Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16672
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Aymen Sfaxi
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Aymen Sfaxi, Tunisia
Represented by Slim Boulasnem
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
ARABI SC, Kuwait
Represented by Georgi Gradev
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16672
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 January 2024, the Tunisian player, Aymen Sfaxi (hereinafter: Claimant/CounterRespondent
or
Player)
and
the
Kuwaiti
club,
Arabi
SC
(hereinafter:
Respondent/Counterclaimant or Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from 15 January 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Claimant a total salary of KWD
90,000, payable as follows:
3.
-
A salary of KWD 6,000, with the first payment scheduled for 30 January 2024 and the
final payment scheduled for 30 May 2024.; and
-
A salary of KWD 6,000, with the first payment scheduled for 30 August 2024 and the
final payment scheduled for 30 May 2025.
Clause 2.4 of the Contract read as follows:
“The [Club] grants the [Player] 1 flight tickets to and from its original country (economy class)
once during the season”.
4.
Clause 3.2 of the Contract read as follows:
“If the [Player] receives an offer to move and play professionally abroad, this matter will be done
by mutual consent, if this is before the start of the official competitions of KFA with the [Club]
being compensated for all expenses incurred because of this contract
5.
Clause 5.11 par. 5 of the Contract read as follows:
“If the player or the coach wishes to travel abroad, whether during the sports season or after
the end of the sports season competitions, he must obtain permission by submitting a request
via e-mail to the club.”
6.
Clause 5.12 par. 2 of the Contract read as follows:
“All players must adhere to the times and schedule determined by the team’s technical and
administrative staff for daily training times in various periods, room entry times, mealtimes, and
rest times. […]”
7.
On 11 June 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of KWD 12,000
within 15 days, corresponding to the salaries of April and June 2024.
8.
Reportedly, on 20 June 2024, the Club invited the Player to negotiate an amicable
termination. The Club contested this information.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16672
9.
On 21 June 2024, the Player sent a correspondence to the Club stating that the default
notice remained uncontested and reaffirming his willingness to honor the Contract. The
Player further requested the Club to clarify its intentions toward him within 48 hours.
10. On 24 June 2024, the Club confirmed payment of the Player’s salaries for April and May
2024 and informed him that he would be able to join the Club during the preseason. The
Club further indicated that it would provide the Player with a flight ticket upon completion
of the visa formalities.
11. On 28 June 2024, the Club sent the Player a flight ticket and visa.
12. On 29 June 2024, the Club’s team commenced the preseason training.
13. On 1 July 2024, the Player joined the Club.
14. From 2 July to 10 July 2024, according to the Club, the coaching staff designated a specific
training program for the Player to temporarily train with an assistant coach to “catch up”
with the physical form of his teammates. According to the Player, during this period he had
to train alone or with 1 additional player and without medical assistance.
15. On 6 July 2024, the Player sent a correspondence to the Club stating that the Club had
asked him to accept a contract termination and had excluded him from team activities. He
was not added to the first team’s WhatsApp group, was forced to train alone at different
times than the rest of the team and that the Club has taken away his car. The Player
requested the Club to cease such actions, which violated art. 14 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), reiterated his intention to
honor his contract, and asked to be reintegrated with the team within the next 24 hours.
16. On 9 July 2024, the Player sent a correspondence to the Club stating that he was training
alone, that the Club had already filled its foreign player quota with six players, and that it
was evident the Club no longer intended to have him. The Player further mentioned in said
correspondence, that the Club was exerting pressure on him to terminate the Contract.
Accordingly, the Player requested the Club to cease such abusive behaviour and to be
reintegrated with the rest of the team within 48 hours.
17. On 9 July 2024, the Club responded to the Player, stating that there was no requirement to
use the WhatsApp messaging application for official communications. The Club further
clarified that decisions regarding whether training is conducted individually or collectively
fall under the discretion of the team coach. Additionally, the Club asserted that the Contract
does not obligate it to provide a vehicle to the Player, and denied having engaged in any
abusive conduct toward him.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16672
18. According to the Club, “from July 11 to 16, 2024, the Claimant trained with the first team but
acted provocatively to the head coach and his teammates”. According to the Player he was
training alone.
