Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6827
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 February 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Saleh Chihadeh
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Future FC, Egypt
Represented by Nehad Hagag
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Saleh Chihadeh, Palestine
Represented by Rafael Braegger
INTERVENING PARTY:
FC Naters, Switzerland
Page 2
REF FPSD-6827
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 January 2022, the Egyptian club, Future FC (formerly known as Coca Cola FC)
(hereinafter: the club or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Palestinian player Saleh
Chihadeh (hereinafter: the player or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from said date until the end of
the football season 2024/2025.
2.
According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player a total net remuneration
of USD 925,000, broken down as follows:
•
“Season 2021/2022: Total amount USD 100'000.00
i)
USD 25'000.00 as down payment after passing the medical tests
ii)
USD 12'500.00 at the end of each month for 6 months (from March to August)
•
Season 2022/2023: Total amount USD 250'000.00
i)
USD 62'500.00 as a down payment at the beginning of the league
ii)
USD 18'750.00 for each month for 10 months
•
Season 2023/2024: Total amount USD 275'000.00
i)
USD 68'750.00 as a down payment at the beginning of the league
ii)
USD 20'625.00 for each month for 10 months
•
Season 2024/2025: Total amount USD 300'000.00
i)
USD 75'000.00 as a down payment at the beginning of the league
ii)
USD 22'500.00 for each month for 10 months”.
3.
Furthermore, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly housing allowance of EGP
(Egyptian pounds) 12,000 and one round-trip ticket for each season of contract.
4.
Lastly, art. 3, section B of the contract refers to the obligations of the player and under
par. 5 and 6 of the aforementioned section state the following:
•
“Not to take any medical action without informing the Club and the doctor of
the Club (except in emergency cases);
•
To undergo any medical examination decided by the Club, if however, the Player
disagrees with the medical opinion of the doctor of the Club, he has the right to
ask for another neutral medical opinion to be chosen by the Player. If both
opinions are proven to be different both Parties shall agree to resort third
natural party (for example FIFA medical centre of excellence, which Shall be
binding for both Parties).”
Page 3
REF FPSD-6827
5.
On 20 April 2022, the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) sent a letter to the club calling
up the player to the Asian Cup Qualifiers, namely from 30 May 2022 until 16 June 2022.
Following said period, the player travelled to Switzerland.
6.
On 16 June 2022, the player sent a letter to the club informing of having been
diagnosticated with serious mental health issues once upon arrival in Switzerland from
Palestine, hence he would not be able to join the club for the time being. Contextually, by
means of the same letter, the player declared that he and his family were afraid of
returning to Egypt and that in any case the club had not showed any interest in the
player’s services, hence it would have been better to negotiate a mutual termination of
the contract.
7.
On 19 June 2022, the club replied arguing that the player was supposed to return to Egypt
immediately after 16 June 2022 as agreed with the PFA and that any unjustified absence
would have been punished accordingly as per the club policy and its internal regulations.
Contextually, the club sent to the player the relevant training schedule for the following
week (i.e., 21-27 June 2022).
8.
On 20 June 2022, in reply to the club’s letter, the player highlighted that he was not able
to return to Egypt because of health reasons but also because he had been threatened
and harassed by the club and its coach.
9.
On 21 June 2022, the club asked the player to return within one week as he was in
violation of his contractual duties, while on 26 June 2022 the club communicated to the
player that penalties and sanctions would have started applying due to the persisting
absence of the latter.
10. Subsequently, the club informed the Egyptian Football Association (EFA) of the situation
and declared that the player had received all the amounts due under the contract.
11. On 29 June 2022, the player replied to the club insisting on the fact that due to his medical
condition he would not be able to return to Egypt and that in any case, as he had not been
lined up in the last 9 matches by the coach, the club had not showed any interest on him.
12. On 8 July 2022, the player sent a letter to the club proposing the immediate termination
of the contract by mutual agreement of the parties. In this context, the player stated that
if the club had accepted the proposed terms, the player would have waived his
outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 25,000 and set a deadline expiring on 11 July
2022.
13. On 11 July 2022, the club requested the player an extension of the given deadline until 16
July 2022 in order to take a decision on the proposal of mutual termination.
Page 4
REF FPSD-6827
14. By means of letter dated 16 July 2022, the club requested the player to come back to Egypt
within the following 10 days in order to attend the team’s training while in the meantime
they could negotiate the termination of the contract by mutual agreement.
15. On 19 July 2022, the player notified the club of the unilateral termination of the contract
with just cause, namely accusing the club of having failed to pay the equivalent of at least
two monthly salaries as well as of having mistreated the player and acted in bad faith by
ignoring his medical conditions. Furthermore, the player informed the club of being aware
about the unjustified deduction of EGP 150,000 (approx. USD 8,000) the latter had applied
on each players’ salary.
