Acórdão do FIFA
Processo FPSD-16957 MOHAMED_2025-09-25

REF. FPSD-16957

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Ahmed Hamid Mohamed

COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member

CLAIMANT:
Al Merreikh KH, Sudan
Represented by Sport Makers

FIRST RESPONDENT:
Ahmed Hamid Mohamed, Sudan
Represented by Lamjed Belkahia

SECOND RESPONDENT:
Swehly Club, Libya

pg. 2

REF. FPSD-16957

I. Facts of the case
1.

On 1 November 2022, the Sudanese club Al Merreikh KH (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the
Sudanese player Ahmed Hamid Mohamed (hereinafter: the First Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 1
November 2024.

2.

Article 12 of the Contract read as follows:
“[…] As far as the Parties would like to deviate or enter into additional agreements from this
Contract, such relevant agreements shall be expressly stipulated in the Football Player’s
Schedule 2 to this Contract which, if signed by the Parties and approved by the SFA, states an
integral part of this Contract.”

3.

On 27 January 2024, the Claimant and the First Respondent agreed to extend the Contract
by entering into a second employment contract (hereinafter: the Second Contract), valid as
from its date of signature until 30 April 2025.

4.

Based on the information on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant undertook
to pay the First Respondent a monthly salary of SDG 100,000 under the Second Contract
and the First Respondent’s total fixed remuneration amounts to SDG 1,516,129.03.

5.

In addition, article 6 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“1. The Player is entitled to thirty (30) days leave per contractual year.
2. Leave if primarily to be taken during match-free periods and must be used for relaxation
purposes. Leave dates must be agreed upon with the Club. […]”

6.

Furthermore, article 10 of the Second Contract read as follows:
“[…] If the Club terminates this Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to the
Player compensation equal to the total amount of: five hundred million Sudanese pounds only.
If the Player terminates this Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to the Club
compensation equal to the total amount of: five hundred million Sudanese pounds only. […]”

7.

On the same day, i.e., 27 January 2024, the Claimant concluded an agreement with the First
Respondent and the Libyan club Swehly Club (hereinafter: the Second Respondent) for the
loan of the First Respondent to the Second Respondent (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement),
effective from the date of signature and for a duration of six months.

8.

On the same day, i.e., 27 January 2024, the Claimant informed the Sudan Football
Association (hereinafter: the SFA) of the extension of the Contract.

pg. 3

REF. FPSD-16957

9.

On 31 July 2024, the Mauritanian Football Association (hereinafter: the MFA) informed the
SFA that the Claimant is invited to participate in its national league due to the war in Sudan.

10. On the same day, i.e., 31 July 2024, the SFA answered the correspondence from the MFA,
noting its acceptance of the Claimant’s participation in the Mauritanian league.
11. On 5 August 2024, the First Respondent sent the following correspondence to the Claimant:
“[…] Subject: Notice of Termination of the Employment Contract Dated 27/01/2024, Pursuant to
Clause 3 of Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
Greetings,
On 27/01/2024, the employment contract binding me to Al-Merrikh Sports Club was extended,
with the new termination date set for 30/04/2025. Clause 3 of Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players stipulates that:
Unilateral breach without just cause or sporting just cause after the protected period shall not
result in sporting sanctions. Disciplinary measures may, however, be imposed outside the
protected period for failure to give notice of termination within 15 days of the last official match
of the season (including national cups) of the club with which the player is registered. The
protected period starts again when, while renewing the contract, the duration of the previous
contract is extended
On 22/07/2024, Al-Merrikh Sports Club played its last official match of the 2023/2024 season.
Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, I hereby notify you of the
termination of the said employment contract, dated 27/01/2024, pursuant to Clause 3 of Article
17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. I also inform you that I have
transferred an amount equivalent to the remaining contractual period to the bank account of
the Sudanese Football Association for your benefit. […]”
12. On 11 August 2024, the SFA informed the Claimant that the First Respondent did not
submit any complaint or notification regarding the Second Contract.
13. On the same day, i.e., 11 August 2024, the Claimant requested the First Respondent to
determine his location within 24 hours and to join the team within 48 hours.
14. On 15 August 2024, the Claimant received an offer of USD 150,000 from the Libyan club Al
Nasser SC to obtain the services of the First Respondent.

