Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16479
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nikola
Stojiljkovic
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Nikola Stojiljkovic, Serbia
Represented by Nuno Barbosa
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Al Kholood, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Dev Kumar Parmar
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16479
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 January 2024, the Serbian player, Nikola Stojiljkovic (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and the Saudi club, Al Kholood (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the clause 5.1 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to Player the
following monthly remuneration, payable by the last day of each month:
-
USD 10,000 net monthly salary from 20 to 31 January 2024;
-
USD 30,000 net monthly salary from 1 February to 30 May 2024; and
-
USD 25,000 net monthly salary from 31 May 2024 to 30 May 2025.
3.
In addition, pursuant clause 5.3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a
bonus for promotion to the Saudi Pro League first division in the amount of USD 50,000
net.
4.
Clause 5.5 of the Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“The Club shall also provide the following non-monetary benefits/benefits in kind to the Player
during the validity of the contract:
Non-monetary benefit/benefit Details
in kind
Accommodation
Provided by the club
Condition to be met (if any)
For the duration of the
contract
Transportation
Provided by the club
For the duration of the
contract
(1) Round-trip ticket for the Economic on the route 1 ticket if used by the
player
(SERBIA - SAUDI ARABIA - player, 1 ticket for wife and
(1) Round-trip ticket for the SERBIA)
1 ticket for the kid if
wife
accompanied per season”
(1) Round-trip ticket for the
kid
5.
Paragraphs 7 and 10 of clause 6 of the Contract read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“The Club shall:
[…]
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16479
7. Accept, agree and acknowledge that the Player is engaged to be a member of the first team
squad and has the right to train with the rest of the first team squad. The Club shall not
instruct the Player to train and / or play with any team other than the first team of the Club
unless exceptional circumstances exist whereby the Player is recovering after illness or injury.
[…]
10. Offer the Player training and playing conditions under the professional guidance of the
coaches of the Club’s first team squad that are safe, sanitary, adequate, appropriate and
sufficient.”
6.
Clause 8 of the Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
" (sic) 1. Article 8: Disciplinary Sanctions
2. In the event that the Player commits a violation of any of his obligations under this Contract
or the applicable regulations, the Club may impose disciplinary sanctions against the Player.
The Club shall duly charge the Player and shall notify him in writing of the details of such
charges. The Player shall be provided with an opportunity to respond to the charges.
3. The Player acknowledges that he is aware of the Club Regulations, the applicable SAFF
regulations, including the Players' Status Regulations and the Disciplinary and Ethics
Regulations (which are freely available on the official SAFF website).
4. The Club shall provide written notice to the Player at least seven (7) days before any salary
deductions related to disciplinary matters. The notice shall specify the reasons for the
deduction, granting the Player the opportunity to raise objections or provide explanations
within the specified notice period.
5. Upon receiving the notice, the Player shall have a period of seven (7) days to respond with
objections or explanations regarding the proposed salary deduction. The Club will consider
the Player's objections or explanations in good faith before making a final decision.
6. If the Club proceeds with salary deduction and if Player disagrees with decision, then player
has right to appeal decision before FIFA Tribunal within 30 days from date of deduction.
Failure to submit appeal within specified timeframe will result in Club's decision being binding
and final.
7. By not exercising right to appeal within given timeframe, player acknowledges and agrees
waive any further recourse or challenge club's decision. Club's decision such cases will be
considered conclusive binding both parties.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16479
8. Communication Channel: All leave notifications game participation updates communicated
club via email other official communication channel designated by club.”
7.
On 2 February 2024, the Player’s wife and their two kids flew from Belgrade (Serbia) to
Gassim (Saudi Arabia), with the return scheduled on 1 May 2025. The total cost of the flight
tickets was EUR 2,150.08.
8.
On 30 May 2024, the Player flew from Gassim to Belgrade. The cost of the flight ticket was
SAR 3,278.49.
9.
On an unknown date, the Player received an email from the Club informing him that the
first team training camp would start on 14 July 2024 and that he was required to stay in Al
Rass city to train with the Club’s second team, as he was included in the Club’s transfer list.
10. On 15 August 2024, the Player received a payment of SAR 540,000, described as “Monthly
Salary”, to which the Club’s CEO, Mr. Bilal Salih, apologized for the delayed payment.
