Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16787
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Chamsse Eddine Harrag
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Chamsse Eddine Harrag, Algeria
Represented by Anis Ben Mime
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Al Sadd Club, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Ahmad Alamir
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16787
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 August 2024, the Algerian player Chamsse Eddine Harrag (hereinafter: the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent or the Player) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Sadd Club (hereinafter:
the Respondent / Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 30 August 2024 until 30 April 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a signing bonus
totalling USD 15,000, payable in two instalments of USD 7,500, respectively on 30
September 2024 and on 30 February 2025, as well as a monthly salary of USD 3,375 on the
last day of each month.
3.
According to article 5 of the Contract, the Player was also entitled to annual paid leave as
follows:
“1- Players are entitled to paid annual leave of (at least 28 days). They are entitled in all
circumstances to a minimum of 28 days' leave every 12 months, as well as paid leave of at least
two consecutive weeks after the first part of the sporting season and at least two consecutive
weeks after the last official match of the season. The above periods of paid leave shall be applied
proportionally if the contract is for less than 12 months.
2- Annual leave must be agreed between the parties in advance. Generally, the player may only
take annual leave when his club has no official matches to play. If the parties, acting reasonably,
cannot agree on the dates of annual leave, the Club shall determine the Player's annual leave
dates based on the needs of its sporting activities, taking into account as far as possible the
interests of the Player. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
4.
Furthermore, article 7 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“The player undertakes to:
[…]
attend all training sessions, training camps, seminars, press conferences and other events that
may be requested by the Club from time to time;
participate in all friendly and official matches of the Club, at the request of the Club, on the dates
specified; […]”
(Freely translated from French)
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16787
5.
In addition, article 10 of the Contract read as follows:
“1- In the event of a dispute concerning the terms and conditions of this contract, both parties
shall make every reasonable effort to resolve the dispute amicably.
2- Disputes shall be submitted to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation, as the competent authority of first instance for disputes of a local nature, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation's legislation,
the Saudi Arabian Football Federation's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and
the Regulations of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation's Dispute Resolution Chamber.
3- Decisions rendered by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation may be appealed to the Saudi Arabian Sports Arbitration Centre. Both parties
recognize the absolute and final authority of said Centre with regard to disputes of a local
nature.”
(Freely translated from French)
6.
Lastly, article 12 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“[…] If either party terminates the contract for just cause, the termination indemnity payable
shall be an amount equal to: (one month's salary). […]”
(Freely translated from French)
7.
On 1 October 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment within 15
days of outstanding remuneration amounting to USD 10,875, i.e. the first instalment of the
signing bonus in the amount of USD 7,500 as well as the monthly salary of USD 3,375 for
September 2024.
8.
On 18 October 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 28 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
10. In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to
outstanding remuneration.
11. Accordingly, the Player requested payment of the following amounts:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16787
•
USD 6,750 as the outstanding monthly salaries for August and September 2024, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 30 August 2024;
•
USD 7,500 as the outstanding signing bonus, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30
September 2024;
•
USD 3,375 as annual paid leave, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 October 2024; and
•
USD 60,125 as compensation for the breach of the Contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 18 October 2024.
b. Reply of the Club and counterclaim
12. In its reply, the Club disputed the competence of FIFA in favour of the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the NDRC) of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation
(hereinafter: the SAFF) in accordance with article 10 of the Contract.
13. Notwithstanding the above, the Club argued that it commenced on 23 September 2024 the
procedure for terminating the Contract, as the Player had failed to join the team and had
demonstrated no intention to do so, having been absent since 30 August 30 2024. In this
regard, the Club stated that it had contacted the Player in order to pay him one month's
salary in accordance with article 12 of the Contract, but that it had never received a reply
containing his bank details.
14. In addition, the Club argued that the Player breached the Contract, notably its article 7, as
he failed to attend all training sessions and matches. In other words, it is the position of
the Club that the Player failed to fulfil his contractual obligations due to his prolonged
absence without proper authorization, which constitutes a valid basis for the suspension
of his remuneration.
15. In view of the above, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player and requested the
following:
“i. It is respectfully submitted that the Claimant’s claim should be rejected on the grounds that
FIFA lacks the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate this specific employment dispute.
ii. Should FIFA assert its jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the dispute;
a. Reject all of the Claimant’s Financial demands.
b. Evaluating the Claimant as the party that unilaterally terminated the Employment
Contract without valid justification.
c. Order the Claimant to pay the Respondent a financial compensation equivalent to
one month’s salary.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16787
d. Impose Sanctions on the Claimant pursuant the Article 17of the RSTP.”
c. Additional comments of the Club
16. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), on 7
March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to amend its position, should it
wish to do so, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the
interim regulatory framework to this case.
