Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-6457
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Fadel Antar
Mohammad
COMPOSITION:
Frans De WEGER (The Netherlands) , Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), member
CLAIMANT 1 / RESPONDENT 2:
Kelantan FC, Malaysia
Represented by Sheffie & Partners
CLAIMANT 2 / RESPONDENT 1:
Fadel Antar Mohammad, Lebanon,
Represented by Ivan Župan; Luka Antunović
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-6457
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2022, the Malaysian club Kelantan FC (hereinafter: the club or Claimant 1 /
Respondent 2), sent an offer to the Lebanese player, Fadel Antar Mohammad (hereinafter:
the player or Respondent 1 / Claimant 2) with the following conditions:
“- Monthly Salary : USD 4500 (net per month at the conversion rate fixed at USD1.00=MYR4.00)
which is subject to be pro-rated on physical appearance for any training/matches as required
by the Club which will be further stipulated in the formal Letter of Offer (Salary shall be payable
from the first day of your appearance in training with the team).
- KPI : A variable allowance of USD 300 equivalent to MYR 1200 at the conversion rate fixed at
USD1.00=MYR4.00 which will be given based on your KPI
- Bonus / Benefits : As stipulated in the formal Letter of Offer which is still subject to the Club’s
discretion
- Taxes : Club will not be responsible for the Player’s taxes and shall be payable by the player
accordingly
- Contract Tenure : 1 Years – 15th February 2022 until 30 November 2022.
- Release Clause : RM1,000,000-00 should you decide to terminate the contract early or should
any other Club offer your early release (at the conversion rate fixed at USD1.00=MYR4.00 and
the proportion of the Release Clause Sum shall be 70:30 (the Club: the Player) which shall be
payable to the Club prior to the Club issuing the Release Letter and TPO to the Player)
- Accommodation : Will be provided by the Club or up to RM1,500 per month
- Transportation : Pick up/ Drop off will be provided by the Club
- Flight Ticket : One (1) Return economy class will be provided for player, after the last official
match is played
- Other : The offer is conditional that you free yourself from your contract obligation with your
current club (if any) whereby we shall will not be responsible for any compensation for the
release.”
2.
On 20 January 2022, the player and the club concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 15 February 2022 until 30 November 2022, entitling
the player to the following remuneration:
“Season 2022: USD 4,500-00 per month and must be paid no later than the 7th of
the following month.”
3. Schedule D of the contract stipulated the following:
1. “The Initial of Offer dated 1st January 2022 signed by the operation manager and player
constitutes both parties agreement to be bound by the symptoms and conditions imposed in the
set of a letter
2. The Letter of Offer is attached herein as part of the Player’s Contract and to be read and
construed as part of this Agreement.
3. In the event there are any discrepancies between the Player’s Contract and Letter of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-6457
Offer, the terms in the Letter of Offer shall prevail.”
4.
On 13 April 2022, the player contacted the club complaining about chest pains and difficulty
breathing, allegedly upon assessment by the club’s doctor, the recommendation was that
the player will be taken to the nearest clinic in the morning for further assessment.
5.
On the same date, later during that day the club found that the player had vacated his
accommodation.
6.
On 22 April, the club sent a letter of demand to the player, inter alia, mentioning that the
player is in breach of contract, due to the following:
(i)
on 13 April 2022 he abruptly vanished from the club’s training grounds and failed to attend
the daily training sessions and 1 official match against Perak FC on 16 April 2022
(ii) he returned to his home country, Lebanon with the purported reason to get medical
treatment without informing the club and without its consent.
7.
On account of the aforesaid, the club mentioned that the player is liable to pay to it, the
total amount of USD 35,907.08 corresponding to the remaining balance of the contract (13
April 2022 to 30 November 2022 – USD 34,050 and the following cost:
NoDescription
Amount (MYR)
1 Flight ticket from Beirut to Istanbul to KLIA
2,113.00
2 Airline Certificate of Protection
23.85
3 COVID 19 Screening and Testing
250.00
4 Hotel Accommodation excluding Club’s official games 5,640.00
(away from Kelantan since 5 March 2022)
JB - RM 120.00 x 2 Nights = RM 240.00
Kuching - RM 120.00 x 2 nights = RM 240.00
Kota warisan - RM 160.00 x 33 nights (1 Mar - 3 Apr)
TOTAL
8,026.85 (USD1,857.08)
8.
