Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18715
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ronald
Chitiyo
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Ronald Chitiyo, Zimbabwe
Represented by Desmond Maringwa
RESPONDENT:
FCB Nyasa Big Bullets, Malawi
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18715
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 March 2024, the Zimbabwean player, Ronald Chitiyo (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Malawian club, FCB Nyasa Big Bullets (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
1 April 2024 until 31 March 2027.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia a monthly salary of USD 1,200 and a training allowance of MWK 3,000 per training day.
3.
Clause 8 of the Contract provided:
“8. TERMINATION
a. This agreement is terminated either the party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is a just cause.
b. The party in breach of any part of the terms and conditions of this contract shall be liable
to pay compensation including image rights fees.
c. The club has the right to terminate this contract without compensation if the player does
not manage to play 50% of the games in the season.”
4.
On 2 January 2025, the Respondent issued a notice of termination of the Contract, stating
as follows:
“FCB Nyasa Big Bullets FC regrets to inform you that the club has taken a decision to release
you with effect from 1st January, 2025.
The decision is in line with article 8(c) of your employment contract which stipulates that (The
Club has the right to terminate without compensation if the player does not manage to play
50% of the games in the season).
We wish you well for the future. Note that the Club will duly provide clearance once you have
an opportunity to join another Club.”
5.
On 14 January 2025, the Claimant and the Zimbabwean club Green Fuel FC concluded an
employment contract valid as from 1 January 2025 until 31 December 2025, under which
the club undertook to pay the Claimant a USD 7,000 sign-on fee and a monthly salary of
USD 850.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18715
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 24 March 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
7.
In his claim, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent did not bring any reason to justify
the termination of the Contract.
8.
The Claimant further alleged that he should be compensated with the residual value of the
Contract, calculated as follows:
- USD 32,400, representing 27 monthly salaries of USD 1,200 each;
- MWK 1,296,000, representing 108 weekly training allowances of MWK 12,000 each.
9.
In this respect, the Claimant alleged that he trained four times a week, meaning he was
receiving a training allowance of MWK 12,000 per week.
10. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC:
a. To order the Club to pay the Player the following amounts:
- USD 32 400 and MK 1 296 000 as compensation for the breach of contract without just cause
+ 5% interest as from the date of termination until the date of effective payment.
b. That the Club be sanctioned for breach of contract during the protected period.”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. Despite of being invited to do so, the Respondent did not respond to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18715
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge (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 24 March 2025 and submitted for decision on 5 June 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.
13. 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), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Zimbabwean player and a Malawian club.
14. 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
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. 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
16. 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18715
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for breach of contract brought by a player against a club.
18. The Single Judge first noted that the Respondent terminated the Contract on 2 January
2025, and that the Claimant claimed that this termination was without just cause, thereby
triggering his right to compensation.
19. The Single Judge also observed that the Respondent did not respond to the claim.
Therefore, he determined that any decision must be made solely on the basis of the
evidence provided by the Claimant and available in the case file (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
20. Taking this into account, the Single Judge noted that, in its termination notice, the
Respondent had invoked its right to terminate the Contract based on clause 8, lit c), of the
Contract.
21. The Single Judge then recalled that the aforementioned clause of the Contract provided as
follows:
“The club has the right to terminate this contract without compensation if the player does not
manage to play 50% of the games in the season.”
22. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
concerning potestative clauses, i.e., clauses which depend on an event that can only be
triggered by one of the contractual parties to the contract and at the latter’s will. Potestative
clauses are generally voided, since they excessively restrict the rights of the other party to
the contract and place it at an unjustified disadvantage.
23. On this note, the Single Judge considered that clause 8, lit c), of the Contract was clearly
potestative in nature, as it left the decision to terminate the employment relationship to
the sole discretion of the Respondent, provided that the Respondent assesses the number
of matches played by the Claimant.
24. Based on all of the above, the Single Judge concluded that clause 8, lit. c), of the Contract
could not justify the termination of the Contract and should therefore be set aside.
25. The Single Judge therefore ruled that the Respondent had terminated the Contract without
just cause and was liable for the consequences.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18715
ii. Consequences
26. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
27. The Single Judge first stressed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
the termination.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge
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)).
31. 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 Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 32,400 (i.e., 27 times USD 1,200) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
32. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules and concluded that, based on the evidence on file, it could not determine the number
of days the Player trained on a weekly or monthly basis. Consequently, the amount
corresponding to training allowances could not be considered in the calculation of the
compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18715
33. 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 Football Tribunal 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.
34. Indeed, the Claimant found employment with Zimbabwean club Green Fuel FC. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to a USD
850 monthly salary along with a USD 7,000 sign-on fee. Therefore, the Single Judge
concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 17,200.
35. Considering the above-mentioned, the Single Judge concluded that the mitigated
compensation amounts to USD 15,200.
36. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge 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.
37. 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 15,200 to the Claimant (i.e., USD 32,400 minus USD 17,200), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
38. 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 2 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
39. 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-18715
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18715
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ronald Chitiyo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FCB Nyasa Big Bullets, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 15,200 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2
January 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.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-18715
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. 11