Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15093
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nejc Hozjan
BY:
Frans de Weger, the Netherlands
CLAIMANT:
ASD Napoli Futsal, Italy
Represented by Elite Law Sa
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Nejc Hozjan, Slovenia
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Noia Futbol Sala, Spain
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15093
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
The Italian futsal club, ASD Napoli Futsal (hereinafter: Napoli or the Claimant),
affiliated to the Italian Football Association (FIGC);
•
The Slovenian player, Nejc Hozjan (hereinafter: the Player or the First Respondent);
•
The Spanish futsal club, Noia Futbol Sala (hereinafter: Noia or the Second
Respondent), affiliated with the Spanish Football Association (RFEF).
2.
In June 2020, Napoli and the Player allegedly entered into an initial employment
agreement, purportedly valid until 30 June 2023.
3.
On 21 June 2022, Napoli and the Player signed a contract entitled “Futsal National
Competitions – Financial Agreement according to art. 96 ter NOIF” (hereinafter: the Napoli
Contract), valid from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2025.
4.
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Napoli Contract, Napoli undertook to remunerate the Player as
follows:
•
•
•
5.
Season 2022/2023: EUR 28,000
Season 2023/2024: EUR 30,000
Season 2024/2025: EUR 32,000
Article 3 to 5 of the Napoli Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Art. 3 – In case a flat remuneration for the season is provided for, the Club shall pay the
sums due to the Player in ten equal monthly instalments by the end of the season
concerned, in compliance with the current tax law provisions. On the other hand, in case
the Player is to be paid subsistence allowances, reimbursement of expenses and/or
benefits for any game played, the Club shall pay such sums by the end of each calendar
month in which such items become due. According to current tax laws, the remunerations
hereunder are considered "other revenues" as per art. 67, par. 1, lett. m), of d.p.r. 917/86
and following amendments.
Art. 4 – Whenever a flat gross remuneration for the season is provided for, in case the
Player has not rendered his/her performances or has rendered his/her performances
only in part without just cause or due to an illness or an injury not connected with
sporting activity, the Club will be entitled to scale down amounts due with regard to
period of Player's absence or reduced performances. In case Player is ill or injured for
more than 6 months due to reasons connected with sporting activity, Club will be entitled
to terminate this agreement and pay Player only share of remunerations due before
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15093
termination. In case of pregnancy of Player this agreement may not be resolved.
Art. 5 – In case Club breaches this agreement, Player will only be entitled to file a claim
before competent Financial Arrangements Commission of LND in accordance with FIGC
rules and regulations, with right to seek termination and compensation for default in
accordance with limits and procedures provided for by FIGC rules and regulations. In
case Player breaches terms of his/her registration with Club and unilaterally terminates
this agreement and registers as professional or non-professional player with club of
foreign federation—without prejudice to Club's right to further damages and applicable
sporting sanctions also in accordance with article 17 of FIFA Regulation on Status
Transfer Players—the Player shall pay compensation to Club amount € twice; € three
times (please select one); in case no option is selected triple shall automatically apply
overall remunerations due under Agreement regardless actual accrual aid payment
thereof.
6.
On 1 July 2022, the Player and Noia entered into an employment agreement (hereinafter:
the Noia Contract), which was valid from the date of execution until 30 June 2023.
7.
Pursuant to clause 2 of the Noia Contract, Noia undertook to pay the Player a monthly
salary of EUR 1,400.
8.
On 6 July 2022, FIGC Central Membership Office sent an email to Napoli, notifying that it
had received a request for the issuance of the Player’s International Transfer Certificate
(ITC) from RFEF, acting on behalf of Noia:
“Dear Club,
the SPANISH Federation, on behalf of the Noia F.S. club requested on 06.07.2022 the
issuance of the International Futsal Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) for the player
indicated in question (hereinafter: Footballer) as a Professional.
It is specified that pursuant to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: Regulations) the ITC request can be rejected by the FIGC only if the contract
between the Club and the professional footballer has not yet expired or if it has not an
early termination of the same has been reached, or in the event of an ongoing
contractual dispute.