In the said letter the club further stated the following: “IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO OUR CLAIM, it has agreed on goodwill basis to waive the compensation amount
and initial cost should you agree in writing to execute the Letter of Mutual Termination and
waive all claims against our Client WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of this letter.”
9.
On 15 June 2022, in reply to the club, the player disputed the above facts as detailed in the
letter of demand and mentioned that the club had severally violated his rights in that “the
defendant blatantly failed to pay the salary to the claimant. i.e. the player did not receive a single
salary despite training and playing matches for two months. Nevertheless, the club did not
provide the player with accommodation nor give the player the money for rent. Furthermore,
when the claimant started to have health problems and informed the Club about such problems,
the defendant completely ignored the claimant's calls. Therefore, the player demands the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-6457
compensation for all unpaid salaries. rents and salaries for remaining months of the Contract.
due to the unlawful breach of the Contract. “
10. The player provided the following information regarding his contractual situation:
“Hereby, the respondent provides FIFA with the aforesaid employment contract translated into
English concluded with the Chabab Al Sahel Sports Club, which club has loaned the respondent
to the Red Warriors Kelantan FC, in accordance with the Player Loan Transfer Agreement (2022),
dated February 1, 2022. The player is currently employed by the Chabab Al Sahel Sports Club,
according to the attached employment contract, which stipulates the following:
- The second party receives throughout the football season a monthly salary of one million
Lebanese pounds
- the duration of this contract is started from 14/2/2022 to 30/6/2026.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 23 June 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
12. On 23 June 2022, the club lodged a claim against the player in front of FIFA.
13. On 1 July 2022, the parties were informed that for procedural reasons both claims would
be merged into one proceeding.
14. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
Position of the Player
15. In his claim, the player argued that the club violated both the contract and the offer, in
particular clause 2.1, 3.4, 3.5 of the contract, schedule A of the contract and the offer, “while
at the same time accusing the player that he was the one who did not respect the provisions of
the contract.”
16. Moreover, “it should also be taken into account that the club tried to manipulate the player to
agree in writing to execute a letter of mutual termination and waive all claims against the club.”
17. The requests for relief of the player, were the following:
(a) That the club pay him the total amount of USD 42,750 plus RM 14,250, corresponding to
the following:
-
“USD 2,250 (salary) + RM 750,00 (rent) for February 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1,500 (rent) for March 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1,500 (rent) for April 2022
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-6457
-
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1,500 (rent) May 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1,500 (rent) for June 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1,500 (rent) for July 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1,500 (rent) for August 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1.500 (rent) for September 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1.500 (rent) for October 2022
USD 4,500 (salary) + RM 1.500 (rent) for November 2022.”
(b) That the club pay the cost of his litigation
b.
Position of the Club
18. In its claim, the club argued that it’s entitled to compensation from the player in light of the
fact that the player:
(a) “Abandoned and absconded the club’s premises/training ground without giving notice to the
club on his whereabouts;
(b) Missing in action without the permission/consent/approval from the club;
(c) Failure to attend training and the official matches of the Club during the Season Premier League
competition;
(d) Failure to complete the employment period stipulated in the Player’s Contract; and
(e) Breach of the FIFA RSTP and the Player’s Contract by unilaterally terminating the
(f) Player’s Contract without just cause”
19. According to the club, the player left the premises of the club without permission
20. The club mentioned that due to the aforesaid actions of the player it is justified to claim
compensation from the player as the latter had:
(a) “breached his duties and obligation towards the Claimant under the Player’s Contract
(b) abandoned and left the ’s club’ premises on 13 April 2022 without the
consent/approval/permission of the club
(c) The action taken by the player clearly denotes a unilateral termination without just cause.”
21. The request of relief of the club were the following:
(a) the player pays the club the total amount of USD 34,572, 76 plus 5% interest p.a.,
(b) sporting sanctions be imposed upon the player
(c) Any other orders of which FIFA deems fit and necessary which resulted in the
c.
