cases (and if the FIFA DRC concludes that the Respondent did not have just cause
to terminate the Agreement), the amount of compensation can never exceed USD 53,790
NET (fifty-three thousand seven hundred ninety US dollars) along with interest of 5% p.a.
4. In all cases, to reject in full the claim of the Claimant on fringe benefits.
5. In all cases, to reject in full the request of the Claimant to impose sporting sanctions
on the Respondent as per Article 17 para. 4 of the FIFA RSTP.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
51. In his rejoinder, the Player first asserted that, based on the Club’s response, it was
undisputed that the Contract was valid and binding.
52. Regarding force majeure, the Player alleged that it must be narrowly interpreted, because
it represents an exception to the fundamental obligation of pacta sunt servanda. In this
respect, the Player stated that the jurisprudence cited by the Club does not apply, as the
league was only temporarily suspended and, despite the political unrest, the football
season proceeded as planned. According to the Player, this fact undermines any argument
that fulfilling contractual obligations was impossible.
53. The Player pointed out that in this case there was no operational shutdown nor was the
Club unable to participate in the season. Additionally, the Player alleged that although the
Club was not accountable for the political unrest, its lack of financial safeguard and
contingency planning contributed to its failure to fulfil contractual obligations. Moreover,
the Player highlighted that 36 foreign players were registered for the 2024/2025 season in
Bangladesh and that the BFF continued preparations for the league at the time of the
termination.
54. Furthermore, the Player argued that the Club’s financial difficulties were not a result of
external interference but rather poor internal structuring.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17374
55. The Player contended that the rebus sic stantibus doctrine does not apply, as a temporary
period of instability does not equate to an irreversible and complete inability to perform
contractual obligations. Additionally, the Player asserted that political instability in
Bangladesh was already well-documented prior to July 2024, so the situation was not
unpredictable.
56. Regarding the Player’s alleged failure to respond to the email dated 7 August 2024, the
Player argued that it was merely an informal email and did not constitute a termination
notice as the Club only described the uncertainty about its financial situation and stated
that the Player was free to seek opportunities with other clubs. However, the Player
mentioned that the Club did not establish any clear legal position. The Player further
contended that the Club made no attempt to negotiate with the Player, nor did it seek his
consent for a termination agreement.
57. Moreover, the Player argued that he was not obligated to reply to the email, as he was
legally bound with the Club and had no reason to seek alternative employment.
58. Regarding the mitigation of damages, the Player asserted that he made all possible efforts
to mitigate his damages and signed a contract with Al Wathba, and then he continued
improving his financial situation by signing a contract with Sohar. However, he mentioned
that it needed to be considered that he signed a termination agreement with Al Wathba to
sign his contract with Sohar, by means of which he undertook to pay USD 10,000.
59. In this context, the Player argued that he received USD 1,675 for the salaries for October,
November and December 2024, and 15 days of January 2025, but did not receive the
advance payment, as it was to be paid between the first and the second legs of the
2024/2025 season. In this sense, the Player stated that the Syrian league was suspended
due to civil war on 4 December 2024 and the second transfer period was postponed to 3
March 2025.
60. Thus, the Player asserted that he shall receive USD 88,000, less USD 1,675 of the salaries
he received from Al Wathba, less USD 14,000 that he will receive from Sohar. To that
amount, he argued that it should be added the USD 10,000 he paid for the termination
agreement, and BDT 336,000 for food allowances and BDT 132,000 for monthly utility
expenses.
61. Lastly, the Player made the following requests for relief:
“III. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
As to the facts and the legal arguments as per the Claim as well as the present submission
the Claimant, respectfully, requests the FIFA Football Tribunal:
1. To fully accept the present Claim.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17374
2. To order the Club to pay the Player compensation in the total amount of USD 82,325
(Eighty-Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Five United States Dollars) for the
unilateral termination of the Employment Contract without just cause along with 5%
default interest per annum as from 20 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3. To order the Club to pay the Player a food allowance in the total amount of BDT
336,000 (Three Hundred and Thirty-Six Thousand Bangladeshi Taka) along with 5%
default interest per annum as from 20 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4. To order the Club to pay the Player the monthly utility expenses in the total amount
of BDT 132,000 (One Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand Bangladeshi Taka) along with
5% default interest per annum as from 20 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
5. To impose sporting sanctions against the Club banning it from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration
periods pursuant to Article 17 par. 4 FIFA RSTP.