19. On 15 July 2024, the Club’s director, Mr. Khaled Al Qannabi, stated on the Club’s social
media account: “Everyone knows we have four professional (foreign) players—Al Khaldi,
Khabba, Bouchar, and Iwala. For the fifth professional, we will reach an agreement in the coming
days. It’s easy. I promise the public he will be with us during the training camp.”
20. From 19 July to 3 August 2024, the Club’s team went to Erzurum, Türkiye, for a preseason
training camp. According to the Club, the Player was instructed to remain in Kuwait and
train with an assistant coach.
21. On 19 July 2024, the Club sent a “letter of interest” to the Tunisian club Stade Tunisien
regarding one of their players, Haithem Jouini.
22. On 23 July 2024, the Player once again placed the Club in default, demanding that it cease
its abusive conduct. The Player requested the Club to: (i) Immediately, and no later than
within 48 hours, enable him to join the rest of the squad at the training camp in Türkiye
and reinstate him with the professional team; and (iii) Confirm and provide supporting
evidence within five days, that he remains a registered with the Club.
23. On 30 July 2024, the Player put the Club in default reminding the Club of its various
contractual breaches, including allowing his visa to expire and providing only a commercial
visa instead of a work visa, resulting in his illegal status in Kuwait. He remained excluded
from the team, trained alone without a program, and was not called up for the training
camp in Türkiye. Despite repeated requests for clarification, the Club has not acted, causing
stress and uncertainty. The Player granted the Club a final 72-hour deadline to fully remedy
all breaches.
24. On 1 August 2024, the Respondent sent a new visa to the Claimant valid from 31 July 31 to
30 August 2024.
25. On 6 August 2024, the Club concluded an employment contract with the Egyptian player
Abdelrahman Khaled Emam Hamouda and on 19 August 2024 such employment contract
was mutually terminated the contract.
26. The Club’s administrative Director, Mr. Abdullah, made a couple of attempts to contact the
Claimant by phone on 12 August and 14 August 2024.
27. Between 13 August and 18 August 2024, various Tunisian news agencies published
photographs of the Claimant wearing the team shirt of the Tunisian club, Etoile Sportive du
Sahel and reported that he had signed with that club.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16672
28. On an unspecified date, according to the Player on 15 August 2024, the website kuw_pl
published the list of foreign players for all clubs, and the Player was not included.
29. On 18 August 2024, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club.
30. Reportedly, on 19 August 2024, the Club announced the termination of the Player’s
contract.
31. On the same day, the Player requested the Kuwaiti Football Federation (KFF) to provide a
copy of the Contract and to clarify his situation due to the number of foreign players.
32. On 19 August 2024, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“We now understand that you invoked artificial grounds to terminate the contract so that the
Player could return to his former Tunisian club, Etoile Sportive du Sahel ("Sahel"). This
information was published by Sahel. So, the only reason that the Player terminated the contract
was because Sahel induced him to do so.
Hence, we give the Player until the end of next Sunday, August 25, 2024, to return to our Club
and withdraw the termination notice. Otherwise, we will sue the Player and his new club for
damages based on Article 17 RSTP.
We are bound to say that the Player did not solicit, or certainly did not receive, proper advice as
to the risk that he ran in adopting his chosen course of action rather than (if he had proper
grounds of complaint against our club) formulating them with precision, supporting them with
evidence, and tying them – where appropriate – to the club’s contractual obligations or promises
or – if the Player was determined for reasons which could not in law be held responsible, to
move on from the club as soon as possible - trying to negotiate an exit which would not involve
him in potentially onerous liabilities.”
33. On 6 September 2024, the Club sent a correspondence to the Tunisian club Union Sportive
de Ben Gardane in which it mentioned that the Player terminated the Contract without just
cause and it would be jointly liable.
34. On an unspecified date, the Player signed an employment contract with the Iraqi club,
Diyala Sport Club valid as from 2 January 2025 until 30 June 2025, including a total salary of
USD 48,000 (USD 8,000 per month).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
35. On 19 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16672
36. The Player argued that the Club failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and engaged in
abusive behaviour toward the Player over an extended period.