Outside of the cases indicated above, the FIGC will have to issue the ITC within the terms
established by the art. 9 of the Regulations and, to this end, invites the Club to
communicate by 10.07.2022, pursuant to art.12 of the Regulations, any disciplinary
sanctions to be served against the Player.
Finally, it is highlighted that in the event of failure to reply, within the aforementioned
deadline, the Player will be considered to have no disciplinary sanctions to be served.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15093
Best regards”.
9.
On the same date, Napoli responded to the aforementioned communication, asserting the
existence of a valid and binding contract with the Player and formally requesting that FIGC
reject the ITC application submitted by RFEF.
10. On 14 July 2022, Napoli issued a formal notice to the Player, reminding him of his
obligations under the Napoli Contract and cautioning that “any affiliation with another sports
club would entail a sporting offence”.
11. On 5 August 2022, Napoli sent a written notice to Noia, informing Noia of the existence of
the Napoli Contract and asserting that any concurrent employment with another club
would constitute a breach of sporting regulations.
12. On 8 August 2022, Noia responded to the aforementioned notice, denying the existence of
any contractual relationship between the Player and Napoli. Noia maintained that it had
lawfully engaged the Player in accordance with the applicable FIFA and RFEF regulations.
13. On 10 August 2022, FIGC notified Napoli of the Player’s registration with RFEF under Noia.
14. By letter dated 12 August 2022, and transmitted via email on 14 August 2022, Napoli placed
both the Player and Noia in default for breach of contract. Napoli claimed that the Player
and Noia were jointly and severally liable for compensation in the amount of EUR 271,500,
demanding payment within 20 days.
15. On 15 March 2023, Napoli lodged a formal claim against the Player before the LND Financial
Commission of FIGC (hereinafter: the FIGC Financial Commission), seeking compensation for
breach of contract.
16. On 21 December 2023, the FIGC Financial Commission rendered its decision, ordering, inter
alia, that the Player pay Napoli the amount of EUR 30,166.67 as compensation for breach
of contract, in accordance with clause 5 of the Napoli Contract.
17. On 5 March 2024, following an appeal filed by Napoli, the National Federal Tribunal –
Economic Disputes Section (hereinafter: the FIGC National Tribunal) set aside the decision of
the FIGC Financial Commission and increased the compensation payable by the Player to
Napoli to a total of EUR 271,500.
18. Subsequently, the Player appealed the decision from the FIGC National Tribunal to CONI
Sports Guarantee Board (hereinafter: the CONI).
19. On 15 May 2024, CONI upheld the Player’s appeal against the decision rendered by the
FIGC National Tribunal and remanded the case to the said body for further review.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15093
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 1 July 2024, Napoli submitted this claim against the Player and Noia, alleging breach of
contract.
a. Napoli’s claim
21. Napoli recalled the prior correspondence exchanged between the parties and the
procedural steps undertaken before the FIGC decision-making bodies. It acknowledged
that the matter remained pending before the FIGC National Tribunal at the time of filing
the claim, but asserted that no lis pendens existed, citing the following grounds:
• The parties to the proceedings are not identical: the FIGC proceedings involved only
the Player and Napoli, whereas the present matter includes Noia as a second
respondent;
• The object differs: the FIGC proceedings were directed solely against the Player and
adjudicated under FIGC regulations, whereas the present claim is based on FIFA
regulations and additionally concerns the imposition of sporting sanctions; and
• The FIGC decision-making bodies lack jurisdiction to impose sporting sanctions on
the Player or to adjudicate on the joint liability of Noia.
22. In support of its position, Napoli invoked the precedent established in the Award issued by
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in CAS 2020/A/7054 Sporting Clube de Portugal v.
Rafael Alexandre de Coinceicao & LOSC Lille & FIFA (hereinafter: the Leao Case) to demonstrate
that the claims brought against the respondents were autonomous and did not constitute
a duplication of proceedings.