6. To impose against the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods pursuant to Article 24 FIFA RSTP.
7. To order the Club to pay any legal expenses or costs and other costs related to the
current proceedings faced by the Player in an amount prudently estimated at USD 10,000
(Ten Thousand United States Dollars).”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
62. In its final comments, the Club first remarked that the analysis of force majeure should be
conducted between 5 August 2024 and 19 August 2024, rather than retrospectively. The
Club also highlighted that the attack on the Club had no bearing on other football clubs, as
they were not victims of such an attack.
63. Then, the Club mentioned that, at that moment, the BFF could not give a certain date as to
when the football season would commence, and, when it did, the season did not start on
that date, which shows the uncertainty. The Club further contended that when a crisis
occurs, it does not have a set end date, but when analysed retrospectively, all crises could
be considered as temporary.
64. Additionally, the Club mentioned that two other first division clubs did not participate in
the ongoing season solely due to the challenges they faced from the political unrest.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17374
65. The Club provided two witness statement to support its position, as well as a letter
provided by the BFF regarding the facts occurred during the relevant period.
66. Regarding the bank accounts, the Club stated that it could not have taken preventive
measures because the events were unforeseeable. The Club also insisted that the Player
did not respond to the letter dated 7 August 2024 in bad faith and blocked any possible
negotiations.
67. In connection with the duty to mitigate the damages, the Club stated that assuming
responsibility for paying a sum to Al Wathba under a termination agreement was the
Player’s choice and he is solely accountable for any consequences arising from it.
Additionally, the Club remarked that the Player failed to provide any evidence of having
paid this amount, although two instalments had fallen due before the replica.
68. In this context, the Respondent argued that the Player mitigated USD 5,319 net under his
contract with Al Wathba and USD 12,419 net under his contract with Sohar. Nonetheless,
the Club referred to the situation in Syria, which it argued was similar to the one in
Bangladesh. The Club remarked that the Player could not tolerate a one-month suspension
from the league in Syria, whereas he argued that he was prepared to tolerate a four-month
suspension from both the league and training in Bangladesh. The Club sustained that the
Player would only have left the Club if he had received a better salary, as he did in Oman
compared to Syria.
69. Lastly, the Club made the following requests for relief:
“Requests for Relief
86. Based on the above, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Football
Tribunal to rule that:
1 ) The Claim and replica of the Claimant must be rejected in full.
2. The Respondent terminated the Agreement with just cause due to force majeure and
rebus sic stantibus.
3. In all cases, the Claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation.
4. In the alternative that the Agreement is adapted under the doctrine of rebus sic
stantibus to the circumstances of the case, in particular that any compensation due
(quod non) be calculated as from the date where the league in Bangladesh started i.e.
30 November 2024 taking into account the principle of mitigation.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17374
5. In relation to point 4. if FIFA DRC concludes that the Respondent did not have just
cause to terminate the Agreement then the Claimant is entitled to the following amount
for the period 30 November 2024-5 May 2025:
• An amount of USD 13,470 NET (thirteen thousand four hundred seventy US dollars and
fifty cents) along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 30 November 2024 until the date of
effective payment:
OR
An amount of USD 26,490 NET (twenty six thousand four hundred ninety US dollars)
along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 30 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
• An amount of USD 13,470 NET (thirteen thousand four hundred seventy US dollars
and fifty cents) along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 30 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
OR
• An amount of USD 26,490 NET (twenty six thousand four hundred ninety US dollars)
along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 30 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
6. In the alternative to points 4 and 5. the Claimant is entitled to the following amount
for the period 1 September 2024 to 5 May 2025:
• An amount of USD 23,746 NET (twenty three thousand seven hundred forty-six US
dollars) along with interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment; OR
• An amount of USD 47,492 NET (forty seven thousand four hundred ninety-two US
dollars) along with interest of 5% p.a. as from I September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
6. In all cases to reject the claim and request of the Claimant for salaries and/or
compensation for the full period of August 2024 to June 2025 as the same is not reflected
in the Agreement.
7. In all cases (and if the FIFA DRC concludes that the Respondent did not have just cause
to terminate the Agreement), the amount of compensation can never exceed USD 47,492
NET (forty seven thousand four hundred ninety-two US dollars) along with interest of 5%
p.a.
8. In all cases, to reject in full the claim of the Claimant on fringe benefits.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17374
9. In all cases, to reject in full the request of the Claimant to impose sporting sanctions
on the Respondent as per Articles 17 para. 4 and Article 24 of the FIFA RSTP.
10. To reject in full the Claimant's request for legal costs pursuant to Article 25 para. 8
of the FIFA Procedural Rules.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
70. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analyzed
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 5 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 15 May 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.