37. First, the Player mentioned that in accordance with the jurisprudence of FIFA, the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Tribunal, it is a fundamental right for the
Player to have access to training and to compete in matches. The Player argued that he
was excluded from training, and the Club did not provide any reason as to the exclusion,
which was contrary to the Contract. Moreover, he had no access to collective training,
coach and medical assistance. Additionally, the Player asserted that the training schedule
required him to train in the middle of the day under temperatures exceeding 40 degrees
Celsius, thereby endangering his physical integrity; the recruitment of new foreign players;
and his exclusion from the preseason training camp that took place abroad. The Player
concluded that he was separated from the rest of the team for more than 39 days.
38. Second, the Player mentioned that the Club failed to provide the administrative documents
for the Player to have a valid visa, since the end of June 2024, the Player had a temporary
“commercial visa” for 1 month.
39. Third, the Player emphasized the Club’s bad faith, noting that after requesting his return,
the Club subsequently excluded him. Moreover, the Club failed to respond to the Player’s
default notices, withdrew his car, and contacted other clubs regarding the Player’s potential
transfer.
40. The Player concluded that: “the Club was no longer interested in continuing the employment
relationship with the Player and therefore did everything possible to ensure that, faced with the
pressure inherent in being excluded as a professional player and the economic and sporting
risks this entails for the continuation of his career, he would terminate the contract” (freely
translated to English).
41. The Player requested the following request for relief:
-
Residual value of KWD 60,000 (10 salaries between August 2024 and May 2025) plus
5 % interest as of 18 June 2024;
-
Flight ticket: calculated in accordance with FIFA travel, plus 5 % interest as from 18
August 2024;
-
The Player is entitled to additional compensation of 6 months, in case he finds a new
employer, due the Club’s behavior; and
-
To impose sporting sanctions.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16672
b. Reply and Counterclaim of the Club
42. The Club rejected the Player’s claim and filed a counterclaim.
43. As to the trainings, it mentioned that “[f]rom July 11 to 16, 2024, the Claimant trained with the
first team but acted provocatively to the head coach and his teammates, disrespecting the
established order and discipline. Therefore, the head coach decided to exclude the Claimant
from the upcoming pre-season training camp in Türkiye and instructed him to remain in Kuwait
and temporarily train with an assistant coach, hoping that the Claimant would change his
attitude”. As from 4 August 2024, the Player disappeared and the Club’s Administrative
Director, Mr. Abdullah, “made a couple of attempts to contact the Claimant by phone on August
12 and 14, 2024, to persuade the Claimant to return to work but with no success […] Therefore,
the Respondent could not reintegrate the Claimant into the team in August 2024 due to his own
fault.”
44. Regarding the termination under art.14 of the Regulations, the Club argued that, pursuant
to the Commentary on the Regulations, a contract may only be terminated prior to the
expiry of its agreed term if there is a valid reason to do so. Furthermore, the Club cited
jurisprudence from the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which holds that a party
terminating a contract for just cause must notify the other party without delay-typically
within two to three working days. Failure to do so results in a waiver of the right to
terminate for just cause. Consequently, if the termination is notified belatedly, it is deemed
to be without just cause.
45. The Club emphasized that, in the present case, the termination occurred on 18 August
2024, based on the allegation that the Club failed to respond and did not reintegrate the
Player into the group. Therefore, the Club asserted that the Dispute Resolution Chamber
should consider only the grounds stated in the termination notice - namely, the alleged
exclusion from work as of 1 July 2024. Any additional arguments raised ex post facto by the
Player should be disregarded.
46. The Club referred to the relevant facts and concluded that the Player’s termination of the
Contract was untimely, as the 72-hour deadline expired on 2 August 2024. However, the
termination notice was submitted to the Respondent 16 days later.
47. Moreover, the Club stressed that only after the Player had agreed to sign a new
employment contract with the Tunisian club, Etoile Sportive Du Sahel, he instructed his
lawyer to terminate the Contract.
48. The Club contended that the Player did not object to being separated from the team during
the 16-day period between 30 July and 18 August 2024. The termination notice was issued
on 18 August 2024, 49 days after the Player was initially excluded from the team on 2 July
2024. This duration exceeds the permissible period justified by the practical requirements
of everyday and economic life. Based on the foregoing, it appears that the Player did not
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16672
consider the exclusion from the team as of 2 July 2024 to constitute a breach of the mutual
relationship of trust. By now asserting otherwise, the Club asserted that the Player acts in
contradiction to the principle of venire contra factum proprium.