23. Napoli further argued that the triggering event for the dispute was either the execution of
the Noia Contract in July 2022 or the Player’s registration with RFEF in August 2022.
Accordingly, it contended that the claim was not time-barred.
24. On the merits, Napoli’s position can be summarized as follows.
A.
The Player was a professional
25. Napoli first asserted that the Player qualified as a professional at the time of entering into
the Napoli Contract. In particular, Napoli referred to the definition of a professional player
under art. 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations), emphasizing that: (i) the Player had entered into a written agreement; and (ii)
he was entitled to a monthly remuneration of no less than EUR 2,375, which exceeded the
expenses incurred in connection with his footballing activities.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15093
26. Napoli maintained that the Player’s professional status was unaffected by the classification
used in the Napoli Contract or his registration with FIGC. It further noted that the Player
subsequently signed a professional contract with Noia, albeit for a lower remuneration
than that provided under the Napoli Contract.
27. Consequently, Napoli concluded that the Player must be regarded as a professional.
B.
The Player terminated the Napoli Contract without just cause
28. Napoli submitted that, as confirmed in the FIGC proceedings, the Player unilaterally
abandoned Napoli to sign with Noia, relying on the purported status of being an amateur
as justification.
29. Napoli argued that the termination occurred without just cause and that both the Player
and Noia should be held liable for their “reckless attitude.”
30. Napoli further contended that, notwithstanding FIFA’s inability to assess the quantum of
compensation due to the FIGC proceedings, it should nonetheless order Noia to pay
compensation and impose sporting sanctions on both respondents.
C.
The joint liability of Noia
31. Napoli relied on CAS jurisprudence to assert that the joint liability of the Player’s new club
arises automatically in cases of breach.
32. Napoli emphasized that Noia acquired the Player without paying a transfer fee and directly
benefitted from the Player’s contractual breach.
33. Accordingly, Napoli alleged that Noia should be held jointly and severally liable for the
payment of compensation.
D.
The amount of compensation
34. As its main argument, Napoli submitted that the Player and Noia should be ordered to pay
compensation in accordance with clause 5 of the Napoli Contract, namely EUR 271,500,
representing the residual value of the contract multiplied by three.
35. Napoli argued that this amount was stipulated in the FIGC standard contract and was not
excessive. It therefore asserted that there was no basis to deviate from the parties’ agreed
terms.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15093
36. In the alternative, Napoli requested that compensation be determined pursuant to art. 17
of the Regulations and submitted a copy of the contract entered into with the Player’s
alleged replacement.
37. On that basis, Napoli claimed EUR 28,500 as replacement costs.
E.
The sporting sanctions
38. Napoli submitted that the breach occurred during the protected period and that Noia
actively induced the Player to breach his contract. Accordingly, it requested that sporting
sanctions be imposed on both respondents.
F.
Requests for relief
39. Napoli submitted the following requests for relief:
“In view of the foregoing, ASD Napoli Futsal respectfully requests FIFA to rule as follows:
ON A PRIMARY BASIS
I.
The claim filed by ASD Napoli Futsal before the FIFA DRC against Mr Nejc Hozjan
and Club Noia Fútbol Sala is upheld;
II.
The NF Contract was terminated by Mr Nejc Hozjan without just cause;
a. Regarding the Player Nejc Hozjan
III. The Player is condemned to pay EUR 271,500.00 (two hundred seventy-one
thousand five hundred Euros) as per the penalty agreed in article 5 of the NF
Contract or any other amount that the FIFA DRC deems appropriate as
compensation for breach of contract without just cause in line with article 17 FIFA
RSTP, in any case plus interests at a rate of 5% per year to be accrued on said
sum as from 1 July 2022 until the date of its effective payment;
IV. Mr Nejc Hozjan is imposed sporting sanctions as per article 17(3) of the FIFA RSTP
at the discretion of the FIFA DRC;
b. Regarding the Club Noia Fútbol Sala
V.