71. 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 (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Syrian player and a Bangladeshi club.
72. Subsequently, the Chamber analyzed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
73. 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 TMS.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17374
c. Merits of the dispute
74. 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 emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
75. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for breach of contract.
76. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that the Club terminated the
Contract without just cause and must pay compensation. The Player further alleged that
there was no force majeure scenario and, even if there had been one, the Contract
stipulated that the termination had to be made by mutual agreement.
77. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club stated that the termination was due to
force majeure related to the political unrest in Bangladesh, meaning that the parties were
relieved from their obligations and the Club was not liable to pay compensation.
Specifically, the Club argued that it had tried to reach an agreement with the Player, who
failed to respond, leaving the Club with no other option but to terminate the Contract.
78. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the Club
had a just cause to terminate the Contract and its consequences.
A. Did the Club have just cause to terminate the Contract?
79. The Chamber noted that it is undisputed that the parties signed the Contract on 29 July
2024 and that the Club terminated it by means of a termination letter dated 19 August 2024
but sent on 21 August 2024.
80. The Chamber also recalled that while the Player argued that this termination was without
just cause, the Club claimed that it was due to force majeure, citing the political unrest in
Bangladesh.
81. In order to assess the termination issue, the Chamber first deemed it necessary to address
the Contract’s duration. The Chamber observed that it was established that the contractual
period of nine months would commence upon the Player’s arrival in Dhaka, successful
completion of the medical examination, and readiness to participate, with a tentative start
date of 1 September 2024.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17374
82. Although art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations states that the validity of the contract may not be
made subject to a successful medical examination and/or the grant of a work permit, the
Chamber did consider that the parties established the start date as the date of the Player’s
arrival in Dhaka. However, the Chamber observed that this did not happen, as there is no
evidence that the Club provided the Player with flight tickets, and on 21 August 2024, it sent
the termination letter.
83. Notwithstanding, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player could not be held
responsible for the Club’s failure to provide the Player with the flight tickets and there is no
evidence demonstrating that they were actually provided. According to the Chamber, this
line of reasoning was also consistent with the Club terminating the Contract: had the Club
considered that the Contract was not valid and binding at that time, it would not have
terminated it.
84. Hence, the Chamber determined that the Contract was valid as from the tentative date of
1 September 2024, as this was the date the parties intended for the contractual period to
start, for a duration of nine months.
85. Then, the Chamber moved on to analyse whether the Club had just cause to terminate the
Contract. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with the jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal, a premature unilateral termination of the Contract may only be an
ultima ratio measure.
86. In this case, the Chamber noted that the Club did not argue that the Player had breached
the Contract but instead claimed that the political crisis in Bangladesh and its impact on
the Club constituted a force majeure event and, therefore, the Club had to terminate the
Contract without incurring any liabilities.
87. At this point, the Chamber also recalled that the Club argued that (i) there was an objective
impediment, as the attack on the Club’s premises and the freezing of its bank accounts
prevented it from fulfilling the obligations set forth in the Contract and even from
guaranteeing the Player’s safety, (ii) this impediment was beyond the Club’s control, as it
could not have been foreseen at the time of signing the Contract and (iii) it was impossible
for the Club to resist, rendering the performance of the Contract impossible, given that the
Club had no training facilities, no equipment, no coaching staff and could not access its
bank accounts.
88. The Chamber also noted at this point that clause 4.b of the Contract already governed the
possibility of a termination due to a force majeure event as follows:
“b. Termination may also transpire under circumstances such as medical reasons or
other unforeseen events, subject to mutual agreement between both parties.”
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17374
89. However, although acknowledging this provision, the Club argued that it had attempted to
reach a mutual agreement with the Player, who declined it.
90. Bearing the above framework in mind, the DRC noted that the Club had the burden to
prove that force majeure existed; that is, an unforeseen, extraordinary, and exceptional
circumstance, beyond the parties’ control, which justified the early termination of their
contractual relationship unilaterally. Nonetheless, the Chamber considered that the Club’s
burden was even higher in this case, since the parties had already anticipated the
possibility of a force majeure event in the Contract, which still required a mutual agreement.
Therefore, the Club was required not only to prove the legal elements of force majeure, but
also to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable attempt to reach a mutual agreement
with the Player.
91. Nevertheless, the DRC concluded that the Club’s position could not succeed in the above.
92. Although the Chamber accepted the evidence provided by the Club that it faced
extraordinary circumstances caused by the political scenario in Bangladesh, the Chamber
considered that the Club did not prove that it was legally entitled to terminate the Contract.