Player’s answer to the claim of the club
22. The player in his reply “disputes the lawsuit and arguments stated in the lawsuit in their entirety
as legally and factually unfounded, all for the following reasons:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-6457
-
-
The club failed to comply with its contractual obligations in that it failed to comply with payment
of the player’s outstanding remuneration as demanded
Regarding the Abandonment" (as presented by the club), the club completely twisted and
misrepresented the factual situation regarding the player's visit to the doctor, i.e. the player was
never examined by the club's doctor, but only by the club's masseur/physiotherapist who gave
the player painkillers (medicine Panadol), even though the player had heart problem and
breathing difficulties. Nevertheless, what the club failed to mention in its claim is that the club's
officials apparently tried to take the player to the hospital. However, they said to the player that
the hospitals are not working. On the one hand, the club lied to the player due to the fact that
the player was not registered by the club as a worker and therefore, he did not have health
insurance, i.e. the club again failed to adhere to the provisions of the contract.
The player further disputes the club's claims regarding the incurred expenses, as well as the
expenses related to the employment of the two new players, considering the fact that it is not
the player's fault that the club did not respect the terms of the contract and that the player
unilaterally terminated the contract due to outstanding payments.”
23. In conclusion the player reiterated its request for relief, as follows:
(a) accept the claim of the player,
(b) order the club to pay the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 42,750 plus
RM 14.250,00 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the due dates of each amount until the
date of effective payment,
(c) order the club to pay to the player a certain amount of compensation for breach of contract,
plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the due dates of each amount until the date of
effective payment.
d.
Club’s answer to the claim of the player
24. The club in its reply to the claim of the player mentioned the following:
-
The club had no obligation to provide accommodation to the player as he left and abandoned
its premises on his own accord
The claim for the full salary under the Contract is hereby fully denied as he should be entitled to
the total salary payable based on his appearances/presence and training
Moreover, the club reserves the rights as an employer to withhold the player’s Salary as: a) the
player left the premise without permission/consent on 12 April 2022 in the midst of the Season,
b) refused to return to Malaysia, c) failed to attend any training effective 13 April 2022 onwards,
d) failed to continue playing for the club for the balance remaining matches (75%-80%) even
though the Claimant was still obligated to the Respondent under the Employment Contract
25. The club reiterated its claim for compensation, claiming from the player of USD 39,927.08
for the hardship, detriment and loss incurred by the club, and the breakdown is as follows:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-6457
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Initial costs incurred to obtain player USD 1,857-08
Solicitor fees USD 1,000-00
Cost in cause USD 1,020-00
Balance contract remaining (13 Apr 2022 - 30 Nov 2022) USD34,050-00
Additional cost incurred to replace abandoned position USD 2,000-00 - Less Total Salary
Payable USD 5,354-32
26. In conclusion the club mentioned the following:
“Should FIFA consider the Claimant’s termination is with just cause, then such termination by the
Claimant shall be deemed an early termination of the Employment Contract. Hence, FIFA must
also proceed to allow the Respondent the full benefit from the Claimant under the Employment
Contract amounting to USD 250,000-00 stipulated under Clause 6 of the Initial Letter of Offer
for early termination by the Claimant which is to be deducted from all claims by the Claimant
against the Respondent and the balance thereof to be paid to the Respondent accordingly
together with a 5% penalty interest on the amount remaining unpaid and sporting sanctions
would continue to be in force until the payment is duly settled to the Respondent.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-6457
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 June 2022 and submitted
for decision on 8 March 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2022 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.
28. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 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 Lebanese player
from and a club from Malaysia.
29. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 June 2022, the July 2022 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
30. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
31. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established; the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-6457
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that both parties held the other liable for breach of its
respective contractual obligations, hence the simultaneous lodgement of the two claims.
33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine when the actual
termination of the contract occurred, who terminated it, and who is to be held liable for
such termination, with all the consequences that potentially arise from terminating a
contract with or without just cause.
34. The Chamber noted that the player argued that the club has violated his rights and has
been in breach of its contractual obligations, specifically failing to pay his remuneration
since commencement of the contract, hence claiming outstanding remuneration and
breach of contract from the club.
35. The Chamber further noted that the club on its account argued that the player on 13 April
2022 left the premises of the club and Malaysia without its consent and moreover failed to
return to the club, accordingly in view of these circumstances, the club is of the opinion
that the player had breached his contract without just cause and is obliged to pay
compensation to club.