Club Noia Fútbol Sala is jointly and severally liable for the payment of
EUR271,500.00 (two hundred seventy-one thousand five hundred Euros) as per
the penalty agreed in article 5 of the NF Contractor any other amount that the
FIFA DRC deems appropriate as compensation for breach of contract without just
cause in line with article 17 FIFA RSTP, in any case plus interests at a rate of 5%
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15093
per year to be accrued on said sum as from 1 July 2022 until the date of its
effective payment;
VI. Club Noia Fútbol Sala is imposed sporting sanctions as per article17(4) of the FIFA
RSTP consisting in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods;
ON A SUBSIDIARY BASIS, should FIFA DRC deem itself not competent or inadmissible the
prayer sub. III. against the Player,
VII. The claim filed by ASD Napoli Futsal before the FIFA DRC against Mr Nejc Hozjan
and Club Noia Fútbol Sala is upheld;
VIII. The NF Contract was terminated by Mr Nejc Hozjan without just cause;
a. Regarding the Player Nejc Hozjan
IX. Mr Nejc Hozjan is imposed sporting sanctions as per article 17(3) of the FIFA RSTP
at the discretion of the FIFA DRC;
b. Regarding the Club Noia Fútbol Sala
X.
Club Noia Fútbol Sala is condemned to pay EUR 271,500.00 (two hundred seventyone thousand five hundred Euros)as per the penalty agreed in article 5 of the NF
Contract or any other amount that the FIFA DRC deems appropriate as
compensation for breach of contract without just cause in line with article 17 FIFA
RSTP, in any case plus interests at a rate of 5% per year to be accrued on said
sum as from 1 July 2022 until the date of its effective payment;
XI. Club Noia Fútbol Sala is imposed sporting sanctions as per article17(4) of the FIFA
RSTP consisting in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods;
IN ANY CASE
XII. Mr Nejc Hozjan and Club Noia Fútbol Sala shall bear any and all the possible
costs of this procedure.”
b. Napoli’s additional comments
40. On 23 December 2024, the Bureau of the FIFA Council adopted a new interim regulatory
framework (hereinafter: the IRF), which entered into force on 1 January 2025.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15093
41. On 28 May 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat invited Napoli to submit its observations on
the IRF and to indicate whether it wished to amend its original claim. Additionally, Napoli
was requested to confirm the updated status of the proceedings pending before the Italian
national courts and to provide copies of any subsequent decisions.
42. On 6 June 2025, Napoli submitted its comments and, inter alia, formally objected to the
application of the IRF to the present matter, arguing that such retroactive application would
contravene the legal principle of tempus regit actum.
43. In the alternative, should FIFA decide to apply the January 2025 edition of the IRF
retroactively, Napoli maintained that its claim should nonetheless be upheld, on the basis
that Noia had induced the Player to breach his contract and should therefore: (i) be held
jointly liable for the payment of compensation; and (ii) be subject to sporting sanctions.
44. Napoli further requested that FIFA order the Player and/or Noia to disclose: “Any and all
emails, chats, SMS, offers of any kind exchanged between them or with any agent/intermediary
related to the negotiations of the employment contract signed with Club Noia Fútbol Sala on 1
July 2022”.
45. Additionally, Napoli submitted a copy of the new decision rendered by the FIGC National
Tribunal, which revised the previously awarded compensation and fixed the amount
payable by the Player to Napoli at EUR 181,000.
46. Napoli confirmed its requests for relief per its statement of claim.
47. On 25 August 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat informed Napoli that the matter in
question raised a preliminary procedural issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Football
Tribunal and would therefore be submitted for an expedited decision in accordance with
art. 19 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules).
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
48. First, the Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chairperson)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
49. In doing so, he noted that this matter had been presented to FIFA on 1 July 2024 and
submitted for a preliminary decision on 15 October 2025. Taking into account the wording
of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the Chairperson determined
that this edition of the Procedural Rules was applicable to this matter.
50. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 19 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, the
Chairperson confirmed his competence to decide, in an expedited manner, whether this
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15093
case is affected by any preliminary procedural matter. Likewise, the Chairperson
highlighted that if the claim is not affected by any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA
general secretariat would be ordered to continue the procedure (cf., art. 19 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
51. Having established the above, the Chairperson acknowledged that this case concerned a
claim from Napoli against the Player and Noia, alleging breach of contract and seeking joint
liability and sporting sanctions.
52. The Chairperson further noted that prior to initiating proceedings before FIFA, Napoli had
already accessed the Italian dispute resolution system. Napoli initiated proceedings before
the FIGC Financial Commission on 15 March 2023, which culminated in a series of decisions,
including:
•
•
•
•
FIGC Financial Commission decision (21 December 2023)
FIGC National Tribunal decision (5 March 2024)
CONI decision (15 May 2024)
Revised FIGC National Tribunal decision (18 December 2024)
53. The Chairperson observed that these decisions addressed the core issue of the Player’s
alleged breach of the employment contract with Napoli. Notably, Noia was not a party to
any of these proceedings.
54. In light of the above, the FIFA General Secretariat identified, and the Chairperson
confirmed, that this case raises a preliminary procedural matter that must be examined ex
officio concerning the admissibility of Napoli’s claim vis-à-vis the national proceedings.
55. In particular, the Chairperson recalled that within its decisions, the Football Tribunal is
required to examine procedural impediments ex officio, including the applicability of the
general legal principle of res judicata. This doctrine operates to prevent the re-litigation of
disputes that have already been adjudicated by a competent authority. For this general
legal principle to apply, the following cumulative conditions must be met: (i) identity of
parties, (ii) identity of object (petitum), and (iii) identity of legal grounds (causa petendi).
56. In the present case, Napoli appeared to anticipate this procedural challenge and argued
that the present claim was distinguishable from the national proceedings on two grounds:
first, the inclusion of Noia as an additional respondent, thereby altering the composition of
the parties; and second, the nature of the relief sought, which includes joint liability and
sporting sanctions – remedies that fall outside the jurisdiction of national bodies.
57. However, the Chairperson did not find Napoli’s argumentation to be persuasive.
58. While the present claim introduced Noia and expanded the scope of relief sought, the
Chairperson considered that these distinctions were not sufficient to overcome the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15093
procedural bar. First, the identity of parties’ requirement was satisfied with respect to
Napoli and the Player, who were parties to both the national and FIFA proceedings. The
addition of Noia did not alter the essential and initial nature of the dispute, particularly
given the accessory nature of claims for inducement and joint liability under FIFA
jurisprudence.
59. Moreover, the object and legal grounds of the dispute – namely, the alleged breach of
contract by the Player and its consequences – remained unchanged. According to the
Chairperson, the request for sanctions and joint liability did not constitute a new cause of
action but rather an extension of the relief sought in connection with the same underlying
contractual breach.
60. Irrespective of recent and still pending regulatory developments, the Chairperson recalled
that established jurisprudence of the FIFA Football Tribunal has consistently affirmed that
claims for inducement and joint liability are accessory in nature and intrinsically linked to
the principal claim for breach of contract. Contrary to the position advanced by Napoli, this
conclusion was reaffirmed following CAS 2020/A/7054 (i.e., the Leao Case).
61. The Chairperson recalled that in the Leao Case, after the CAS Panel issued its findings and
remanded the matter to the Football Tribunal, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
clarified the scope of its mandate and reiterated that arguments concerning joint liability
do not constitute independent claims but rather ancillary components of the underlying
contractual dispute. In the Chairperson’s view, the DRC’s reasoning in the Leao Case applies
to the present matter, as it underscored the procedural inadmissibility of reintroducing
accessory claims that stem from a dispute already adjudicated by a competent national
authority:
“The consistent and well-established jurisprudence of the DRC states that the joint liability
of a player’s new club is accessory to the principal relationship between the player and
the club. The FIFA Commentary describes the player’s liability as follows: “the primary
debtor for the payment of the compensation due because of the breach of contract is,
and remains, the professional player” 1 (emphasis added). A CAS decision has
described this liability mechanism as follows: “It follows that Al Shorta is not the principal
obligor but rather a subsidiary obligor, with Al Shorta merely being jointly and severally
liable”2 (emphasis added). Finally, in another CAS award, the Panel held that “[…] art. 17.2
RSTP provides that if a professional is required to pay compensation, his new club shall
be jointly and severally liable to pay that compensation. The basis of the new club's
liability, however, is the player’s liability. As a consequence, the new club (in this case
cf., FIFA Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Commentary) –
Edition 2023, page 173.