pg. 4

REF. FPSD-16957

15. On 19 August 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the First
Respondent:
“[…] Subject: Final warning and instructions to join the club’s mission in Juba
1-We refer to the letter from the manager of the first football team dated August 11th, addressed
to you to join the Al-Merrikh mission in Benghazi within 48 hours and to respond to the letter
within 24 hours.
2-Since you have not responded yet, and you have not contacted the team captain or the football
manager, despite the end of your loan to Al-Suwaihli [sic] Club of Libya on 27/7/2024.
3-Your current situation and lack of response make you in violation of Article (22) of the First
Football Team Regulations for the year2024 Paragraphs (a) -(c)-(e)-(h).
4-Therefore, you are given a final warning to immediately join the club’s ongoing mission in Juba
on Thursday 22 August according to the reservation with the attached Flydubai ticket. […]”
16. On the same day, i.e., 19 August 2024, the Claimant purchased a flight ticket for the First
Respondent for travel from Qatar to South Sudan, scheduled for 22 August 2024.
17. On 26 August 2024, the Claimant issued the following decision against the First
Respondent:
“[…] Pursuant to Article (1/26) of the regulations governing the first football team for the year
2024, the following decision has been taken:
1. Formation of a Disciplinary Council for the player: Ahmed Hamed Mahmoud (Al-Tish), chaired
by Mr. Al-Sadiq Abdul Rahim Ahmed Ali, Director of Public Relations, acting on behalf of the club.
2. Reason: Failure to comply with his electronic obligations before the deadline of July 27, 2024.
3. Attached documents: Correspondence sent to the player, as well as a Fly Dubai airline ticket
(Doha-Juba) dated August 22, 2024.
4. Summons: The Council orders the player to appear in writing or choose any means of
electronic communication to defend himself within five (5) days of the date of this decision.
5. Penalty for non-compliance: In accordance with Article 26/26 of the regulations, the player
will be judged in his absence if he does not comply with the summons or request electronic
communication.
6. Decision deadline: The Council will submit its final decision no later than one week after the
issuance of this resolution. […]”

pg. 5

REF. FPSD-16957

(Freely translated from French)
18. On the same day, i.e., 26 August 2024, the Claimant sent this additional correspondence to
the First Respondent:
“[…] Subject: Order to appear before the Disciplinary Council
1. Please take note of the decision of the Director General regarding the formation of a
Disciplinary Council to judge the offenses attributed to you.
2. You are ordered to appear before the Board at its office in Cairo, boulevard Ammar Ben
Yesser, Egypt, Jadida, before August 30, 2024, or to submit an electronic request to the Chairman
of the Board to contact him electronically in order to consult the charges and present your
defense.
3. Please note that in the event of no response or refusal to appear, the Council reserves the
right to examine the charges in your absence and to render a decision. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
19. On 1 September 2024, the Claimant suspended the First Respondent for a period of six
months and imposed a fine of USD 150,000.
20. On 4 September 2024, the First Respondent sent the following correspondence to the
Claimant:
“[…] Subject: Response to disciplinary measures and notification of unilateral suspension of
contract
[...]
Dear Sir, We hope this message finds you in good health.
We, as the legal representative of Sudanese player Ahmed Hamed Mahmoud Mohamed, confirm
receipt of your correspondence dated September 1, 2024, in which you announce a six-month
suspension and a fine of USD 150,000 against the player. After a thorough analysis of the facts
and circumstances surrounding this decision, we have found that it contains serious flaws
rendering it illegal and unenforceable. It should also be noted that the club failed to take into
account the exceptional circumstances related to the ongoing war in Sudan. As a result, the
player has officially decided to unilaterally suspend his contract effective September 1, 2024, for
the following reasons, including security concerns that prevent him from fulfilling his obligations
as detailed below:
1. Lack of proper legal procedure and correct communication:

pg. 6

REF. FPSD-16957

The sanctions were imposed during the player's paid biological leave period, which expired on
August 31, 2024, after the end of his loan period at Club Al-Swehli on July 31, 2024. The timing
of the imposition of sanctions immediately after the leave period raises doubts about the club's
intention to deprive my client of his legal and contractual rights.
Furthermore, during the annual leave period (30 paid days that the player had not taken since
the beginning of the year up to that date), the player was physically present in Qatar, where he
was seeking to obtain a residence permit to ensure the safety of his family by transferring them
from Libya to Qatar. Despite the club's knowledge of his location and the purpose of his presence
there, he was not properly informed of the disciplinary communications dated August 11, 19,
and 26, 2024, and there is no evidence that he received them. This deprived my client of his
fundamental right to a proper defense and led to a violation of his right to due process.
2. Excessive and unjustified sanctions:
The fine of $150,000 imposed on the player, equivalent to 3,000 times his monthly salary of $50,
is an excessive and unjustified sanction. It is also completely disproportionate to the alleged
conduct, especially since the signing bonus received was not an advance on his total fixed salary,
but a bonus for signing the contract on November 1, 2022. Furthermore, the six-month ban on
all sporting activities is a unilateral measure with no real or legal basis, aimed solely at freezing
his activity and generalising it at international level through the international transfer system.
3. Failure to provide a visa and address security concerns:
After the player's loan period ended on July 31, 2024, the club did not provide a visa for him to
travel to Libya to meet with management, nor did it arrange a visa for him to travel to Egypt for
the alleged meetings. During this period, the player was in Qatar securing a residence for himself
and his family due to the deteriorating security conditions in Sudan. Despite the club's
knowledge of these conditions, no support or assistance was provided to my client, which led to
a violation of his human and professional rights.
Furthermore, the absence of active football competitions or a professional environment in
Sudan due to the civil war reinforces the fact that the player cannot fulfill his contractual
obligations. On the other hand, the club's main focus was to ensure the player's registration in
the club's lists after requesting the return of the international transfer certificate before the end
of the loan period, without taking into account the player's fundamental rights and the physical
safety and well-being of the player and his family. This demonstrates bad faith through
continued ignorance of the impacts of the contract due to force majeure resulting from the
ongoing civil war, preventing any sporting activity in Sudan and travel to and from that country.
4. Bad faith and manipulation of timing in issuing the sanction:
The disciplinary sanction was imposed immediately after the end of the loan period and the
leave period ending on August 31, 2024, and the issuance of the sanction on the following day,
coinciding with the closure of the international transfer window, indicates the club's intention to
prevent my client from exercising his right to transfer or sign with other clubs. This timing is clear
evidence of bad faith and manipulation of my client's rights, constituting a direct violation of

pg. 7

REF. FPSD-16957

fundamental principles of justice. Furthermore, this decision aims to deprive the player of his
right to suspend his contract under the applicable regulations in the exceptional circumstances
resulting from the ongoing war in Sudan.
It should also be noted that the disciplinary sanction was imposed without any legal basis, given
that the alleged internal regulations were not an integral part of the contract, and there is no
evidence that the player was informed of them or received them. This behavior reflects an illegal
attempt by the club to violate the player's fundamental rights, including the right to defense and
the right to appeal.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we hereby officially inform you that the player Ahmed
Hamed Mahmoud Mohamed, holder of Sudanese passport number P07087148, has decided to
unilaterally suspend his contract as of September 1, 2024, pursuant to the provisions of Annex
No. 07 of FIFA regulations governing exceptional circumstances in the event of war, until official
competitions resume under the auspices of the Sudanese Football Association. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
21. On the same day, i.e., 4 September 2024, the First Respondent sent the following
correspondence to the Second Respondent:
“[…] Subject: Request for recruitment as a free agent
Attachments:
• Copy of the notification dated September 4, 2024, sent to Club Al-Merrikh regarding
the suspension of my contract with the club.
• Copy of the decision by Club Al-Merrikh suspending me for a period of six months with
a fine of US$150,000.
Sir,
After greetings,
I refer to the attachments detailing the suspension of my contract with Club Al-Merrikh as of
September 1, 2024, due to the illegal disciplinary decision taken against me by the club. This
decision includes a six-month suspension and a fine of US$150,000, without justification or clear
reason. This decision was taken in the exceptional context of the war in Sudan, which has led to
the suspension of sporting activities in the country since April 15, 2024, to date.
Given the failure of Al-Merrikh Club to guarantee my safety and that of my family, as well as the
absence of a safe country for us in these difficult circumstances, I have decided to suspend my
contract with the club as of September 1, 2024, based primarily on Annex 7 of the FIFA
Regulations (FIFA RSTP) and secondarily on the unilateral behavior of Al-Merrikh Club.
Therefore, I am officially informing you of my availability to join Club Al-Swehly as a free agent,
should you wish to sign me for the current season. I kindly ask you to consider my request and