17. In this context, the FIFA general secretariat received a correspondence from the Club in
reply thereto, in which it reiterated its initial position and requests for relief.
d. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
18. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player reiterated his initial position, namely that he is
entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for the Club’s breach of the
Contract. In particular, the Player argued that the Club’s conduct was abusive, as it was
intended to force him to terminate the Contract.
e. Replica of the Club
19. In its replica, the Club maintained its position that the NDRC of the SAFF is the competent
decision-making body to hear the present matter.
20. In addition, the Club argued that the Player failed to provide any evidence in accordance
with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules to support his assertion that it behaved in an
abusive manner.
21. Lastly, the Club added that the Player did not terminate the Contract with just cause due
to outstanding remuneration, as the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations have not
been met in the present matter. In this regard, the Club reiterated that the Player was not
entitled to any remuneration from 30 August 2024 to 18 October 2024, as he failed to fulfil
his contractual obligations without proper authorization.
22. Considering the foregoing, the Club requested as follows:
“i. Decline jurisdiction in favor of the Saudi Dispute Resolution Chamber as per Article 10,
Paragraph 2 of the Employment Contract;
ii. Alternatively, find that the player terminated the contract without just cause;
iii. Reject all of the player's financial demands;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16787
iv. Order the player to pay the Club compensation equivalent to one month's salary (USD 3,375);
v. Impose appropriate sporting sanctions on the player pursuant to Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP
for terminating the contract without just cause during the protected period.”
f. Duplica of the Player
23. In his duplica, the Player argued that FIFA is the competent decision-making body to hear
the present matter and reiterated his position that the Club’s conduct was abusive, as it
was intended to force him to terminate the Contract.
24. In this context, the Player reiterated his initial requests for relief and argued that he is
entitled to the remaining value of the Contract as article 12 of the Contract is not applicable
to the present matter.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 28 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 14 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
26. 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), it is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
an Algerian player and a Saudi Arabian club.
27. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge took note that the Club contested FIFA’s
jurisdiction in this matter in favour of the NDRC of the SAFF.
28. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that art. 26 par. 1 lit c) of the Regulations
(February, June and October 2024, January 2025 and July 2025 editions) establishes that
“Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January
2025. Any other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”. As a result, the
Chamber considered that it had to assess this part of the claim using the May 2023 edition
of the Regulations, as this claim was brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16787
29. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art.
22, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle, competent to
hear an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement, and which must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs. Any such arbitration clause must be included either
directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties.
The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect
the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred
to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
30. In the present matter, the Chamber recalled the following wording of article 10 of the
Contract to analyse whether it contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour
of the NDRC of the SAFF.
“1- In the event of a dispute concerning the terms and conditions of this contract, both parties
shall make every reasonable effort to resolve the dispute amicably.
2- Disputes shall be submitted to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation, as the competent authority of first instance for disputes of a local nature, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation's legislation,
the Saudi Arabian Football Federation's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and
the Regulations of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation's Dispute Resolution Chamber.
3- Decisions rendered by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation may be appealed to the Saudi Arabian Sports Arbitration Centre. Both parties
recognize the absolute and final authority of said Centre with regard to disputes of a local
nature.”
31. After analysing the content of the jurisdiction clause inserted in the Contract, the Chamber
concluded that it was indeed clear and exclusive in favour of the competence of the NDRC
of the SAFF.
32. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the further prerequisites for establishing the competence of a NDRC. In this regard, the Chamber referred
to principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle
is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute
resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as
in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as
follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16787
renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player
and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected
or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no
such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between
three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the FIFA
Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the
appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to
appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration
tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group
that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the
arbitrator list”.
33. With the above in mind, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation presented
by the Club and noted that no documentary evidence was provided to prove that the NDRC
of the SAFF indeed respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. In
fact, the Chamber held that the requirements of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
detailed in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations,
could not be established in the present matter.
34. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Club failed to discharge its burden of proof
according to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and therefore its objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected. Accordingly, the
Chamber decided that it is competent to consider the present matter as to the substance,
on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16787
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
38. 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 by the
Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club as
per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
39. On one hand, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he terminated the Contract
with just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
40. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the position of the Club, according to which
the Player breached the Contract, as he failed to fulfil his contractual obligations due to his
prolonged absence without proper authorization, which constituted a valid basis for the
suspension of his remuneration.
41. Considering the position of the respective parties, the Chamber acknowledged that its task
was to determine, based on the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed
amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal
pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
42. In this context, the Chamber first recalled the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails 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).
43. In the present matter, the Chamber noted that, on 1 October 2024, the Player did put the
Club in default and requested payment within 15 days of USD 10,875, i.e. the first
instalment of the signing bonus due on 30 September 2024 in the amount of USD 7,500
and the monthly salary of USD 3,375 for September 2024, also due on 30 September 2024.
