Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15906
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Lazar Sajcic
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Lazar Sajcic, Serbia
Represented by Dupovac Feđa
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Kuala Lumpur City FC, Malaysia
SECOND RESPONDENT
FK Zemun, Serbia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15906
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties in the present dispute are the following:
-
The Serbian player, Lazar Sajcic (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant/ CounterRespondent);
-
The Malaysian club, Kuala Lumpur FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent/
Counter- Claimant);
-
The Serbian club, Fudbalski Klub Zemun "FK Zemun" (hereinafter: the New Club or
Second Respondent).
2.
On an unspecified date, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 15 April 2024 until 30 April 2025.
3.
In accordance with clause 2 and Schedule A and B of the Contract, the Player was entitled
to a monthly remuneration of “RM 25,000 net (USD 5,500 net)” due by no later than the 7th
of the following month, RM 2,000 net as transportation allowance and RM 3,000 net as
housing allowance.
4.
On 12 April 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player stating that the Club takes “full
responsibility of [the Player]” stay in Malaysia and ensure that our player shall abide by
Malaysia laws at all times.”
5.
On an unspecified date in the month of April 2024, via WhatsApp, the Club agreed to
provide “financial help” to the Player in order to secure his apartment. The Club clarified
that the “Club will advance your salary for the payment of the house rental.” The Player asked
the Club to pay the amount of RM 8,494.
6.
On the same day, the Club sent the Player the confirmation of the payment of the required
amount to the landlord. The Club also informed the Player that he will have a hotel room
for the following day and the Player replied “Hope I play for you lot of years! Amazing work.
Thanks”.
7.
The proof of payment attached in the WhatsApp conversation was of RM 8,464 and was
paid on 26 April 2024.
8.
On 28 June 2024, the Player and the Club exchanged the following WhatsApp messages
(quoted verbatim):
-
Player: “Hello Mr Stanley. I need club pay for my monthly rent I already should pay three
weeks ago and owner and agency from apartment write already couple times to warn
me.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15906
-
9.
Club: “Hi Lazar, Good Afternoon. I will speak to our coordinator to get the phone number
of your landlord. We will speak to them. We are close to getting the funds in.”
On 28 June 2024, the Player and the Club exchanged the following WhatsApp messages
(quoted verbatim):
-
Club: “Hi bro, how are you?”
-
Player: “Hi Legend”
-
Club: “I’m heard your landlord are still chasing you for the monthly rent?”
-
Player: “Yes that is true. I should pay 9 of June. The agency woman text me to warn about
payment.”
-
Club: “I just spoke with Stanley. He said latest 5th July club will pay. Can you inform your
landlord. Or you want me to speak with your landlord?”
-
Player: “I text this woman from agency and tell that club told that they will pay apartment
next week.”
10. On 3 July 2024, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting the salary
corresponding to 15 days worked in April 2024 as well as the full salaries for the months of
May and June 2024 of the total amount of USD 13,750 as well as RM 10,000,000 [sic]
corresponding to housing and transportation fee. The Player gave a 15-day deadline to the
Club to comply with its default.
11. On 5 July 2024, the parties had the following conversation on WhatsApp (quoted verbatim):
-
Player: “Hello Legend, what do I tell them? Or will you call them?”
-
Club: “Hi Lazar. Let me double check with boss first. Boss said he will come back to me
later. How much need to pay bro?”
-
Player: “2250 for June that I suppose to pay (10th June) and 2250 that I need to pay in
(10th July) so 4500. But I think you can call to that number that I give to you and ask for
wait until 10th July for both payments. Maybe you will buy time I don’t know.”
12. On the same day, the Player had the following conversation with the apartment agency
(quoted verbatim):
-
Agency: “Hi Michelle, any update? Lazar It’s been due for some time. Can u give us an
exact date for rental payment?”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15906
-
Player: “Hello, I will call people from the club to check what is situation about. But they
know they must pay we have contract.”