49. The Club concluded that the Dispute Resolution Chamber should find that the Player
waived the possibility to avail himself of this ground to declare the early termination of the
Contract and, thus, he terminated the Contract without just cause on 18 August 2024.
50. The Club further addressed the following:
-
The Club was entitled to put the Player on a separate training schedule for short
periods. From 2 July to 10 July 2024, the Player had to regain his fitness, as he
indisputably arrived late for preseason. Yet, he participated in a couple of training
sessions with the first team. From 19 July to 3 August 2024, the Player had to remedy
his behavior towards the head coach and his teammates; thus, he was not
summoned to the training camp. Ultimately, the Player disappeared from the Club
on 4 August 2024 and never returned. Thus, he could not be reintegrated into the
team due to his own fault.
-
The Player’s behavior suggested that he was tracing some kind of strategy aiming at
frustrating the relations with the Club and terminating the Contract without affording
the legal consequences so that he could move to the Tunisian club, Etoile Sportive
Du Sahel, with which he apparently had a pre-agreement.
-
The Club contested that it offered the Player to “negotiate an amicable contract
termination”.
-
The Player’s had a valid visa.
-
“The [Player] claims that he was forced to train at odd times, in unbearable weather
conditions, and without medical or (sometimes) coaching personnel. However, the (video)
evidence adduced by the [Player] is somewhat unconvincing, as it lacks a clear date and
time when these videos were made. Indeed, the head coach testifies that the [Player] did
not always follow the training program designated for him and went to train with another
player at times that were different from the established ones when there was no one at
the stadium.”
-
As to the Player claims that he was not registered with the KFA. The Club stated that
such a reason was not invoked by the Player in the termination notice and was raised
ex post facto. Moreover, the registration period ended on 20 September 2024.
-
As to the Player claims that the Respondent replaced him with other foreign players
from Tunisia and Egypt. The Club mentioned that he failed to prove with tangible
evidence that the Club acquired any of those players to replace the Claimant, that
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16672
they played in his field position, or that any of them took the Player’s foreign player
quota at the KFA.
-
As to the Player claims that there was no response to his default notices. The Club
mentioned that it replied to the Player, refuting all of his claims. Besides, the Club’s
Administrative Director, Mr. Abdullah, has been speaking to the Player by phone and
refuting his various claims in July and August 2024.
-
Finally, regarding the Player’s claim concerning the withdrawal of his car, the Club
argued that there was no contractual obligation to provide a car.
51. Finally, the Club asserted that the Player was acting in material breach of the Contract as
follows:
“The Claimant did not inform the Respondent about the offer he had from Etoile Sportive Du
Sahel, and his failed attempt to join this club as early as August 13, 2024, was not made with
the Respondent’s consent. Besides, the Respondent was not compensated at all. The Claimant
acted in material breach of Clause 3(2) of the Contract;
Apparently, the Claimant was training with Etoile Sportive Du Sahel in August 2024 during his
unauthorized absence from work. This was a material breach of Clause 5(8) of the Contract;
The Claimant traveled to Tunisia on or before August 13, 2024, without requesting and obtaining
the Respondent’s permission. Hence, the Claimant did not follow the procedure stipulated in
Clause 5.11(5) of the Contract. […]
The Claimant did not strictly follow his special training program in July 2024, choosing to train
with another player at times that were different from the established ones when there was no
one at the stadium and was absent from work without permission from August 4 to 18, 2024,
failing to adhere to the times and schedule determined by the team’s technical and
administrative staff in breach of Clause 5.12(2) of the Contract. “
52. The Club then addressed the Player’s request for a flight ticket, noting that the Player failed
to quantify his claim and merely referred to FIFA Travel. Furthermore, he did not provide
any evidence to establish the cost of the ticket or to demonstrate that he personally paid
for it. Accordingly, the claim lacks substantiation.
53. As to the compensation, in case FIFA decides that there was just cause, it should be rejected
due to the Player’s behavior.
54. Finally, as to the counterclaim, it requested the residual value of the Contract of KWD
60,000 (i.e., ten salaries from August 2024 to May 2025 x KWD 6,000) as compensation for
breach of contract.