1
2
CAS 2019/A/6233 Al Shorta Sports Club v. FIFA & Dalian Yifang FC, para. 143.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15093
Boca Juniors) cannot be held liable for amounts that exceed those for which the player
himself is liable. 3
Notwithstanding the various specific terms used to describe the mechanism set out in
art. 17 par. 2 of the RSTP, it is therefore clear in the eyes of this Chamber that they all
effectively acknowledge that the liability of the new club is “inseparably tied to that of the
player”4 and “its extent necessarily depends on the amount to be owed (or not owed) by
the player to his former club”.5 The joint and several liability of the new club can only be
triggered upon the player having been ordered to pay compensation for breach of
contract to their former club.
[…]
Given the link between the player and the new club’s liabilities as described above
(i.e., the liability of the new club can only be triggered upon the player having been
ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract), claims against new clubs
pursuant to art. 17 par. 2 of the RSTP are necessarily deemed to be employmentrelated claims.
This means that FIFA’s jurisdiction to hear claims regarding the joint and several liability
of the new club must be based on art. 22 par.1 lit. a) or art. 22 par.1 lit. b) of the RSTP,
which are the provisions specifically enabling FIFA to decide upon labour-related disputes
between clubs and players.
[…]
The aforementioned provisions make it clear in this regard that FIFA’s jurisdiction is to
hear disputes between clubs and players and the Chamber noted that nowhere in those
articles is there a reference to a dispute only between clubs or any suggestion that there
would be a – separate – possibility for FIFA to hear claims between a former club and a
new club independently of the labour dispute between a club and a player. In other
words, these provisions confer that the FIFA’s jurisdiction to assess a claim for liability of
the new club under art. 17 par. 2 of the RSTP would require that FIFA has been called
upon to decide on the contractual dispute between the player and their former club.
In the Chamber’s opinion, these considerations further reinforce the DRC’s general view
that the potential liabilities of the player and the new club pursuant to art. 17 par. 2 of
the RSTP are inextricably linked.
3
CAS 2015/A/4111 & CAS 2015/A/4116, para. 113.
4
CAS 2013/A/3365 Juventus FC v. Chelsea FC / CAS 2013/A/3366 A.S. Livorno Calcio S.p.A. v. Chelsea FC, para. 133.
5
CAS 2019/A/6233 Al Shorta Sports Club v. FIFA & Dalian Yifang FC, para. 141.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15093
For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also wished to note that the only provision in
art. 22 of the RSTP (which governs FIFA’s competence) that specifically confers the
jurisdiction on FIFA to decide upon a contractual dispute between two clubs (i.e., disputes
not related to training compensation and the solidarity mechanism) is par. 1 lit. g) which
is a sort of “catch all” provision granting FIFA the competence to decide on disputes
between clubs based in different countries that are not covered by the remaining
provisions of the article. Pursuant to art. 23 par. 2 of the RSTP, these disputes are under
the jurisdiction of the Players’ Status Chamber of the Football Tribunal. It is clear to this
Chamber that art. 22 par. 1 lit. g) would not enable FIFA to adjudicate on a claim under
art. 17 par. 2 of the RSTP, because, as stated above, claims for the joint liability of the
new club can only be made in the context of a employment-related disputes which are
the exclusive jurisdiction of the DRC pursuant to articles 22 par. 1 lit. a) and lit. b) and
art. 23 par. 1 of the RSTP.