-
Agency: “Can you check n recert with payment slip.”
-
Player: “Hello, they text me now from the club, they are sorry for delaying. And that until
10 July will be both payments for June and July. And I told them to pay the full amount as
an apology (without the 140 ringgit deduction for the insect pollination).”
13. On 10 July 2024, the Player had the following WhatsApp conversation with the agency of
his apartment (quoted verbatim):
-
Player: “Please let me know if the club has paid the money for the apartment as they
promised to me.”
-
Agency: “Not yet”
-
Player: “I’m so disappointed… I don’t know what is going on, me and the club have
contract and they don’t respect that.
If they don’t pay today like they promised let me know I will call my family to send me
money, then I will give you in cash you will transfer to owner through your bank
account because I don’t have still working permit and bank account. Give me until
Friday.
I didn’t expect this… say sorry from me to owner. Is not my fault they lied to me…”
-
Agency: ”Okay sure. U need to check with ur club. If you have cash, u can pass to me
ot bank deposit to owner direct.
-
Player: “My family will send me. I don’t have it with myself. Of course I will speak. This
is unacceptable.”
14. On 8, 13 and 14 July 2024, the Club issued warning letters to the Player due to his
“unauthorized leave”. However, the warning letters were supposed to be delivered to the
Player in person but the Club argued that the Player could not be located. The Player
argued that these warning letters were never delivered to him.
15. On 13 July 2024, the agency of his apartment sent the following text that remained without
an answer:
“Hi lazar. Owner called me. As you know, she has been patient with the house rentals. Now
is coming to 2nd month rental.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15906
16. On 13 July 2024, the Player flew back to Belgrade due to his alleged expired visa.
17. On 18 July 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice arguing that the Club had
made payments of advance of salaries in order to help the Player to settle in.
18. In particular, the Club alleged that the following amounts have been paid to the Player:
No
1
2
3
4
Date
26 April 2024
25 May 2024
8 July 2024
18 July 2024
Description
Advance for House Rental and Deposit
Advance for Salary
Advance for Salary
Balance Half Salary- April 2024 & Full Salary
May 2024
Total
Amount (RM)
RM 8,494.00
RM 2,000.00
RM 1,000.00
RM 33,506.00
RM 45,000.00
19. In addition, the Club alleged that the Player’s statements regarding his work visa are
inaccurate and provided a copy of his work visa, approved on 26 June 2024.
20. On the same day, the Club paid the amount of RM 33,506 to the Player, allegedly
corresponding to half of April’s salary as well as the salary of May 2024.
21. On the same day, 18 July 2024, the Club texted the Player on WhatsApp asking where he
has been and informing him that the Club has paid the salaries “up till May 2024 salary.”
Regarding the salary of June 2024, the Club informed the Player that they would like to
meet him in person in order to discuss this matter further and also sent the bank receipt.
22. On 19 July 2024, the Club texted the Player again asking him whether he has received the
amount that was transferred to his bank account. In addition, the Club asked the Player to
meet in person to talk about the salary of June 2024 and stated that “We are worried because
we haven’t heard anything from you since you have missed the trainings and match day.”
23. On 19 July 2024, the Player sent a termination letter to the Club alleging that the amount
of USD 13,750 and RM 10,000,000 [sic] corresponding to salaries, housing and
transportation costs remains outstanding.
24. On 20 July 2024, the Club sent the Player the following WhatsApp text (quoted verbatim):
“We have not heard from you since more than a week ago.
We sent these warning letters to your place last few days but you are not at home and neither
are you at training.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15906
Please reach out to us so we can discuss these matter with you.
Do let us know if you have also received the half April and May salary which have been
transfer to your bank account.”
The Club uploaded the warning letters that were sent to his mail and the Player
answered on the same day saying “Talk to my lawyer via email.” The Club answered that
it replied to the lawyer, but he said that he did not receive any of the letters.