55. The Club requested the following relief:
“On these grounds, the Respondent hereby requests that the DRC:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16672
1.Reject the Claimant’s Claim.
2.Establish that the Claimant terminated the Contract without just cause on August 18, 2024.
3.Establish that the Claimant is not entitled to outstanding amounts or compensation for breach
of contract.
4.Order the Claimant to pay the Respondent KWD 60,000 or any other amount determined at
the DRC’s discretion, plus interest of 5% per year as of August 18, 2024, until full payment.”
c. Additional comments of the Club regarding the Interim Regulatory
Framework
56. On 19 May 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to amend its counterclaim, if
it so wished, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the
new interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council on 23
December 2024 (hereinafter: the Interim Regulatory Framework). The FIFA general
secretariat also highlighted that any submission that went beyond the scope of the
mentioned request would be disregarded.
57. The Club mentioned that:
“The interim regulatory framework does not materially affect the counterclaim.
No amendment is necessary to our counterclaim, which is already compliant with the
applicable version of the RSTP.”
d. Response by the Player to the counterclaim
58. The Player rejected the counterclaim.
59. The Player maintained that the Club acted in bad faith and deliberately manipulated the
facts to conceal its own misconduct. Although the Club claimed to have honored its
contractual obligations, it had in fact delayed salary payments for several months, which
constituted a serious breach of contract. The Club had also excluded the Player from all
team activities without any formal justification or official communication, violating his
fundamental right to work. Despite a written promise on 24 June 2024 to reintegrate him
under normal conditions, the Club had instead isolated him, denied him access to official
communication channels such as WhatsApp, removed his vehicle, and replaced him with
another foreign player. These actions had been documented and verified, and even the
Club had acknowledged his exclusion.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16672
60. The Player further mentioned that the Club had attempted to portray the Player had signed
a pre-contract with another club without informing the Club, refused to train, and left
without authorization. The Player refuted these claims, stating that it was the Club that had
sidelined him and that his decision to terminate the Contract stemmed from months of
abuse, silence, and unresolved violations. He emphasized that he had followed proper
procedures, including formal notices, video documentation, and witness statements, all
demonstrating his intent to continue the contractual relationship under fair conditions. He
also dismissed the coach’s statement as lacking credibility due to the coach’s subordinate
position within the club. Additionally, the Club had presented unofficial social media photos
as evidence, which the Player described as irrelevant and absurd.
61. The Player listed the contractual violations committed by the club. These included failure
to pay salaries for April and May, with no proof of regular payments thereafter; exclusion
from team activities for nearly 40 days between 1 July and 18 August; refusal to renew his
professional visa, offering only a commercial one; exclusion from the training camp in
Türkiye; public announcement of his replacement; and attempts to sabotage his future
career by contacting other clubs after the contract was terminated. The Player argued that
these actions demonstrated a complete disregard for contractual good faith and amounted
to psychological harassment. He also rejected the club’s claim that he should have
terminated the contract within 72 hours of his formal notice, calling it unreasonable. He
explained that he had acted in good faith by allowing the Club time to correct the situation,
and that unilateral termination posed serious risks for a player. His patience, he argued,
should not have been held against him.
62. The Player asserted that Club had repeatedly violated the Contract during the protected
period and used destabilizing tactics against him. He argued that the Club could not claim
legal protection while being the source of the violations. The termination of the Contract
had been made with just cause, and the Club should bear the consequences. Even if,
hypothetically, the termination was deemed unjustified, the Club should not benefit from
a situation it had created through serious breaches. The Player condemned the Club’s
behavior as both legally and ethically unacceptable, stating that it undermined the purpose
of the contract and misused FIFA regulations to shield its own misconduct.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
63. 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 19 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 16 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16672
64. 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 Tunisian player and a Kuwaiti club.
65. 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
66. 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
67. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
68. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract.
69. The Chamber noted the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due
to the Club’s abusive conduct, stating that he had been sidelined for more than 40 days
and was forced to train alone, despite the various requests to be re-integrated with the
team. Additionally, the Player claimed that he did not possess a valid visa to remain in
Kuwait.