Finally, the Chamber wished to conclude these general preliminary remarks by
suggesting that, pursuant to art. 54 par. 4 of the FIFA Statutes, an assessment should be
made by the FIFA Football Tribunal as to whether any amendments to the RSTP could be
useful, or indeed required, in order to ensure that the principles and the objectives of art.
17 par. 2 of the RSTP are adequately protected and implemented in the context of the
FIFA dispute resolution system.” (emphasis added by the Chairperson)
62. Furthermore, the Chairperson deemed that the factual matrix in the Leao Case differed
materially from the present matter. In that case, the allegations of inducement and joint
liability emerged organically during the course of arbitral proceedings in Portugal. By
contrast, to which the Chairperson attaches much value, in the present case Napoli was
already aware of the alleged inducement at the time it elected to pursue the matter before
the national forum, which now led to a final and binding decision. According to the
Chairperson, this strategic decision to omit accessory claims at the national level and
subsequently reintroduce them before FIFA undermined the procedural integrity of the
system.
63. According to the Chairperson, the DRC’s post-remand clarification in the Leao Case further
emphasized that its mandate does not extend to re-adjudicating matters already resolved
by competent national authorities, particularly where the core contractual dispute has
been conclusively addressed. The reason for this is that the Football Tribunal’s role is not
to serve as a forum for expanding the scope of previously litigated claims through the
belated introduction of accessory arguments.
64. Contrary to Napoli’s allegations, the Chairperson emphasized that the Leao Case should
not be interpreted as a precedent permitting parties to circumvent the finality of national
decisions by merely adding a new respondent or expanding the relief sought. While the
Chairperson acknowledged that CAS had indeed scrutinized the res judicata effect of
decisions rendered by administrative bodies, he confirmed that allowing Napoli to relitigate the matter before FIFA would call into question the authority of the Italian decisions
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15093
and compromise the coherence of the dispute resolution framework. In the Chairperson’s
view, this was precisely what the principles of res judicata are designed to prevent.
65. Moreover, the Chairperson recalled that the purpose of the FIFA dispute resolution system
is not to serve as an enforcement mechanism for decisions rendered by other adjudicating
bodies, particularly where those bodies operate under different procedural rules and
substantive standards. Accordingly, the integrity of the system is jeopardized when parties
attempt to leverage FIFA proceedings to obtain relief that was either unavailable or
unsuccessful in another jurisdiction.
66. The Chairperson found that this concern was particularly acute in the present case, where
a prima facie review of the contract and the national decisions revealed significant
divergence between the legal standards applied by the Italian authorities and those
recognized under FIFA regulations. This includes, for instance, the parameters for
calculating compensation for breach of contract and the assessment of just cause for
termination. He emphasized that such discrepancies further underscore the inadmissibility
of the claim and the need to preserve the procedural boundaries between national and
international adjudication.
67. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claim could overcome the preliminary procedural bar
under a formalistic interpretation of the principles of res judicata, the Chairperson added
that a second layer of admissibility must be assessed – namely, the consistency of Napoli’s
procedural conduct and the legitimacy of its forum selection.
68. The Chairperson then recalled that according to the Commentary (p. 456 and 457):
“(…) if both parties recognise the jurisdiction of the national body by failing to contest it,
the DRC will recognise any decision passed by the national body, even if that body does
not comply with the procedural standards. In other words, a party that has recognised
(or failed to contest) a national body’s competence to hear a specific case – either by
lodging its claim with the national body or merely by submitting a response to the
substance of the claim without contesting the national body’s jurisdiction – will not be
allowed to claim that the national body concerned does not meet the minimum
standards provided for by article 22 paragraph 1b) (and FIFA circular no. 1010), or to
ask the DRC to reconsider the case on that basis.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC will not serve as a body of appeal in respect
of any decision made by a national body, nor will it enforce any decision made by
a national dispute resolution body.