25. On 25 July 2024, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Second Respondent
(hereinafter: the New Contract) valid as from 1 August 2024 until 30 June 2025.
26. The Player’s monthly salary according to clause 3 of the New Contract was RSD 67.566,33.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
27. On 4 September 2024, the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent filed the claim at hand before
FIFA. A summary of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent
28. The Player lodged the present claim for breach of contract due to outstanding salaries.
29. The Player argued that he had just cause to terminate his Contract due to having more
than 2 outstanding salaries. In addition, the Player alleged that the Club never registered
him with the Malaysian FA and for that reason he was not able to participate in organized
football.
30. Furthermore, the Player also claimed that the Club did not arrange his work visa despite
his multiple requests, without however providing any evidence in this regard.
Consequently, he alleged that he had to leave the country as his work visa was “about to
expire.”
31. In view of the above, the Player requested the following amounts:
-
Overdue payables: USD 13,750 corresponding to the monthly salaries for the months
of April (pro rata), May and June 2024 plus 5% interest as from the due dates;
-
Compensation for breach of contract of the total amount of USD 55,000 plus 5%
interest as from 19 July 2024.
32. Finally, the Player provided the following breakdown of the requested amounts:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15906
Outstanding:
- USD 2,750 for the salary of April 2024;
- USD 5,500 for the salary of May 2024;
- USD 5,500 for the salary of June 2024.
Compensation:
-
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of June 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of July 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of August 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of September 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of October 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of November 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of December 2024;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of January 2025;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of February 2025;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of March 2025;
USD 5.500,00 for the salary of April 2025.
b. Reply of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
33. On 5 October 2024, the Club submitted its reply to the claim and lodged a counterclaim
against the Player.
34. In its reply, the Club disputed the entirety of the facts brought forward by the Player.
35. Regarding the Player’s alleged non-registration, the Club argued that he was duly registered
with the Malaysian FA for the Club. In particular, according to the Club, it registered the
Player immediately after the signature of the Contract and provided the relevant
supporting documentation.
36. Furthermore, the Club contended that the Player sustained an injury shortly after signing
the Contract, which was the sole reason for his absence from official matches. In support
of this claim, the Club submitted hospital receipts listing the Player as a patient.
37. Regarding the issues with his work visa, the Club argued that it was in continuous contact
with the Player for its renewal and provided a WhatsApp conversation between an
employee of the Club and the Player demonstrating that.
38. In this regard, the Club stated that after it received the default notice, it paid the salary of
April and May 2024. According to the Club, the salary of June 2024 had not yet matured
when the Player sent the default notice (3 July 2024) as the salary was only due on 7 July
2024. Therefore, the Club argued that the Player was not yet entitled to his salary of June
2024 when the default notice was sent.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15906
39. The Club summarized the factual background of the case as follows (quoted verbatim):
-
“The Player was duly registered for the Club following the signature of the [Contract];
-
The Club started process of obtaining the work permit for the Player immediately after it
received all documentation from the Player and successfully obtained work permit for the
Player on 26 June 2024 and informed thereof on several occasions;
-
Nonetheless, the Player sent a default letter to the Club on 3 July 2024, based on which
he informed the Club about his alleged visa expiration on the 15th/ 16th of July 2024 and
requested from the Club to enable him to participate in competitive matches without
hindrance and to pay him half of April 2024 salary and full May and June 2024 salaries
together with accommodation and transportation allowance (although at that moment
June 2024 salary had not matured yet).
-
Within granted deadline, on 18 July 2024 the Club replied to the Player’s default notice
and attached proof of payment of balance of half of April 2024 salary and full May 2024
salary and work permit dated 26 June 2024, and in addition informed the Player about
the payment of matured balance of April 2024 salary and full May 2024 salary via
WhatsApp correspondence, and
-
The Player, who received his work permit and was duly informed about it, simply decided
that he does not want to play for the Club anymore, and on 13 July 2024 left the Malaysia
without any Club’s authorization by falsely stating that his visa expired!!, while at the same
time accusing the Club that it was acting in breach of the Employment Contract, and
-
The Club duly paid all the Player’s matured salaries from his default notice dated 3 July
2024 (half of April 2024 salary and full May 2024).”