16. On 20 July 2022, the player signed a new employment contract with the Swiss club FC
Naters (hereinafter also referred to as the Intervening Party), for a monthly remuneration
of CHF 7,000 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 25 July 2022, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A
brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the club
18. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the player failed to comply with his
contractual obligations, namely by persistently missing all the training sessions with the
team and any other club-related activities after the end of his international duties on 16
June 2022, and in spite of the specific agreement between the Claimant and the PFA.
19. Furthermore, the club pointed out that it had complied fully with its financial obligations
towards the player and tried to find an amicable solution once the latter started objecting
to his return from Switzerland due to the alleged mental issues.
20. In this context, the club was of the opinion that the player acted in bad faith and breach
the contract, ignoring the several requests for return and the respective deadlines
provided by the club. Accordingly, the club held that the player had no just cause to
terminate the contract on 19 July 2022 and he shall therefore pay a compensation to the
club. The request for relief of the Claimant was of USD 2,000,000 as compensation for
breach of contract.
b. Position of the player and counterclaim
21. In its reply, the player firstly objected to the competence of Football Tribunal over the
present dispute, namely because in the player’s opinion any employment related dispute
shall be reserved to civil courts.
Page 5
REF FPSD-6827
22. In this respect, the player argued that the Football Tribunal is not even a proper arbitral
tribunal and further denied the player his procedural right to be heard in his mother
tongue.
23. Beside the above, with regard to the merits of the case, the player held that the club has
completely failed to substantiate its claim, namely by not indicating the criteria according
to which a compensation amount of USD 2,000,000 had been calculated and demanded.
24. Furthermore, the player referred to the alleged invoice payments produced by the club
as illegible, thus, to be disregarded as invalid.
25. Conversely, the player lodged a counterclaim, alleging that the club had been informed
of his medical conditions upon returning to Switzerland on 16 June 2022 and that it was
also provided with the relevant doctor’s reports, hence it could not simply expect that the
player would return immediately.
26. Moreover, the player underlined the bad faith of the club as it did not line him up within
the last 7 matches before his departure for the Asian Cup Qualifiers in May 2022.
27. In this respect, the player accused the club and the coach of threatening him and
highlighted that no one of the facts presented to the club by means of letter dated 20
June 2022 (i.e., impossibility to return for medical conditions, club’s mistreatment,
outstanding salaries) had been contested by the latter, which thus implicitly
acknowledged all of them.
28. In this context, the player referred that the club was constantly late with the payment of
his salaries and that it was voluntarily causing such delays in order to put pressure on the
player to obtain better sporting performance. In particular, the player alleged that at the
time of termination, the club had outstanding debts in favour of the player corresponding
to the salaries of May and June 2022, for a total amount of USD 25,000.
29. Accordingly, the player argued that in light of the mentioned overdue payables and
because of the club’s abusive conduct, he had just cause to terminate the contract on 19
July 2022, hence it should be the club to pay a compensation. In this context, the player
acknowledged that on 24 July 2022, i.e., after the termination of the contract only, the club
paid a further amount of EGP 248,250, equivalent to about USD 12,500, which would
correspond to the salary due for May 2022.
30. The requests for relief of the player, as a consequence, were the following:
•
USD 12,500 as outstanding remuneration
Page 6
REF FPSD-6827
•
USD 837,500 as residual value of the contract (from August 2022 until July 2025)
•
USD 37,500 as additional remuneration
•
USD 24,700 as housing allowance (i.e. 38 months from July 2022 until August 2025)
c. Reply of the club to the counterclaim
31. In its reply to the counterclaim, the club firstly objected to the player’s accusations of
harassment and threatening. In particular, the club argued that the atmosphere among
the team members was good and that no one inside the club has ever mistreated the
player nor his teammates.
32. Furthermore, the club stated that the fact that the player had not been lined up by the
coach does not represent per se a violation of the player’s right to work as this type of
choices stays within the discretional power of each coach.
33. Moreover, the club denied having had the opportunity to examine the player’s medical
conditions through a doctor of its trust while it had to rely only on the medical certificates
produced by the player in German.
34. In this respect, the club held that the player clearly violated art. 3 section b (par. 5) of the
contract.
35. Furthermore, and in contrast with the player’s alleged condition, the club reported that
the player participated in two games with his new club, FC Naters, respectively on 23 and
30 July 2022, while according to the aforementioned medical certificates he should have
not been able to play football at least until 31 July 2022.
36. Accordingly, the club held that the player acted in bad faith trying to deceive the club and
the Football Tribunal.