11. On 19 August 2024, the Player placed the Club on default and requested the July 2024
salary in the amount of USD 25,000 net and the promotion bonus in the amount of USD
50,000 net, granting the Club 10 days to remedy the default. The Player also complained
about training conditions, transportation and family visas expenses.
12. On 27 August 2024, at 4:24 a.m., the Club sent an email to the Player modifying the training
session of that day, informing him he would have to be at 6:00 a.m. at the Club’s facilities.
13. On the same date, the Player received a letter from the Club informing him that he would
receive a 15% salary deduction as sanction for alleged misconduct towards the “team’s
treatment specialist” and using the phone during the training session of that day.
14. On 1 September 2024, the Player placed the Club on default and requested two months
salaries in the total amount of USD 50,000 net, granting 15 days to remedy the default. In
addition, the Player cited several breaches regarding accommodation, transportation, not
training with the first team and, the alleged unjust sanction notified on 27 August 2024.
15. On 2 September 2024, the Player sent an email to the Club acknowledging receipt of a
Club’s email concerning the delivery of a new vehicle and urging the Club to address all
contractual breaches detailed in the previous email.
16. On 9 September 2024, at 2:50 a.m., the Club sent an email to the Player modifying the
training session of that day informing him he would have to be at 6:00 a.m. at the Club’s
facilities.
17. On 11 September 2024, the Club replied to his default notice of 1 September 2024,
requesting the Player’s bank details.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16479
18. On the same date, the Player informed the Club that his bank details were the ones that
the Club had in its possession and used before. The Player further argued that the total
overdue amount was USD 100,000 net, i.e. USD 50,000 for the promotion bonus claimed
on 19 August 2024 and USD 50,000 net corresponding to the July and August 2024 salaries
claimed on 1 September 2024.
19. On the same date, the Player received a payment of SAR 173,437.50 from the Club,
allegedly corresponding to July and August 2024 salaries.
20. On 16 September 2024, the Player terminated the Contract with the Club, alleging
deregistration, exclusion from the first team, overdue payables, accommodation and car
downgrades, unreasonable training conditions and unlawful disciplinary sanction.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 7 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
22. In his claim, the Player alleged the Club incurred in various breaches such as excluding him
from the first team activities, inadequate training conditions, accommodation and car
downgrading, unlawful disciplinary proceeding, overdue payable and deregistration.
23. The Player claimed to be excluded from training with the first team despite the Club’s
obligation to engage him in its first team squad pursuant clause 6.7 of the Contract. The
Player asserted that he missed the Club’s pre-season training camp in Türkiye that took
place from 14 July 2024 until 8 August 2024 and stayed in Saudi Arabia without valid
justification.
24. The Player alleged that, upon the first team return from pre-season camp, he was excluded
from the trainings with the first team squad and forced to train separately. In addition, the
Player alleged he was never allowed to participate in any of the 2024 Club’s pre-season
matches.
25. The Player further alleged that the Club repeatedly modified his training schedule at the
last minute, often during nighttime hours, which caused him significant stress and
disrupted his professional routine.
26. The Player further asserted that during the 2023/24 season, the Club provided him with a
family-friendly villa to live. However, the Player alleged that in July 2024 the Club
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16479
downgraded his accommodation to a single bed hotel room that was not suitable for him,
his wife and their two kids.
27. The Player also claimed that in July 2024, the Club replaced his vehicle with an outdated
model in poor condition, which he considered unsafe for use.
28. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the Club initiated an unlawful disciplinary proceeding
against him in which his right of defence was denied.
29. As per the Club’s allegations that he was using his phone during training, the Player further
asserted that, since he was alone in the Club’s dressing room with no one present, he sent
a message to the Club’s officials informing of that situation.
30. The Player further alleged that the Club failed to pay the USD 50,000 net promotion bonus,
only partially paid the August 2024 salary, and did not remunerate him for 16 days of work
in September 2024.
31. In addition, the Player alleged the Club failed to pay on time the February to June 2024
salaries.
32. Lastly, the Player alleged the Club did not register him for the 2024/25 season as it
registered eight foreign players for that season (i.e., the limit established in the Saudi Pro
League Regulations), and he was excluded from that list.
33. The Player claimed that for all the above reasons he sent various default notices to the
Club, i.e., 19 August, 1, 2 and 11 September 2024, but alleged that he had no other option
to terminate the Contract on 16 September 2024, citing just cause to do so.