40. The Club argued that the Player did not have any basis to terminate his Contract and
therefore the termination was without just cause.
41. Specifically, the Club made reference to the factual background and alleged the following:
-
The Player was duly registered with the Malaysian FA and, therefore, had no valid
grounds to terminate his Contract on that basis.
-
The Player’s work permit had been successfully approved a week before the Player sent
his default notice, which has been demonstrated by the evidence provided by the Club.
Consequently, the Player did not have just cause to terminate his Contract on these
grounds either.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15906
-
The salaries that were outstanding corresponded to half of April’s salary and the full
salary of May 2024, which were duly paid before the expiration of the 15-day deadline
provided by the Player. The Club argued that the salary for June 2024 had not yet fallen
due at the moment of the default notice. Since the outstanding salaries were paid
before the expiration of the deadline, the Club argued that the Player did not have just
cause to terminate his Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
42. In view of all the above, the Club argued that the party who breached the Contract was the
Player and therefore the Club is entitled to compensation.
43. The Club considered that the residual value of the Contract of the amount of USD 51,630
shall be paid as compensation to the Club and the New Club shall be held jointly and
severally liable for the payment of the compensation.
44. Finally, the Club requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“a) to reject all reliefs requested by the Player in his Claim; and
b) to establish that the Player terminated the Employment contract signed with the Club
without just cause; and
c) to order the Player to pay the Club compensation of net USD 51,630.00 (fifty-one thousand
and six hundred and thirty US dollars) which was due on 19/7/2024, with default interest of
5% per year on the aforementioned amount starting from the date of maturity until the
effective date of the payment; and
d) to hold FK Zemun jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned
amount; and
e) to impose a sporting sanction on the Player in the sense of the article 17. par. 3 of the FIFA
RSTP; and
f) to ban FK Zemun from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for
two entire and consecutive registration periods.”
c. Comments regarding the Interim Regulatory Framework
45. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of FIFA Council for the
Regulations, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Club to amend its counterclaim,
should it wished so, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application
of the IRF to this matter.
46. However, despite being invited to do so, the Club did not provide any comments regarding
the Interim Regulatory Framework.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15906
d. Reply to the counterclaim
47. The Player disputed the Club’s allegations and characterized them as unfounded.
48. The Player reiterated that he had just cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In particular, according to the Player,
the breaches from the Club were “severe and various in such extend that the bond of trust
was irreparably destroyed.” In addition, the Player argued that the breaches continued for
“entire duration of the relationship, as well as the manner in which the Club was dealing with
the Player shows clear and undeniable signs of fault of the Club for the destruction of trust.”
49. Furthermore, the Player alleged that since the beginning of the Contract until the default
notice (sent on 3 July 2024), the Club had only paid the amount of RM 2,000 (approx. USD
440) in cash. In other words, the Player argued that he was left for almost 3 months with
USD 440 as the Club did not pay any of the salaries that were contractually agreed.
50. In this regard, the Player alleged that the Club had been experiencing financial difficulties
for some time and was aware that it might not be able to meet its salary obligations. He
claimed that several other players had reportedly gone unpaid for months. Accordingly,
the Player argued that the Club was aware of its financial situation at the time the Contract
was signed.
51. The Player claimed that he did not have to suffer the consequences of the Club’s inability
to timely pay the salaries.
52. In addition, the Player disputed the Club’s allegations regarding an “advance of salary”
stating that a payment of RM 2,000 of 25 May 2024 cannot be considered as an advance of
salary for an employment relationship that started on 15 April 2024.