93. In particular, the Chamber considered that the Club was able to provide sufficient evidence
demonstrating that the Club’s office was vandalized and that the Club’s trophies were taken
away. Nonetheless, the Chamber did not find that the Club provided any substantial
evidence demonstrating that it truly lacked training facilities or coaching staff or that it was
unable to provide the players with equipment.
94. Furthermore, regarding the bank accounts, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that,
as from 6 August 2024, the Club’s bank accounts were frozen. However, the Club failed to
provide evidence to support these allegations. Instead, the Club provided two letters issued
by IFIC Bank dated 1 September 2024 and 4 September 2024, regarding instructions for
bank accounts in the name of or on behalf of Beximco Group, NASA Group, or S Alam
Group.
95. Although the Club failed to provide evidence regarding the link between these groups and
the Club, and merely stated that the Club’s chairman is also the co-founder of Beximco
Group, the Chamber highlighted that, even if it were to consider that the Club’s account
was subject to the restrictions imposed by these instructions, such restrictions were
implemented after the termination of the Contract. This is consistent with the letter dated
4 September 2024, regarding the continuation of transactions in Abahani Krira Chakra’s
bank account, allegedly sent by the Club on the same day it received the notification.
Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, the Club failed to prove that, at the time of the
termination, its accounts were frozen and cannot rely on a subsequent event to justify a
termination that had already taken place.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17374
96. Most importantly, however, the Chamber wished to point out that, even if this scenario
were to qualify as a force majeure situation (ad argumentandum tantum), it was not
convinced that the Club had discharged it burden of proving that it acted to protect
contractual stability.
97. In this case, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that it sent the Player an email on 7
August 2024 informing him about the situation, to which he failed to respond. Therefore,
the Club argued that it had no other choice but to terminate the Contract, as it could no
longer be expected, in good faith, to continue the Contract if the Player was unwilling to
reach an agreement.
98. At this point, the Chamber pointed out that the Club actually sent an email to the Player’s
agent. Although this email was acknowledged by the Player, the fact remains that it was
not sent directly to him. Additionally, the Chamber underscored that in this email the Club
merely informed the Player’s agent that he and other individuals were free to seek
opportunities with other clubs. Nonetheless, in the email, the Club never expressed an
intention to reach a mutual agreement with the Player to terminate the Contract.
99. In this regard, the Chamber considered that, based on clause 4.b of the Contract, if the
Club had intended to terminate the Contract by mutual agreement, it should have, at least,
communicated such intention to the Player. In the absence of any reference to a mutual
termination in the email, the Chamber did not deem this correspondence as sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the Club sought an agreement which the Player failed to
respond to and, therefore, the Club had no other choice but to terminate the Contract.
100. In any case, the Chamber was of the opinion that it was the Club’s responsibility to follow
up on this email. The Chamber emphasized that, in this kind of situation, it is expected that
the Club, as the allegedly affected party and the one interested in modifying the preestablished terms due to unforeseen circumstances, should attempt to mitigate the
situation and exercise proper diligence in handling the matter in the best interest of all
parties involved. Nonetheless, the Chamber underlined that the Club merely sent the email
of 7 August 2024, without attempting to reach a settlement, and immediately thereafter
proceeded to unilaterally terminate the Contract without making any alternative proposal
to the Player.
101. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the Club's decision to terminate the Contract on 21
August 2024 could not be considered as an ultima ratio measure, even when taking into
account the additional information provided in this case.
102. Based on all the above, the Chamber determined that the termination by the Club was
without just cause.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17374
B. Consequences
103. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
104. Considering that the Club terminated the Contract on 21 August 2024, with a letter dated
19 August 2024, the Chamber observed that there were no outstanding salaries. Thus, the
Chamber decided not to award any outstanding salaries to the Player.
105. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
106. 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.
107. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be
equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
108. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
109. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Contract had a tentative start date of 1
September 2024, was terminated on 21 August 2024 and stated that it would have been
valid for nine months, being the expected end date on 5 May 2025. The Chamber further
noted that the period from 1 September 2024 and 5 May 2025 was not nine months, but
eight months and four days. Then, the Chamber observed that the Player is requesting 11
salaries as compensation, from August 2024 to June 2025, based on reports from the press
indicating that the season would end on 25 June 2025. Lastly, the Chamber noted that the
Club requested that the calculation be made as from 30 November 2024, the start date of
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17374
the league, until 5 May 2025, or, subsidiarily, as from 1 September 2024 until 5 May 2025,
as stipulated in the Contract.