70. The Club, on the other hand, maintained that the Player terminated the Contract without
just cause. It first argued that termination must occur without undue delay, otherwise the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16672
right to terminate for just cause is waived. Therefore, the Club contended that the Player
acted too late. Furthermore, it mentioned provided various reasons for such separation.
71. In light of the above, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine: (i) whether
the Club’s conduct was abusive, and if so, (ii) whether the termination constituted an ultima
ratio measure, or whether the Player’s delay in terminating the Contract undermines the
existence of just cause.
(i)
Abusive behaviour
72. The Chamber noted that the Player argued the Club’s abusive conduct consisted of
preventing him from participating in training sessions.
73. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged the need to examine the Club’s behaviour
throughout the term of the employment contract. To that end, the Chamber referred to
the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition, p. 132), which outlines key elements for
assessing whether excluding a player from the first team amounts to abusive conduct.
74. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled the following facts:
Dates
11 June 2024 to 24 June
2024
Comments
- The Player put the Club in default for overdue
payables on 11 June 2024; however, the Club was able
to remedy its default within the time limit provided
(i.e., on 24 June 2024).
29 June 2024
- The Club’s team commenced preseason training.
1 July 2024
- The Player returned to Kuwait to resume his work.
1 July to 10 July 2024
- It is undisputed that the Player was training alone.
However, the Club mentioned that the Player was
provided individual training “to ensure he could catch
up with his teammates”.
6 July 2024
- The Player requested the Club to stop excluding him
from training, and to be reintegrated within the next
24 hours.
- The Player requested again to be included in training
within 48 hours and that he was aware that the Club
currently had 6 foreign players.
9 July 2024
- The Club contested the Player’s default and
mentioned that it has not conducted any abusive
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16672
15 July 2024
11 July 2024 to 16 July
2024
16 July 2024
19 July to 3 August 2024
behaviour toward the Player.
- The Club mentioned on his social media account, that
they had 4 foreign players and were missing 1, the
Player was not in this list.
- The Player mentioned that he was training alone.
- The Club mentioned that he trained with the team.
- According to the Club, the Coach decided that the
Player would continue training separately under the
supervision of the assistant coach due to the Player’s
misbehaviour.
- It is undisputed that the Club had a training camp in
Türkiye.
- According to the Club it provided the Player an
individual training.
- The Player mentioned that he was training alone.
23 July 2024
30 July 2024
1 August 2024
12 and 14 August 2024
18 August 2024
- The Player requested the Club to enable him to join
the training camp and to reinstate him within 48
hours. The Player further requested evidence that he
is still registered with the Club.
- The Player requested the Club to be reinstated in
training within 72 hours. Moreover, he requested a
valid visa.
- The Club mentioned that it provided a visa.
- The Club argued that it made a couple of attempts to
call the Player by WhatsApp.
- The Player terminated the Contract.
75. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber identified the following:
-
The Player sent four separate default notices to the Club on 6, 9, 23, and 30 July 2024,
requesting reinstatement. The Club only responded on 9 July 2024.
-
The Club attended a training camp in Türkiye without the Player.
-
The Club claimed that, upon returning from the training camp, it attempted to
contact the Player on 3 August 2024 to resume his duties. However, apart from an
alleged phone call, no supporting evidence was provided.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16672
-
The Club asserted that the Player trained with the team between 11 and 16 July 2024;
however, it failed to submit any corroborating evidence. Regarding the alleged
misconduct during these sessions, the Club did not provide documentation of any
disciplinary proceedings or correspondence inviting the Player to present his
position. The Coach’s witness statement does not conclusively confirm the alleged
misconduct. In any case, even if such conduct occurred, the Club did not appear to
have followed any established procedure to address the matter.
76. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player was effectively excluded from
group training from 1 July 2024 until the termination of the contract, amounting to a period
of 49 days.
77. The Chamber then noted that as to the Player’s exclusion from training, the Club argued
that: (i) during the first 10 days, the Player needed time to “catch up with his teammates”;
(ii) the exclusion was due to alleged misbehaviour; and (iii) the Player disappeared as of 3
August 2024.