53. Regarding, the amount of RM 8,464 paid to the landlord, the Player claimed that this
amount would be returned to the Club at the end of the tenancy and could not be
considered as a payment to the Player. According to the Player, the Club merely complied
with its obligations for the housing allowance towards the Player.
54. Having stated the above, the Player argued that “the Club did not pay out amounts from the
default notice” and that the Club had the obligation to “full remedy the breach” within 15-day
deadline.
55. In particular, according to the Player, the Club should have paid the salary of June 2024
stating the following (quoted verbatim):
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15906
“Furthermore, regarding the claims of salary of June 2024 not being due and as such not
being in obligation of the Club, the salary was due and the Club baselessly did not perform
the payment of this salary. According to the scholars, analysis of the jurisprudence shows
that only three claims of a player were rejected because it was established that not two
monthly salaries were outstanding and, therefore, the conditions of Article 14bis RSTP were
not fulfilled. However, in one of these three decisions, the FIFA DRC came to the conclusion
that the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract due to the fact that
additional salaries to him became due in the meantime.”
56. The Player also argued that it is evident that from the Club’s response to the default notice,
the Club was inviting the Player to discuss the payment of the salary of June 2024. According
to the Player, that further demonstrated the Club’s practices as the payment of an
outstanding salary should not have been subject to discussions and instead should have
been paid immediately.
57. In addition, the Player pointed out that since the beginning of the contractual relationship,
the Club had failed to comply with its financial obligations towards the Player and it was
always in debt.
58. Regarding the work visa, the Player alleged that the Club left his visa to expire which “forced
him out of the country.”
59. He further argued that he was never officially notified about the renewal of his visa and the
Player saw the confirmation document for the first time in the context of the present
proceedings. In fact, the Player claimed that he was notified only “unofficially” by a Club’s
employee on WhatsApp.
60. In addition, the Player claimed that he informed the Club of his visa expiration and the
need to leave the country, yet the Club took no action. Despite being aware of the visa
duration and having been reminded in the Player’s default notice, the Club failed to
respond or assist him. Although the Club representatives previously claimed the visa issue
could be resolved, they did nothing when the situation arose. According to the Player, this
suggests either the Club never had the required work permit or deliberately chose not to
engage, both of which reflect poorly on the Club.
61. Even if an employment pass had been approved, the Player would still need to leave the
country to apply for a visa abroad. The Player argued that the Club did not secure a special
pass or contact the Player, leading to potential overstaying penalties. According to the
Player, regulations show that obtaining a work permit is a quick and straightforward
process, yet the Club failed to do so, while other foreign players received permits and
began playing promptly. He further alleged that the Club repeatedly claimed the permit
would be ready “soon,” but even by 18 July 2024, it remained unresolved.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15906
62. In this regard, the Player argued that the failure of the Club to obtain proper
documentation for prolonged period of time, without any reasonable justification, forced
the Player to leave the country.
63. Furthermore, the Player denied being excluded from official games due to an injury. The
Player claimed that his injury was minor and could not constitute the reason why he did
not participate in matches. He also argued that he found new employment with the New
Club for a much lower salary as he was “in a desperate position to try to salvage his season
and career.”
64. The Player also alleged that, contrary to what the Club claimed, he never received any of
the warnings that the Club alleged having sent to him. The Player also argued that the Club
did not provide any evidence of having sent the letters via post or via email.
65. In continuation, the Player also pointed out that days after the termination of the Contract,
the Club received a fine and a 6-point deduction from the competent authorities in
Malaysia due to financial misconduct.
66. The Player argued that if the Club was able to provide incorrect information to the financial
authorities that eventually lead to its sanction, “one can only wonder the extent to which the
Club was willing to act towards the Player in these proceedings.”
67. In view of all the above, the Player reiterated that he had just cause to terminate his
Contract and requested that the Club’s counterclaim is rejected in its entirety.
e. Reply of the Second Respondent
68. Despite being invited to do so, the Second Respondent did not reply to the counterclaim.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15906
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
69. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 4 September 2024 and submitted for decision
on 7 October 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.
70. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 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
a Serbian player and a Malaysian club with the involvement of a Serbian club.
71. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
72. 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
73. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15906
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
74. The Chamber then 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 Contract.
75. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract and determine the consequences thereof.
76. Before entering into the analysis of whether there was just cause to terminate the Contract,
the Chamber wished to reiterate the following undisputed facts:
-
On 20 April 2024, the parties signed the Contract valid as from 15 April 2024 until 30
April 2025.
-
On 26 April 2024, the Club paid the amount of RM 8,494 to the Player’s landlord.
-
According to TMS, on 2 May 2024, the Player was registered with the Malaysian FA.
-
On 25 May 2024, the Club paid the amount of RM 2,000 to the Player.
-
On 26 June 2024, the Player’s “Online expatriate application at expatriate services
division” was approved.
-
On 3 July 2024, the Player sent a WhatsApp message to the Club saying “Naliq told
me that our working permit is done. When we can expect Visa for my wife?”
-
On 3 July 2024, the Player sent a default notice requesting his salaries of half the
month of April 2024 and the full salaries of May and June 2024.
-
On 7 July 2024, the Club paid the amount of RM 1,000 to the Player.
-
On 18 July 2024, the Club paid the amount of RM 33,506 to the Player.
-
On 19 July 2024, the Player terminated his Contract.
77. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the Player invoked three reasons for terminating
his Contract: (i) the non-payment of salaries, (ii) the expiration of the work visa, and (iii) the
non-registration of the Player/ the no-participation in matches.
Art. 14bis of the Regulations
78. Regarding the outstanding salaries, the Chamber first assessed whether the preconditions
of art. 14bis of the Regulations have been met.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15906
79. The Chamber recalled that according to art. 14bis of the Regulations, “In the case of a club
unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will
be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor
club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to
fully comply with its financial obligation(s).”
80. In the present case, the Chamber took note of the fact that on 3 July 2024 the Player sent
a written default notice to the Club requesting the payment of the half salary of April 2024
and the full salaries of May and June 2024.
81. The Chamber recalled that according to Schedule A of the Contract, the Player was entitled
to RM 25,000 net (USD 5,500 net) per month which had “to be paid no later than the 7th of
the following month.”
82. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the salary of June 2024 fell due on 7 July 2024 and
at the time the default notice was sent, only the half salary of April 2024 and May 2024 had
fallen due.
83. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the formal requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations have not been met as less than 2 monthly salaries were outstanding at the
time of the default notice. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s
termination could not be justified on the basis of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
84. In view of the above, the Chamber decided to assess whether the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract under art. 14 of the Regulations. The reasons for the termination
brought by the Player will be analysed below.
Art. 14 of the Regulations
85. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that art. 14 of the Regulations provides that a “contract
may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of
compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In general, just
cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably and in good
faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.”
86. The Chamber thus proceeded to analyze whether the arguments brought by the Player for
termination – namely (i) the non-payment of salaries, (ii) the expiration of the work visa,
and (iii) the non-registration of the Player/ the no-participation in matches – could justify a
termination as per art. 14 of the RSTP.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15906
The work visa
87. The Chamber started by analysing the Player’s argument regarding the alleged expiration
of his work visa. In this respect, the Player argued that he was forced to leave the country
on 13 July 2024 as the Club did not renew his visa. In view of the Club’s counterclaim and
the evidence provided, the Player argued that he was not aware of the fact that his visa
had been approved on 26 June 2024 and the document provided by the Club as evidence
had not been communicated to him.
88. Even if it is true that the Club did not provide evidence of having sent the document
confirming the approval of the visa to the Player, the Chamber observed that the Club did
provide a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation according to which on 3 July 2024 (10
days before the Player left the country), the Player himself confirmed that “Naliq told me
that our working permit is done. When we can expect Visa for my wife?” and the Club replied
that the visa for his wife was still in progress “but should be fast since your permit is approved
already.”