110. At this point, the Chamber considered that it could not uphold the Player’s calculation, as
the Contract did not stipulate any salary for August 2024, and the Chamber could not rely
on press reports to establish that the Contract would have been valid until 25 June 2025.
Also, the Chamber was of the opinion that it could not uphold the Club’s first calculation,
as the Contract did not establish that it would be valid from the start date of the league,
but rather upon the Player’s arrival in Dhaka.
111. Thus, and as already mentioned, the Chamber determined that the start date of the
Contract be considered 1 September 2024, which was the tentative date that the parties
established the Player would have arrived in Dhaka, had the Contract not been terminated.
Additionally, the Chamber considered that the Contract clearly stipulated that the
contractual period was for nine months, which would have lasted until 31 May 2025. This
is consistent with the end date of the 2024/2025 season in Bangladesh being on 22 May
2025 according to TMS.
112. Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, the Player was entitled to nine monthly salaries of USD
8,000 each, totalling USD 72,000.
113. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he was entitled to BDT 1,000
per day as daily food allowance. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, between 1
September 2024 and 31 May 2025, there are 273 days. Therefore, the Chamber noted that
the Player would have been entitled to BDT 273,000 had the Contract not been terminated.
In this case, the Chamber interpreted that this amount formed part of the Player’s
remuneration, as it was clearly quantified and guaranteed, regardless of the amount spent
by the Player.
114. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Club undertook to cover the Player’s utility
expenses up to a maximum of BDT 12,000 per month. In this case, the Chamber was of the
opinion that, although this amount would be covered by the Club, it did not constitute a
monthly payment of BDT 12,000 to the Player. Rather, the Club committed to covering
actual expenses, capped at that amount. This means that if the expenses were lower, the
Club would only cover the actual amount spent. Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, the BDT
12,000 shall not be considered as part of the Player’s remuneration, as he was not actually
entitled to a fixed amount, and it is not possible to determine what the Club would have
actually paid had the Contract not been terminated.
115. Hence, the Chamber determined that the amount USD 72,000 plus BDT 273,000 serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
116. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17374
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
117. In this regard, the Chamber noted that on 23 September 2024, the Player signed a contract
with Al Wathba valid as from 1 October 2024 until 31 May 2025. The Chamber highlighted
that the Player stated that this contract was terminated on 15 January 2025, and therefore
he received the salaries for October, November and December 2024, and the prorated
amount for January 2025, totalling SYP 21,774,194. Nonetheless, the Player argued that (i)
he did not receive the payment of SYP 100,000,000 that was to be paid between the first
and second leg of the 2024/2025 season and (ii) signed a termination agreement with the
club by means of which he undertook to pay USD 10,000 and therefore this amount must
be deducted from the mitigation, as it was part of his effort to sign a new contract with
better financial conditions.
118. Regarding the amount that the Player argued he did not receive, the Chamber considered
that there were no elements on file to establish that he had indeed received it. Similarly,
the Chamber underlined that there was no due date for such payment and, thus, it was
impossible for the Chamber to know whether this amount was to be paid before the
termination of the contract.
119. Regarding the amount that the Player undertook to pay Al Wathba for terminating the
contract, the Chamber determined that it cannot be deducted from the calculation, as the
decision to terminate the contract remains solely with the Player. In this respect, the
Chamber highlighted that he signed the termination agreement at his own initiative and
undertook to pay that amount. In any case, the Chamber pointed out that the Player did
not provide any evidence of having actually paid this amount himself.
120. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that, from 1 October 2024 until 15 January 2025, the
Player mitigated his damages by SYP 21,774,194, which is equivalent to USD 1,674.68.
121. Then, the Chamber also noted that the Player signed a new contract with Sohar, valid as
from 20 January 2025 until 20 May 2025. In this regard, he was entitled to OMR 1,345 per
month, which is equivalent to USD 3,500. Based on this, the Chamber determined that,
from 20 January 2025 until 20 May 2025, the Player mitigated his damages by USD 14,000.
122. Considering the above-mentioned, the Chamber concluded that the mitigated
compensation amounts to USD 56,325.32 plus BTD 273,000.
123. 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
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17374
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the
Respondent, and therefore decided that the Claimant shall not receive additional
compensation.
124. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the Claimant USD
56,325.32 plus BTD 273,000, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
125. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date the Club notified the termination,
i.e., 21 August 2024, until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
126. 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.
127. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
128. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
129. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
130. 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.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17374
d. Costs
131. 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.
132. 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.
133. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-17374
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Muayad Alkhouli, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Abahani Limited, Dhaka, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 56,325.32 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21
August 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- BDT 273,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21
August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-17374
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. 29