34. The Player submitted that he is entitled to be compensated for the lawful termination of
the Contract and to be remunerated for the outstanding salaries and reimbursed for the
flight tickets and car rental expenses.
35. In addition, the Player claimed that, due to the egregious circumstances of this case, he
shall get an additional compensation corresponding to six monthly salaries.
36. As further evidence of the above, the Player submitted two witness statements:
-
Statement by the Portuguese player Mr. Alfonso Miguel Castro, dated 2 October 2024:
he declared that he had been the Player’s teammate for the 2023/24 season and he
witnessed the treatment the Player received for the period from 1 July until 25 August
2024, which included exclusion from pre-season training, irregular scheduling,
exclusion from the first-team and downgraded accommodation and car.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16479
-
Statement by the Player’s wife Ms. Marija Stojiljkovic, dated 7 October 2024: she
declared that their accommodation and car were downgraded, the Player was excluded
from the first-team activities, he received disruptive training conditions, he was not
registered for the 2024/25 season, and he did not receive some remuneration.
37. The Player’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“Being this said, the Claimant respectfully requests the Football Tribunal to:
1) Admit the present Claim filed by the Player, under articles 22.º, 1, a), and 23.º, 1, RSTP (June
2024 Edition) and article 18.º of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (March
2023 Edition);
2) Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 67,083.33 net, as
overdue payables;
3) Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the interest in the total amount of USD
2,170.55 net, due to the late payment of the salaries of February, March, April, May and June
2024;
4) Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 1,397 regarding
transportation expenses (Car rental), amount that was due on the 16.09.2024, as per Clause
5.5 of the Employment Contract;
5) Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 2,360.50 regarding flight
ticket for his family, due on the 02.02.2024, and the amount of USD 874, regarding the flight
ticket of the Player, which was due on 31.05.2024, as per Clause 5.5 of the Employment
Contract;
6) Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant USD 211,666.67 net as compensation for
the unlawful termination of the contract, corresponding to the residual value of the
Employment Contract;
7) Considering that the early termination of the contract was due to several serious and
repeated violations of the contract by the Club and also considering the egregious
circumstances described above on this Claim, the Player requests the condemnation of the
Club to an additional compensation of six salaries, under terms of paragraph 17, 1, i), of FIFA
RSTP;
8) Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. from the due
dates of all amounts described above until the day of effective payment;
9) Condemn the Respondent to bear all costs incurred with the present procedure;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16479
10) Apply sanctions to the Respondent in case if it does not proceed with the full payment of
the amount due to the Claimant and interest upon the decision of the Football Tribunal, being
those sanctions a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally,
up until the due amounts are paid (paragraph 24 of FIFA RSTP).”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
38. In its reply, the Club requested the claim to be rejected and submitted a counterclaim
against the Player.
39. As per the alleged exclusion from the first team and inadequate training conditions, the
Club claimed its technical staff divides the players into two groups based on their own
technical needs, both of them receiving the same level of attention. In addition, the Club
alleged it did not impose wake-up times to players.
40. The Club further asserted that the change of accommodation was based on the Player’s
wishes to reach the Club’s facilities “as quickly as possible”.
41. The Club submitted that the Player’s assigned vehicle was temporarily replaced with a 2019
Hyundai due to a required battery replacement and affirmed that the original vehicle was
duly returned once the issue was resolved.
42. As per the alleged unlawful disciplinary proceeding, the Club referred to clause 8 of the
Contract, suggesting that it was entitled to sanction his poor behaviour.
43. The Club also alleged that, as of the date its reply to the claim, the Player remained
registered with the Club and was eligible to participate in the Club’s activities at the
discretion of the Coach.
44. The Club further asserted that, on 11 September 2024, following receipt of the default
notice, it transferred an amount of SAR 173,437.50 to the Player, allegedly corresponding
to USD 46,250. In this respect, the Club maintained that a fine deduction had been applied
to the amounts claimed.
45. The Club submitted that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract and
that the Club is entitled to be compensated accordingly.