78. With respect to point (i), the Chamber acknowledged that, while it may be reasonable in
certain circumstances to temporarily assign a player to train with the reserve team for
performance-related reasons, the Club failed to provide any explanation beyond its letter
dated 9 July 2024. Furthermore, following this letter, the Player was not included in the
training camp due to alleged misbehaviour, despite his repeated requests, which clearly
indicated an exclusion from training.
79. With respect to point (ii), the Chamber observed that the alleged misbehaviour could not
justify the Player’s exclusion in the absence of any formal disciplinary proceedings. No
evidence was submitted to substantiate the alleged misconduct, nor was any
documentation provided to demonstrate that the Club initiated an appropriate procedure
to address the matter.
80. With respect to point (iii), the Chamber noted that the Club’s assertion that the Player
“disappeared” was undermined by its limited efforts to contact him. The Club only alleged
to have attempted three phone calls and did not send any formal, written notice to the
Player or his legal representative. In addition, the Player sent four default notices to the
Club, yet the Club failed to provide any explanation or response.
81. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Club did not act in a transparent
or diligent manner. The lack of proper communication, the absence of disciplinary
proceedings, the exclusion from training, and the insufficient efforts to engage with the
Player demonstrated a pattern of conduct that the Chamber considered abusive.
(ii) Ultima ratio
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16672
82. The Chamber then moved to the other main argument of the Club that the Player should
have immediately terminated the Contract. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the
Football Tribunal’s long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only a breach or
misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior
warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably
permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a
contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which
can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual
duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio.
83. Therefore, a brief exclusion from training would not, on its own, constitute sufficient
grounds for the Player to terminate the contract immediately. However, the prolonged
nature of the exclusion, combined with the Player’s repeated requests to reintegrate him
and the Club’s failure to provide clarity, left the Player in a state of uncertainty. In light of
this, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s trust in the Club was legitimately
undermined. The Club’s conduct affected the employment relationship to such an extent
that, in good faith, the Player could no longer be reasonably expected to continue under
the existing conditions. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player terminated
the contract within a reasonable timeframe. Accordingly, the Club’s argument that the
termination was submitted late cannot be sustained.
84. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged reports of the Player’s engagement with a third
club, the evidence presented was neither issued by the club in question nor by the Player
himself. The Chamber noted that such information merely indicated that a contract was
about to be signed, without confirming that any agreement had been concluded at the time
of termination. The Chamber further emphasized that this raises legitimate doubts about
the reliability and accuracy of these reports. In fact, the Player did not enter into a contract
with the mentioned club following the termination; instead, he signed with an Iraqi club on
1 January 2025.
85. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Chamber held that the Player has demonstrated that
the termination of the Contract was a measure of ultima ratio as he had warned the Club
on several occasions without any resolution of the breach and, therefore, could no longer
reasonably be expected to continue the contractual relationship. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause and consequently, the
Chamber rejected the Club’s counterclaim.
ii. Consequences
86. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16672
87. The Chamber observed that at the moment of termination no outstanding remuneration
was requested and therefore, 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.
88. 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.
89. 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).
90. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of KWD 60,000 (i.e., 10 times KWD 6,000) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
91. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the 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.
92. Indeed, the Player found employment with Diyala Sport Club. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately USD 8,000 per
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the
total amount of USD 48,000 / KWD 14,765.60, that is, 6 times USD 8,000.
93. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations and
determined that no additional compensation should be awarded in the case at hand,
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16672
insofar as termination of the contract was not grounded on outstanding remuneration, but
rather on the overall abusive conduct of the club.
94. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
KWD 42,235.40 to the Claimant (i.e., KWD 60,000 minus KWD 14,764.60), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
95. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request and article 2.4 of the Contract,
the Chamber awarded him one-way economy flight tickets from Kuwait to Tunisia.
Consequently, the Chamber referred to FIFA Travel and was able to establish that the value
of said flight tickets amounts to USD 222.50.
96. Finally, and taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 18 August 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
100. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16672
101. 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
102. 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.
103. 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.
104. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16672
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Aymen Sfaxi, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Countercaimant, ARABI SC is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the
following amount(s):
- KWD 42,235.40 and USD 224.50 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 18 August 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:
1. The Respondent/Counterclaimant 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.
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. 21
REF. FPSD-16672
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. 22