89. While bearing in mind the FT’s jurisprudence on the reduced probatory value of unverified
WhatsApp messages, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Player himself alleged in
the reply to the counterclaim that the confirmation he had effectively received was
unofficial (only via WhatsApp) and the document of 26 June 2024 was never presented to
him. The Player also alleged that the Club did not reply to his repeated requests about the
work visa but failed to provide any evidence in this regard. The Player provided a
screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation in which the date does not appear, and the
conversation was as follows:
-
Player: “What about visa and working permit?”
Club: “Will update you. Not today this week.”
90. Right after the Player’s last message, the date of 2 July 2024 appears, so it can be deduced
that this conversation took place before the Player’s confirmation of 3 July 2024.
91. In view of all the above, the Chamber considered that the work permit was approved, and
the Player knew about such approval since at least 3 July 2024.
92. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player had a valid working visa before leaving
the country. This argument of the Player was not sufficient to justify the termination as per
art. 14 of the RSTP.
The non-registration and no-participation in the matches
93. In continuation, the Chamber assessed the Player’s allegations regarding his nonregistration with the Malaysian FA. According to the Player, due to his non-registration, the
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15906
Club did not include him in the squad in any of the official matches which has been
corroborated by the evidence on file.
94. Regarding the Player’s registration, the Chamber observed that based on the information
available in TMS and the documentation provided by the Club, the Player was duly
registered with the Malaysian FA for the Club on 2 May 2024.
95. In view of the Club’s confirmation of the Player’s registration, the Player further argued in
his reply to the counterclaim that he was not participating in official matches due to an
injury. In this regard, the Club provided various invoices of a hospital with the Player’s name
as patient. However, no further documentation or explanation was provided regarding the
alleged injury and therefore the allegations regarding the injury that did not allow him to
participate in official matches could not be corroborated.
96. However, the Chamber noted that the Player disputed the above allegations by stating that
his injury was minor and could not have prevented him from participating in matches.
97. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the evidence and the submissions provided
regarding the Player’s non-participation in official matches were not conclusive, but it has
remained undisputed that since the beginning of the employment relationship, the Player
had not participated in any official match. These arguments, nonetheless, did not suffice
to justify the termination of the contract, in line with art. 14 of the RSTP.
Outstanding salaries
98. The Chamber finally noted that the Player also alleged that the Club was in a severe,
repeated and continuous breach of the essential financial obligations of the Contract.
99. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Player had alleged in the statement of claim
that “the Club failed to pay without any justification more than 2 months of monthly
remuneration. Despite the player’s notice, the Club did not remedy said breach.” In this regard,
the Player had requested from the DRC, the payment of 2.5 monthly salaries as outstanding
remuneration.
100. However, in the reply to the counterclaim, the Player confirmed having received the
following amounts, while disputing the nature of these payments:
-
RM 2,000 paid on 25 May 2024;
RM 1,000 paid on 8 July 2024;
RM 33,506 paid on 18 July 2024.
101. In addition, the Player acknowledged that a payment of RM 8,464 was made on 26 April
2024 to his landlord directly from the Club, alleging only in his reply to the counterclaim
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15906
that this payment was “just a partial performance of obligation for payment of housing
allowance.”
102. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the allegedly outstanding payments
claimed by the Player were eventually made by the Club, considering the pay date
contractually agreed for the salaries and the Chamber’s standard jurisprudence for the
payment of rent in advance, if not otherwise stipulated in the contract.
103. While acknowledging the foregoing, the Chamber by majority understood that the Club had
failed to pay the Player’s salaries from the very start of the contract. From 15 April 2024 to
18 July 2024, i.e. for more than 3 months, the Player was under a valid and binding contract
with the Club but had not received any remuneration from such contract. The majority of
the Chamber also noted that the payment of the monthly salaries due – a basic obligation
of employers – was only made after the Player had issued a default notice to the Club,
reminding it of its financial duties towards him.