46. In light of the above, the Club’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“In view of all the facts above, the club submits for the attention of the FIFA DRC the following
requests for relief:
FIRST – To uphold the entire claim herein filed by the club.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16479
SECOND – To order the player to pay the club the amount of USD 231.280 plus default interest
at the rate of 5% (five percent) per annum as from 16 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
THIRD – To add the proceedings regarding the present dispute based upon the contents above
to dispute No. FPSD-16479 and notify the player through the FIFA Legal Portal.”
47. On 7 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
submission and referred the parties to the new interim regulatory framework adopted by
the Bureau of the FIFA Council on 23 December 2024. The FIFA general secretariat also
invited the Club to submit any additional comments and/or amendments to its
counterclaim, as applicable.
48. On 23 March 2025, the Club reiterated its arguments and argued that, due to the Player’s
termination, it experienced a gap in its squad until the next transfer window and had to
sign a new player to replace him.
49. The Club amended its requests for relief as follows (quoted verbatim):
“In view of all the facts above, the club submits for the attention of the FIFA DRC the following
requests for relief:
FIRST – To uphold the entire Conterclaim herein filed by the club.
SECOND – To order the player to pay the club the amount of USD 231.280 plus default interest
at the rate of 5% (five percent) per annum as from 16 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
THIRD – To add the proceedings regarding the present dispute based upon the contents above
to dispute No. FPSD-16479 and notify the player through the FIFA Legal Portal.
Fourth - To impose Sports Sanctions on the Player “the Respondent” according to FIFA RSTP
as follows:
To ban the Respondent for a duration of six months from participating in any football activity
based on Article 17 Para 3 of the FIFA RSTP; and
To order the Respondents to pay a contribution part of the legal expenses and attorney’s fees
of the present CounterClaim in amount of 10,000 USD.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
50. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player maintained his position and rejected the Club’s
arguments.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16479
51. The Player asserted that, in his notice of default dated 1 September 2024, he claimed the
amount of USD 100,000. He further stated that, following receipt of said notice, the Club
only paid him SAR 173,437.50, equivalent to USD 46,250.
52. In this respect, the Player asserted that the Club had failed to fully comply with its financial
obligations in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and maintained that the partial payments of overdue
salaries did not extinguish his right to terminate the Contract with just cause.
53. In addition, the Player maintained that he had multiple valid grounds for valid termination,
including exclusion from the first team, deregistration, and downgrading of both
accommodation and transportation.
54. The Player further submitted that the Club’s compensation claim was unfounded and
based on miscalculated damages.
55. The Player made the following requests for relief:
“In light of the above, it is evident that:
(i) The Player had multiple valid grounds for terminating his contract with just cause;
(ii) The Club failed to fully pay the outstanding remuneration by the deadline specified in the
Default Notice;
(iii) The Club's counterclaim for compensation is legally unfounded and factually
unsupported;
(iv) The Club's procedural conduct demonstrates a pattern of delay tactics that has prolonged
these proceedings and caused the Player significant hardship.
Therefore, the Player respectfully requests that the FIFA Football Tribunal:
a) Dismiss the Club's counterclaim in its entirety, including its recent requests for sporting
sanctions and legal expenses;
b) Confirm that the Player terminated the Employment Contract with just cause;
c) Grant the Player's original claim for overdue payables and compensation;
d) Take note of the Club's pattern of procedural delays and ensure the expeditious resolution
of this dispute.”
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16479
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
56. 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 7 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 2 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.
57. 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 (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 Saudi club.
58. 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
59. 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
60. 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. 12
REF. FPSD-16479
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
61. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract, and a counterclaim filed by the
club against the player.
62. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player maintained he terminated the Contract
with just cause, invoking the existence of outstanding salaries and a pattern of repeated
contractual breaches allegedly committed by the Club.
63. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club contested the Player’s position, submitting
that the conditions set out in art. 14bis of the Regulations were not fulfilled, and therefore
the termination of the Contract lacked just cause.
64. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was terminated with just cause and the consequences thereof, if any. The
Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
65. As a departure point, the Chamber noted that the Player and the Club disagreed as to
whether the requisites set out in art. 14bis of the Regulations had been fulfilled in the
present case.
66. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Player had placed the Club in default on two
separate occasions, namely:
-
On 19 August 2024, requesting the payment of his July 2024 salary (USD 25,000 net) and
the promotion bonus (USD 50,000 net), granting the Club 10 days to remedy the default;
and
-
on 1 September 2024, requesting the payment of his July 2024 salary (USD 25,000 net),
August 2024 salary (USD 25,000 net), granting the Club 15 days to remedy the default.
