Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18923
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Soufiane Aznabet
BY:
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Soufiane Aznabet, Morocco
Represented by Fahmi Belhadj Mohamed
RESPONDENT:
Al-Tahaddy Benghazi, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18923
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 September 2024, the Moroccan player Soufiane Aznabet (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the Player) and the Libyan club Al-Tahaddy Benghazi (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 16
September 2024 until the end of the season 2024/2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total amount
of USD 40,000, comprising a signing bonus of USD 12,000 and a monthly salary of USD
2,800, payable at the end of each month.
3.
On 14 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of USD 2,000 as the balance of the signing bonus and USD 11,200 as the
monthly salaries from October 2024 until January 2025.
4.
On 22 March 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract with the Respondent.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 13 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to
outstanding remuneration.
7.
The Claimant requested the following amounts:
-
USD 2,000 as the balance of the signing bonus, plus 5% interest as from 1 October
2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for October 2024, plus 5% interest as from 1
November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for November 2024, plus 5% interest as from 1
December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for December 2024, plus 5% interest as from 1
January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for January 2025, plus 5% interest as from 1
February 2025 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18923
-
USD 14,000 as compensation for the breach of the Contract, plus 5% interest as
from the date of the decision of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber until the date
of effective payment; and
-
USD 16,800 as additional compensation for the breach of the Contract, plus 5%
interest as from the date of the decision of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber
until the date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that it has fulfilled its financial obligations towards the
Claimant and submitted two proofs of payment, in the amounts of USD 10,000 and USD
3,000.
c. Reaction of the Claimant to the Respondent’s alleged payments
9.
The Claimant acknowledged having received the amounts indicated in the proofs of
payment submitted by the Respondent and confirmed that the amount of USD 10,000
indicated in the first proof of payment had already been taken into account in his requests
for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 13 April 2025 and submitted for
decision on 17 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
11. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Moroccan player
and a Libyan club.
12. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18923
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
13. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
14. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the Claimant,
based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent as
per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
16. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
17. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
18. In the present matter, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant claims not having received
his remuneration corresponding to USD 2,000 as the balance of the signing bonus and USD
11,200 as the monthly salaries from October 2024 until January 2025. Furthermore, the
Single Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18923
Respondent in default of the aforementioned amounts on 14 February 2025, i.e. at least 15
days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 22 March 2025.
19. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore
the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract
concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge observed that the evidence
provided by the Respondent only partially proves the payment of the amounts claimed as
outstanding by the Claimant. In particular, the Single Judge considered that the amount of
USD 10,000 reflected in the Respondent’s first proof of payment had already been taken
into account in the Claimant’s requests for relief. Accordingly, the Single Judge held that
only the amount of USD 3,000, as evidenced by the Respondent’s second proof of payment,
must be deducted from the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration. The Single Judge further
held that this amount covers the balance of the signing bonus and USD 1,000 of the
outstanding salary for October 2024.
20. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, as he had more than two
outstanding monthly salaries on 22 March 2025.
ii. Consequences
21. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences arising from the breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
22. The Single Judge observed that the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination of the Contract, coupled with his specific requests for relief and the
Respondent’s second proof of payment, are equivalent to USD 15,800 as detailed below:
-
USD 1,800 as the balance of the monthly salary for October 2024;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for November 2024;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for December 2024;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for January 2025;
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for February 2025; and
-
USD 2,800 as the monthly salary for March 2025.
23. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant USD 15,800
as outstanding remuneration.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18923
24. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 1,800 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 22 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
25. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
26. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
27. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 the Player by the 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)).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18923
28. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 8,400 (i.e. the monthly salaries from April
2025 until June 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
29. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
30. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
31. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 8,400 to the Claimant (i.e. USD 2,800 x 3 months), which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of the Contract in the present
matter.
32. At this point, the Single Judge took note of the Player’s request for additional compensation
in the amount of USD 16,800. In this respect, the Single Judge made reference to art. 17
par. 1 lit. i) and ii) of the Regulations, and emphasised that the compensation granted was
equivalent to the residual value of the Contract, and that the overall compensation may
never exceed the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract.
33. Accordingly, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s request for additional compensation.
34. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of this decision, i.e. 12 June 2025,
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding
body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to
pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18923
35. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
36. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
37. 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.
38. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
39. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
40. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
41. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18923
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Soufiane Aznabet, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al-Tahaddy Benghazi, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 15,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,800 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,800 as from 22 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
- USD 8,400 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 June
2025 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18923
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. 11
REF. FPSD-18923
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. 12