44. With the above in mind, the Chamber established that on the day of the Player’s default
notice, he did not have more than two outstanding monthly salaries. In this regard, the
Chamber once again recalled the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations and highlighted
that said provision refers strictly to the concept of “salaries” and therefore does not include
a signing bonus. In doing so, the Chamber pointed out that the threshold set out in the
cited provision was not reached in the case at stake, as only the monthly salary for
September 2024 was outstanding on 1 October 2024.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16787
45. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations
were not met in the present matter. However, the Chamber highlighted that this does not
mean per se that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract. In this regard,
the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 14 of the Regulations, "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 it can no longer be reasonably expected in good faith from a party
to continue a contractual relationship."
46. Generally, as stated in art. 14 of the Regulations, a premature termination may be issued
only in circumstances in which it can no longer, reasonably and in good faith, be expected
from the party issuing the termination to continue the respective contractual relationship.
In other words, and in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the
termination of a contract should always be an action of last resort, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case. In other words, as consistently held by this
Chamber, a premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
47. In continuation, the Chamber highlighted that the first instalment of the Player’s signing
bonus due on 30 September 2024 amounted to more than two monthly salaries, i.e. USD
7,500. In addition, the Chamber pointed out that, on 18 October 2024, i.e. the date of
termination of the Contract by the Player, his outstanding remuneration amounted to USD
10,875, i.e. more than three monthly salaries.
48. In fact, the Chamber was of the opinion that that the outstanding amount of USD 10,875,
corresponding to the first instalment of the signing bonus and the monthly salary for
September 2024, is significant enough to justify an ultima ratio measure, notably because
the Club had been put in default of payment in this regard and granted a 15-day deadline
to comply with its financial obligations.
49. In this respect, the Chamber determined that the fundamental terms and conditions which
formed the basis of the Contract were no longer respected by the Club, despite the default
notice given by the Player. The Chamber also noted that, in the case at hand, the Club bore
the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract
concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the Club failed
to provide any evidence to prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by
the Player.
50. Consequently, on account of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the
Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 18 October 2024 based on
art. 14 of the Regulations, as the Club had repeatedly and for a significant period of time
been in breach of its contractual obligations.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16787
51. Lastly, the Chamber held that the foregoing finding, i.e. that the Player had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, necessarily leads to the conclusion that the
counterclaim of the Club is rejected.
52. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it, and went
on to analyse the documentation provided by the Club in support of its allegation that the
Player failed to fulfil his contractual obligations due to his prolonged absence without
proper authorization. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the Club did not
discharge its burden of proof as it failed to provide any evidence in this regard.
ii. Consequences
53. 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.
54. The Chamber observed that the Player’s outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination of the Contract, coupled with his specific requests for relief, are equivalent to
USD 14,250, i.e. USD 7,500 as the first instalment of the signing bonus and USD 6,750 as
the monthly salaries for September and October 2024.
55. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player USD 14,250 as the
outstanding amounts under the Contract at the moment of its termination.
56. In addition, 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
•
5% p.a. on USD 10,875, i.e. the monthly salary for September 2024 and the first
instalment of the signing bonus, as from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
5% p.a. on USD 3,375, i.e. the monthly salary for October 2024, as from 18 October
2024 until the date of effective payment.
57. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16787
58. 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 took note
of the following wording of article 12 of the Contract:
“[…] If either party terminates the contract for just cause, the termination indemnity payable
shall be an amount equal to: (one month's salary). […]”
59. After analysing the content of the aforementioned compensation clause, the Chamber
disregarded it due to its lack of proportionality in line with the longstanding jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal. In particular, the Chamber was of the opinion that the clause is
not valid, even though it is reciprocal as it triggers the same consequences for either party.
In fact, the Chamber considered that the clause is not proportionate considering the
residual value of the Contract and the principle of contractual stability.
60. In addition, the Chamber pointed out that, although the Player had agreed to the said
compensation clause, and there was no proof that he was subject to any undue pressure
to sign the Contract, its article 12 involved a structure that disproportionately favoured the
Club and gave it an easy way of terminating the employment relationship at any moment.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that there was not a balance of bargaining power
between the Club and the Player, and decided accordingly that compensation for the
breach of the Contract will be calculated based on article 17 of the Regulations and will be
subject to mitigation.
61. As a consequence, the members of 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 the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
62. 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 USD 27,750 (i.e. the monthly salaries from November 2024
until April 2025 as well as the second instalment of the signing bonus) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
63. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16787
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.
64. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
65. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of USD 27,750
to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
66. 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 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
67. Lastly, with respect to the Player’s request for annual paid leave, the Chamber held that
article 5 of the Contract does not entitle him to any additional remuneration beyond the
value of the Contract, and that, in any event, such leave must have been taken during the
term of the employment relationship. Thus, in the absence of any evidence substantiating
the Player’s claim, the Chamber decided to reject the request
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16787
71. 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.
72. 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
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16787
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Chamsse Eddine
Harrag.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent, Al Sadd Club, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 14,250 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 10,875 as from 1 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,375 as from 18 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
- USD 27,750 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18
October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16787
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16787
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. 18