67. The Chamber further observed that, on 11 September 2024, the Player informed the Club
that the outstanding amounts included not only the two monthly salaries referred to in his
second notice of default but also the promotion bonus of USD 50,000 net mentioned in his
first notice.
68. In addition, the Chamber took note that on the same date the Club had made a payment
of SAR 173,437.50 to the Player, which, according to the Chamber’s calculations,
corresponds to USD 46,183.30.
69. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged the Club’s argument that the payment
represented USD 50,000 net after deducting a disciplinary fine, namely the 15% reduction
of the August 2024 pursuant to the sanction imposed on 27 August 2024.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16479
70. At this point, the Chamber considered it appropriate to examine the lawfulness of the
disciplinary sanction imposed by the Club on the Player.
71. The Chamber recalled that, on 27 August 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player informing
him that a 15% deduction would be applied to his August 2024 salary as a disciplinary
sanction, due to the alleged misconduct towards the team’s treatment specialist and the
use of a mobile phone during the training session of that same day.
72. The Chamber further observed that the Club’s letter merely referred to internal regulations
without providing or specifying their content. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Club
failed to grant the Player the opportunity to present his defence or to raise objections prior
the imposition of the sanction.
73. In this regard, the Chamber wished to recall clause 8 of the Contract, which provides, inter
alia, as follows:
“Article 8. Disciplinary Sanctions
[…]
2. In the event that the Player commits a violation of any of his obligations under this Contract
or the applicable regulations, the Club may impose disciplinary sanctions against the Player.
The Club shall duly charge the Player and shall notify him in writing of the details of such
charges. The Player shall be provided with an opportunity to respond to the charges.
[…]
4. The Club shall provide written notice to the Player at least seven (7) days before any salary
deductions related to disciplinary matters. The notice shall specify the reasons for the
deduction, granting the Player the opportunity to raise objections or provide
explanations within the specified notice period.
5. Upon receiving the notice, the Player shall have a period of seven (7) days to respond
with objections or explanations regarding the proposed salary deduction. The Club will
consider the Player's objections or explanations in good faith before making a final decision.
[…]”
(emphasis added by the Chamber)
74. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the disciplinary proceeding initiated by
the Club against the Player did not comply with the fundamental principles of due process.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16479
In particular, the Player was neither duly charged nor afforded the opportunity to present
his defence before the sanction was imposed.
75. The Chamber further held that the Club failed to demonstrate compliance with the
procedural safeguards expressly stipulated in clause 8 of the Contract, including the
obligation to provide prior written notice and to grant the Player a period of seven days to
submit his objections or explanations regarding any intended salary deduction.
76. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the disciplinary proceeding conducted by the
Club must be considered unlawful and devoid of any legal effect. As such, the Chamber
concluded that the Club was not entitled to apply any deduction to the Player’s salary on
disciplinary grounds, and that the amount corresponding to the 15% reduction of the
Player’s August 2024 salary remained fully payable to the Player.
77. In light of the foregoing, and the absence of any further arguments from the Club
concerning the unpaid remuneration, the Chamber considered that the Club had only
partially complied with the Player’s default notice, as the amount paid (USD 46,183.30) fell
short of the total salaries claimed (USD 50,000) – without even taking into account the
additional promotion bonus.
78. The Chamber then recalled its well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
stipulating that the Club must comply with a full payment of the outstanding salaries, i.e. it
is not sufficient to only make a partial payment.
79. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, given the Club’s failure to fully settle the
outstanding remuneration within the deadline set in the default notice.
80. Having already established the just cause based on overdue payables, the Chamber
deemed it unnecessary to further analyse the additional breaches raised by the Player.
ii. Consequences
81. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the consequences
arising from the unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
82. As a starting point, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed the following amounts:
-
USD 67,083.33 net, corresponding to the promotion bonus, the remaining part of the
August 2024 salary and 16 days of work corresponding to September 2024;
-
USD 2,170.55 net, corresponding to late salary payments for the period from February
to June 2024;
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16479
-
USD 2,360.50 corresponding to flight tickets reimbursement; and
-
USD 1,397 corresponding to transportation expenses.