37. Moreover, the club accused the player’s new club, FC Naters, of having induced the player
to terminate his contract on 19 July 2022.
38. With regard to the residual value of the contract, the club confirmed the calculation made
by the player and declared having paid a total of USD 75,000 for the season 2021/2022.
39. In this context, the club confirmed and justified the claimed amount of USD 2,000,000
referring first to the residual value of the contract (i.e., USD 850,000) as basis for the
calculation of the compensation payable by the player, in addition to which the club
computed:
Page 7
REF FPSD-6827
•
•
•
•
USD 300,000 as replacement costs deriving from having hired another player,
i.e., Hadji Barry;
USD 117,000 as specificity of sports (i.e., 6 additional salary months);
USD 700,000 as reputational damages; and
USD 33,000 ca. as additional expenses incurred by the club.
d. Position of the Intervening Party
40. FC Naters presented its position to the claim in German language only.
Page 8
REF FPSD-6827
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
41. 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 25 July 2022 and submitted
for decision on 1 February 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.
42. 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, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Palestinian player and an Egyptian club, with the involvement of a Swiss club.
43. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that the Respondent/CounterClaimant objected to the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal in the case at stake. In
particular, the Chamber noted that according to the player, being the present dispute
employment-related, it shall be reserved to the competence of civil courts.
44. In this respect, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 of
the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a
player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any
player (…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”. The
Chamber remarked that such competence also derives from the FIFA Statutes, wherein
the functions of the Football Tribunal are clearly established.
45. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the contract at the basis of the dispute did not
contain any jurisdiction clause whatsoever in favour of any court. As a consequence, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for establishing the competence
of another court, i.e., withdrawing the competence of FIFA, was not met. Therefore,
without the need to enter the analysis of any further requirement, it established that the
player’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be
rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
Page 9
REF FPSD-6827
46. 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 25 July 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
47. 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
48. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
49. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the player had
just cause to terminate the employment contract on 19 July 2022.
50. Before entering the analysis of this specific case, the Chamber noted that the Intervening
Party filed its position in German. Accordingly, the DRC remarked that in line with art. 13
par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, any submission to FIFA shall be made in English, Spanish,
or French, failing which it will be disregarded. On this basis, the DRC confirmed that the
filing by the Intervening Party shall be disregarded in its entirety.
51. In continuation, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties that only a
breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract.
In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to
expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract
may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be
taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual duties by the counterparty, such
Page 10
REF FPSD-6827
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
52. In line with the above, the Chamber also referred to the specific wording of art. 14 par. 2
of the Regulations, according to which “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the
counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a
player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause”.
53. In this context, the Chamber took note that the player terminated the contract alleging
the existence of overdue payables by the club at the time of the termination as well as
the abusive conduct held by the latter during the player’ stay in Egypt.
54. In this respect, according to the documentation submitted by the parties, the Chamber
observed that until 20 April 2022, i.e., the date in which the PFA called the player up to
participate in official matches with its representative team, the player and the club had
apparently not exchange any correspondence connected with potential employmentrelated disputes, such as the alleged abuse raised by the player.
55. As a matter of fact, the Chamber assessed that, apparently, from the player’s side, there
were no complaints against the club until 16 June 2022, when the player was supposed to
return to Egypt in order to resume his professional duties with the club.
56. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the club acknowledged being informed by the
player on 16 June 2022 about his protracted absence due to alleged medical reasons
while, as per what indicated in the relevant certificates, the club confirmed their content
although being submitted, apparently, in German language only.
57. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the player expressed since his first communication
on 16 June 2022 his wish to terminate the contract by mutual agreement, even accepting
to waive his outstanding remuneration.
58. In this context, the Chamber observed that it remained uncontested that at the time of
terminating the contract, the club held overdue payables towards the player for an
amount of USD 25,000, which corresponds to 2 monthly salaries.
59. In this respect, the Chamber noted that by means of letter dated 8 July 2022 the player
claimed the existence of the mentioned salaries and yet, in the Chamber’s view, the said
communication cannot be considered as a proper default notice within the definition of
the Regulations. In particular, according to the Chamber, the deadline of 3 days conceded
by the player would not provide the club with a reasonable amount of time in order to
react, especially in consideration of the circumstances of the case at stake, where the
player was conversely refusing to return to Egypt regardless of the payment of the alleged
outstanding sums.
Page 11
REF FPSD-6827
60. In the Chamber’s view, the termination of the contract appeared to be within the player’s
intentions since his first communication in June 2022, to the extent that he would
seemingly adopt the event of the alleged injury as an excuse to force the premature
ending of his employment relationship with the club.