The final considerations concern the practice known as “forum shopping” – a party taking
the same matter to multiple fora in the hope of obtaining the result that suits its
purposes. The relevant jurisprudence is designed to prevent such behaviour, which
is viewed as illegitimate. A party should not be able to game the system by having
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15093
the same argument heard in multiple fora in the hope one of them will hand down
the judgment it wants. For example, a party should not be allowed to ask a national
body to confirm that a contract has been breached without just cause, and then, having
obtained a favourable decision at national level, ask the DRC to set the compensation
payable in the case. The principle against “forum shopping”, namely that a party that
has chosen to have a case heard under one competent jurisdiction cannot then have
recourse to another, is consistently applied.” (emphasis added by the Chairperson)
69. As established above, the Chairperson recalled that the Football Tribunal has consistently
held that parties must demonstrate procedural consistency in their choice of legal
remedies. In particular, a party that elects to pursue a claim in one forum cannot
subsequently shift to another jurisdiction merely because the outcome was unsatisfactory.
Such conduct diverts resources and undermines the credibility of the sporting dispute
resolution framework.
70. While interpretations of the principle electa una via, non datur recursus ad alteram may vary
between the Football Tribunal and CAS, the Chairperson considered that the Football
Tribunal bears a critical responsibility in safeguarding the system from procedural misuse.
The Football Tribunal must ensure that its resources are not exploited by parties seeking
to relitigate matters already adjudicated elsewhere.
71. The Chairperson recalled that this concern had already been addressed in CAS
2022/A/9248, which defined unlawful forum shopping as conduct characterized by
procedural bad faith – where a party deliberately attempts to “game the system” to the
detriment of the opposing party, in verbis:
“Taking the above into account, the Panel is of the view that the unlawful forum shopping
practice is characterized by the intent of the claimant and his/her purposeful conduct
aimed at “gaming the system” to the detriment of the opponent. Its inherent element is
therefore bad faith of the party initiating the dispute.”
72. In the Chairperson’s view, this element of bad faith was present in the current case.
73. The Chairperson found it decisive that: (i) Napoli initiated the proceedings before the Italian
courts, (ii) obtained a decision that did not fully grant its claims, (iii) appealed internally and
secured a more favourable outcome, (iv) the Player actively participated and appealed
again; and (v) CONI reassessed the merits and the FIGC National Tribunal issued a final and
binding ruling.
74. Most importantly, the Chairperson emphasized that Napoli was aware of the alleged
inducement at the outset of this procedural sequence and nonetheless chose to pursue
the matter nationally, for reasons that cannot be precised. Even after initiating proceedings
before FIFA, the Chairperson noted that Napoli remained active in the national forum and
submitted a final and binding ruling obtained after the FIFA claim had already been lodged.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15093
75. In fact, the Chairperson considered that Napoli has relied on the national decisions to
support its arguments regarding the Player’s professionalism and termination without just
cause, thereby placing the DRC in an untenable position: either to act as an enforcement
body extending the effects of a decision rendered under a different legal framework, or as
an appellate body reviewing four prior decisions de novo. Both scenarios, in the
Chairperson’s view, are incompatible with the foundational principles and purpose of the
FIFA dispute resolution system.
76. As a professional club operating within the Italian legal framework, the Chairperson
considered that Napoli was presumed to possess adequate knowledge of its domestic
system. Therefore, Napoli’s decision to pursue a new ruling before FIFA – after having
already litigated the matter nationally – constituted an impermissible attempt to expand
the effects of a prior decision and benefit from a procedural shift. According to the
Chairperson, this conduct fell squarely within the definition of forum shopping and must be
rejected.
77. In conclusion, from every angle of legal and procedural analysis, the Chairperson decided
that this claim must be deemed inadmissible.
a. Costs
78. Having established the above, the Chairperson 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”.
79. The Chairperson therefore decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the
Claimant. He also denied any further requests for relief.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15093
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, ASD Napoli Futsal, is inadmissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15093
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. 19