104. Equally, the majority of the Chamber – while recalling the FT’s jurisprudence on the reduced
probatory value of unverified WhatsApp messages – noted that the authenticity of the
exchanges provided by the Player between him and the Club and him and the Agency
remained uncontested by the Club. According to those messages, the payment of rent was
not completely or correctly made, as the Agency repeatedly warned the Player about a
default. Furthermore, from the exchange between the Player and the Club regarding the
payment of the rent, the Club mentioned that “We are close to getting the funds in”, implying
financial difficulties.
105. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the majority of the Chamber understood it is undeniable
that the payments performed by the Club were inconsistent and definitely not according
to the payment plan stipulated in the Contract, and the Club invited the Player to discuss
the payment of an outstanding salary (i.e. the salary of June 2024). Even if the claimed
amounts were eventually paid and acknowledged, the Player had been left for more than
2 months, since the very start of the contract, without the payment of any remuneration.
The payment was only made after the issuance of a default notice by the Player. These facts
combined with the Club's admitted difficult financial situation led the Player to no longer
reasonably and in good faith expect the continuation of the contractual relationship.
106. In view of all the above, the majority of the Chamber considered that the irregularity and
delays in the payment of the salaries, the invitation to negotiate the payment of an
outstanding salary, coupled with the Club’s admitted financial difficulties and the payments
only made after a default was issued, were enough to render it unreasonable for the Player
to expect the employment relationship between the parties to continue. According to the
majority of the Chamber, the breach was considered sufficiently serious to give the Player
just cause to terminate his Contract.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15906
107. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Player had just cause to
terminate his Contract in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations and the counterclaim
is consequently rejected.
ii. Consequences
108. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
109. The Chamber observed that, contrary to what the Player requested (i.e. half of the salary
of April 2024 and the full salary of May and June 2024) it has been clear from the parties’
submissions that he has received part of his outstanding salaries. In particular, the
Chamber noted that the Player received the following amounts of a total of RM 36,506:
-
RM 2,000 on 28 May 2024;
RM 1,000 on 8 July 2024;
RM 33,506 on 18 July 2024.
110. Regarding the amount of RM 8,494 paid directly to the landlord, the Chamber considered
that it corresponded to the monthly housing allowance of RM 3,000 which will be
considered as paid and therefore it will not be calculated as outstanding amount.
111. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, after the deduction of the amount of RM 36,506
that has already been paid to the Player from the amount of salaries and transportation
allowance due until the date of termination, the following amount remains due as
outstanding remuneration:
-
RM 93,500 corresponding to the half monthly salary of April, full months of May, June
and July 2024 (RM 87,500) as well as the transportation allowance (RM 6,000) - RM
36,506 = RM 56,994
112. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RM 2,994 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RM 27,000 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of RM 27,000 as from 18 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15906
113. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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, 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.
114. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first 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.
115. As a consequence, 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. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
116. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of RM 270,000 (i.e., the months of August 2024 to April 2025
including the transportation and housing allowance) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
117. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
118. Indeed, the Player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to RSD 67.566,33 per month, approx. RM
2,868.7. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of RM 25,818.65, that is, RM 2,868.7 times 9.
119. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, majority of the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15906
amount of RM 244,181.35 to the Player (i.e., RM 270,000 minus RM 25,818.65), which was
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
120. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 18 July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
121. 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.
122. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
123. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent within
45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent, 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/ Counter-Claimant in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
124. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent in the Bank Account Registration Form,
which is attached to the present decision.
125. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15906
d. Costs
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-15906
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, Lazar Sajcic, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, Kuala Lumpur City FC, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant must pay the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent the
following amounts:
- RM 56,994 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RM 2,994 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RM 27,000 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RM 27,000 as from 18 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
- RM 244,181.35 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18
July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
7. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant 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.
1. 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 art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-15906
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-15906
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. 26