61. In this context, the Chamber was of the opinion that the player did not effectively
corroborate the real gravity of the alleged injury by avoiding being examined by a doctor
of the club, which as a consequence had no chance to verify the actual conditions of the
player.
62. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that, since after moving to Switzerland, the player
has never provided the club with an expected date of return and just referred to 31 July
2022 as date of potential recovery from the injury. By the same token, he equally did not
accept to be examined by a doctor of club’s trust in spite of his obligation to do so
pursuant to art. 3, section B par. 5 and 6 of the contract:
•
Not to take any medical action without informing the Club and the doctor of the Club
(except in emergency cases);
•
To undergo any medical examination decided by the Club, if however, the Player
disagrees with the medical opinion of the doctor of the Club, he has the right to ask for
another neutral medical opinion to be chosen by the Player. If both opinions are proven
to be different both Parties shall agree to resort third natural party (for example FIFA
medical center of excellence, which Shall be binding for both Parties).
63. Accordingly, the Chamber was not convinced that the player had an ultima ratio measure
when he terminated the contract, in particular as his allegations remained
unsubstantiated as to the alleged mistreatment.
64. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player apparently signed an employment
contract with FC Naters on the same day of the termination of the contract with the club,
thus indicating that he had likely negotiated a new employment agreement while still
under contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber also
observed that the player even played two games with FC Naters before the supposed date
of recovery from the alleged injury (i.e., on 31 July 2022), respectively on 23 and 30 July
2022.
65. In light of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the player did not have
just cause to terminate the contract on 19 July 2022, hence he shall be responsible to pay
compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
Page 12
REF FPSD-6827
ii. Consequences
66. The Chamber observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the
present case correspond to USD 12,500, that is, the June 2022 salary of the player under
the contract. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player said
amount.
67. In addition, 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 at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due date until the date of
effective payment.
68. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the club by the player 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, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club
(amortised over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the contractual
breach falls within the protected period.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the club, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 842,083.33
(i.e., residual value of the contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
Page 13
REF FPSD-6827
72. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant
practice of the Chamber as well as art. 17 par. 1 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 due by a player to his former club. In
particular, the Chamber explained that its standard practice is to calculate the average
between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his remuneration with the
new club, for the exact same period of time comprised between the early termination of
the employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date of such contract.
In case substantial evidence thereof is provided by the club, the Chamber might
additionally grant the damaged club the non-amortised transfer fee paid for the player in
breach and/or the actual costs incurred by the damaged club in order to replace the
leaving player.
73. Indeed, the Chamber noted that the player found a new employment with FC Naters to
be valid as from 20 July 2022. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the
player was entitled to a total remuneration of CHF 266,000 corresponding approximately
to USD 288,000.
74. Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the player’s
contract with his former club and its original expiry date, the average between his
remuneration with the former club and his current remuneration amounts to USD
565,041.50 [i.e., USD 842,083.33 + 288,000 / 2].
75. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the
amount of USD 565,041.50 to the club, which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. On that
note, the DRC underlined that the request of the club for USD 300,000 as replacement
costs was not sufficiently substantiated and thus it was rejected.
76. Furthermore, taking into consideration the club’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the club interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
77. Lastly, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, FC
Naters shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount
of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability
of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has
committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of involvement by the
new club.
Page 14
REF FPSD-6827
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
78. 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.
79. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official
matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
80. Equally, the Chamber 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.
81. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that:
(a) the player must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the club
within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the club,
a restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts are paid, for the
maximum duration of six months, shall become immediately effective on the player
in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
(b) the Intervening Party must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest)
to the club within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request
of the club, 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 Intervening Party in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2,4 and 7 of the Regulations.
(c) the club must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player
within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the
player, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for
the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall
become immediately effective on the club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2,4 and 7 of
the Regulations.
Page 15
REF FPSD-6827
82. The respective payments shall be made in full (including all applicable interest) to the
bank account provided in the Bank Account Registration Forms, which are attached to the
present decision.
83. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban and/or restriction 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
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-6827
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The FIFA Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant/CounterRespondent, Future FC.
2.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Saleh Chihadeh, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the following amount:
USD 565,041.50 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5% interest p.a. as from 19 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
4.
The Intervening Party, FC Naters, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned compensation.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of
the restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
2. The Intervening Party, FC Naters, 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.
3. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
8. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
9. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Saleh Chihadeh, is partially
accepted.
Page 17
REF FPSD-6827
10. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Future FC, has to pay to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, the following amount(s):
USD 12,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 July 2022
until the date of effective payment;
11. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
12. 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 Claimant/Counter-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.
13. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Respondent/CounterClaimant in accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
14. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 18
REF FPSD-6827
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).
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
Page 19