36. Following the parties’ respective allegations, the Chamber deemed it best to recall the
entire circumstances of the matter at hand, and therefore took the following into
consideration:
-
-
-
on 13 April 2022, the player left the club and returned to Lebanon;
the club on its part argued that the player did not have consent to leave the club/Malaysia;
at the time of the player’s departure from the club, his salaries for the months of
February/March were outstanding i.e., moreover the club failed to provide/pay for the
accommodation expenses of the player, which is evident from the WhatsApp
correspondence between the parties (6 March until 4 April 2022);
on 22 April 2022, the club sent a letter of demand to the player indicating that his departure
without consent/authorisation can be deemed as a unilateral breach of contract and
subsequently requesting a potential mutual termination to waive compensation;
on 15 June 2022, the player sent a default notice to the club claiming that the club is in
breach of its contractual obligations and claiming compensation.
37. In this respect, the Chamber in consideration of the above events, noted that the player did
not provide any documentary evidence or corroborating documentation, proving that he
had authorisation to the leave the club.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-6457
38. Following the player’s departure, the Chamber duly noted, the club’s letter of 22 April 2022,
in terms of which it, inter alia, requested compensation or mutual termination of the
contract from the player.
39. The Chamber highlighted that a club considering the option of terminating a contract with
a player because they have left the club without authorisation, should also respect the
ultima ratio principle; in that less stringent disciplinary measures should be considered and
applied first. In this regard, the club must as a first request the player to return to the club
and set a reasonable deadline by which the player must do so. In casu, the Chamber noted
that the club on its part failed to request the player to return to the club to continue to
provide his services but instead requested compensation or mutual termination as per its
letter of 22 April 2022.
40. The DRC mentioned that though the player had not been able to provide evidence
demonstrating that he was authorised to be absent from the club as of 13 April 2022, the
conduct of the club i.e. (i) failing to pay his salary from commencement of the contract
despite him participating in training and matches, (ii) failing to pay his accommodation as
contractually stipulated as of 6 March 2022, (iii) requesting a mutual termination of the
contract on 22 April 2022, seems to establish that the club was no longer sincerely
interested in continuing the employment relationship with the player.
41. Following the above line of reasoning and in accordance with the letter of the club of 22
April 2022, the DRC concluded that it was indeed the club who terminated the contract with
the player without just cause on 22 April 2022 and therefore should be held liable for its
breach.
42. Consequently, the Chamber held that the club is not entitled to receive any compensation
for breach of contract from the player, and accordingly its claim is rejected.
ii. Consequences
43. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
44. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to USD 11,250 plus
MYR 3,750.
45. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD
11,250 plus 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the
date of effective payment as follows:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-6457
-
USD 2,250 as salary for February 2022
USD 4,500 as salary for March 2022
USD 4,500 as salary for April 2022
46. Additionally, the Chamber observed that the Claimant was entitled to payment of his
accommodation cost as outstanding remuneration, which it decided that the Respondent
is liable to pay in the amount of MYR 3,750 plus 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as
from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
-
MYR 750,00 as rent for February 2022
MYR 1,500 as rent for March 2022
MYR 1,500 as rent for April 2022
47. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
48. 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 employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
49. 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. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
50. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 31,500 (i.e., the May until November 2022 at a monthly
salary of USD 4,500) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-6457
51. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
52. Indeed, the player found employment with the club, Chabab Al Sahel Sports Club. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to
approximately LBP 1,000,000 per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
player mitigated his damages in the total amount of LBP 6,000,000 (approximately USD
466,67), that is, LBP 1,000,000 times 7.
53. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 31,033.33 to the player (i.e., USD 31,500 minus USD 466,67) plus MYR 10,500, which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
54. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. 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.
56. 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. 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
57. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-6457
58. 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.
59. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-6457
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of Claimant 1 / Respondent 2, Kelantan FC, is rejected.
2.
The claim of Claimant 2 / Respondent 1, Fadel Antar Mohammad, is partially accepted.
3.
Claimant 1 / Respondent 2, Kelantan FC, has to pay to Claimant 2 / Respondent 1, the
following amount(s):
(a) USD 11,250 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective
due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
- on the amount of USD 2,250 as from 8 March 2022
- on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 8 April 2022
- on the amount of USD 4,500 as from 8 May 2022
(b) MYR 3,750 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective
due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
- on the amount of MYR 750,00 as from 1 March 2022
- on the amount of MYR 1,500 as from 1 April 2022
- on the amount of MYR 1,500 as from 1 May 2022
(c) USD 31,033.33 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus MYR
10,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of Claimant 2 / Respondent 1 are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. Claimant 1 / Respondent 2 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-6457
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Claimant 2 / Respondent 1 in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-6457
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17