I. Outstanding salaries, promotion bonus and accrued interest
83. Firstly, the DRC noted that the Club did not contest it failed to pay the promotion bonus to
the Player in the amount of USD 50,000 net.
84. The Chamber further observed that it was established that the Club had underpaid the
Player’s August 2024 salary by an amount of USD 3,816.70 net (i.e., the already dismissed
salary deduction).
85. Next, the Chamber took note that it was also undisputed that the Club did not pay the
Player’s September 2024 salary. Considering that the termination of the Contract took
place on 16 September 2024, the Chamber decided to award the Player the full monthly
salary of September 2024 as outstanding remuneration.
86. 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:
-
USD 50,000 net plus interest as from 26 June 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 3,816.70 net plus interest as from 1 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
-
USD 25,000 net plus interest as from 16 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
87. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Club did not dispute the Player’s allegation
that his salaries of February to June 2024 were only paid on 15 August 2025.
88. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant clause 5.1 of the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player his monthly remuneration by the last day of each month.
89. In light of the above, and 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 delayed salaries as from each corresponding
due date until the date of actual payment, i.e. 15 August 2024, as follows:
-
over USD 25,000 net as from 1 March 2024 until 15 August 2024;
-
over USD 25,000 net as from 1 April 2024 until 15 August 2024;
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16479
-
over USD 25,000 net as from 1 June 2024 until 15 August 2024; and
-
over USD 25,000 net as from 1 July 2024 until 15 August 2024.
90. After performing the relevant calculations, the Chamber concluded that the Player was
entitled to USD 2,143.25 net as accrued interest within the abovementioned period.
II. Flight tickets reimbursement
91. The Chamber further noted that the Player requested reimbursement of expenses
incurred in relation to flight tickets purchased for himself and his family. In support of this
claim, the Player provided evidence of payment for one flight ticket for himself amounting
to SAR 3,278.49, and three additional tickets corresponding to his wife and two children,
each costing EUR 695.82, plus an administration fee of EUR 62.62.
92. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the wording of clause 5.5 of the Contract and noted
that the provision entitled the Player to flight tickets for himself, his wife, and only one
child.
93. In light of the above, the majority of the Chamber decided to award reimbursement of the
flight expenses corresponding to the Player, his wife, and one child, totalling SAR 3,278.49
and EUR 1,454.26.
94. 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:
-
EUR 1,454.26 plus interest as from 2 February 2024 until the date of effective payment;
and
-
SAR 3,278.49 plus interest as from 31 May 2024 until the date of effective payment.
III. Car rental reimbursement
95. The Chamber then observed that the Player requested reimbursement for car rental
expenses. In support of this claim, the Player submitted what the Chamber deemed to be
proof of payment of SAR 5,239.01 from an unidentified account to “Hussain for Rental Co.”.
However, the Chamber noted that no further documentation was provided, such a car
rental contract in the Player’s name, the corresponding receipt, or a bank statement
evidencing the payment.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16479
96. Hence, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber decided to
reject the Player’s claim for reimbursement of car rental expenses due to the lack of
sufficient documentary evidence.
IV. Compensation for breach of contract
97. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club 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.
98. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
99. 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 players 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).
100. 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 USD 200,000 net (i.e., USD 25,000 net times 8, from October
2024 to May 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
101. 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 player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16479
102. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
termination of the Contract; thus, no mitigation or additional compensation applied.
103. The Chamber then recalled that, in case the player did not sign any new contract following
the termination of his previous contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal
to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Player USD 200,000 net as compensation
for breach of contract, which it found to be a reasonable outcome in the present case.
104. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s relief 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 from the date of termination (i.e., 16 September
2024) until the date of effective payment.
105. By way of conclusion, the Chamber ruled that the Player’s claim was partially upheld and,
given that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract, the Club’s counterclaim was
rejected in its entirety.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
109. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16479
110. 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.
d. Costs
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16479
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Nikola Stojiljkovic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Al Kholood, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- USD 78,816.70 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 50,000 net as from 26 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,816.70 net as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 25,000 net as from 16 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
- USD 2,143.15 net as outstanding amount.
- EUR 1,454.26 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2
February 2024 until the date of effective payment.
- SAR 3,278.49 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May
2024 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 200,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
16 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant, Al Kholood, is 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:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-16479
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-16479
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. 23