pg. 8

REF. FPSD-16957

respond after obtaining approval from the club's technical staff, hoping to benefit from your
support during this difficult period. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
22. On 9 September 2024, the Second Respondent answered the latest correspondence from
the First Respondent as follows:
“[…] Subject: Clarification on the possibility of recruiting the player under special circumstances
and the need for FIFA approval
Dear Sir,
Further to your letter dated September 4, 2024, we acknowledge receipt of your notification
regarding the suspension of your contract with Al-Merrikh Club effective September 1, 2024, due
to the ongoing war in Sudan and the lack of cooperation from Al-Merrikh Club in ensuring your
safety and that of your family. We thank you for contacting us and for your desire to join AlSwehly Club.
We wish to inform you that we fully understand the difficulty of your current situation, given the
difficult circumstances caused by the war in Sudan. However, in accordance with the regulations
in force, we are not authorized to negotiate with a player who is still under contract with his
previous club, particularly in the absence of cooperation from Al-Merrikh club.
In this particular context, we can only provide you with a definitive answer after obtaining an
official explanation and approval from FIFA to confirm that your situation falls under Annex 7
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP), which deals with
exceptional cases such as wars.
Although the Libyan Football Federation has issued rules stipulating that Sudanese players are
not considered foreign players due to the war, a decision taken since the start of the 2023/2024
season, we need official confirmation from FIFA before taking any further action.
We, together with the Libyan Football Federation, are committed to supporting you during this
difficult period, but we are awaiting confirmation from FIFA to ensure that all actions taken are
in accordance with international regulations.
We kindly ask for your understanding of our position and will inform you as soon as we receive
a response from FIFA. […]”
(Freely translated from French)

pg. 9

REF. FPSD-16957

23. On the same day, i.e., 9 September 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence
to the First Respondent:
“[…] Subject: Final warning regarding contractual violations and a demand to pay the agreed
compensation
Greetings,
With reference to the contract concluded between you and Al-Merreikh Sports Club on January
27, 2024, which ends on April 30, 2025, and based on the serious violations you have recently
committed, we would like to clarify the following:
1. Absence from the team:
You were absent from joining the team mission on July 27, 2024 after the end of your loan to AlSwehli Club of Libya, without providing any acceptable excuse or justification, which constitutes
a clear breach of your contractual obligations.
2. Illegal notice of termination of the contract:
On August 5, 2024, you sent a notice of termination based on paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, claiming that there were reasons
justifying the termination of the contract. We assure you that these allegations are false and not
based on any fair or legal grounds. Accordingly, your termination of the contract is a clear
violation of its terms.
3. Financial claims:
According to the clause in the contract which states:
"If the player terminates this contract without fair cause, the player shall pay the club
compensation in the amount of five hundred million Sudanese pounds”. (500,000,000)
According to your letter to us in which you stated that you paid an amount to our account with
the Sudanese Football Association, we inform you that upon investigation, the Association stated
that it did not receive any amounts or transfers from you to our account .
Therefore, we demand that you pay the full amount of compensation due as a result of your
termination of the contract without fair cause, noting that this amount is due immediately
without delay.
Accordingly, and as a final warning, we demand the following from you:
Pay the amount of 500,000 million Sudanese pounds due for the termination of the contract
without fair cause, in accordance with the contractual terms concluded between us.
In the event of failure to respond immediately to this warning within ten (10) days from the date
of receipt of this warning, all necessary legal and disciplinary measures will be taken, including

pg. 10

REF. FPSD-16957

filing a complaint with the competent authorities, and demanding all contractual and financial
rights of the club. This warning is final, and in the event that you continue to violate contractual
obligations, the player bears full legal responsibility and consequences arising therefrom.”
24. On 11 September 2024, the First Respondent answered the latest correspondence from
the Claimant as follows:
“[…] Hello,
I am writing on behalf of my client, Ahmed Hamid Mahmoud Mohamed, to acknowledge receipt
of your letter dated September 9, 2024, and to respond officially to the points raised:
Firstly, we reject the club's allegation that my client failed to report his absence after the end of
his loan with Al-Suwahili on July 31, 2024. My client was on a 30-day legal leave, as stipulated in
the contract, and during that period he was in Qatar to obtain a visa for his family due to the
ongoing war in Sudan, so there was no breach of my client's contractual obligations during that
period, and the club was fully informed of his situation. Furthermore, the club's allegation that
my client unilaterally terminated the contract on August 5, 2024, is unfounded. According to
Articles 1 and 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, any unilateral termination requires clear notice
and just cause, which did not occur.
The parties continued to act in accordance with the terms of the contract after August 5, and
the club did not raise any dispute until September 9, 2024. Furthermore, the disciplinary
sanctions imposed by the club on September 1, 2024, i.e. the day after the end of the 30-day
statutory notice period — which raises doubts, to say the least — which included a six-month
suspension and a fine of US$150,000, prove unequivocally that the contract was still in force at
that time.
Indeed, my client officially confirmed on September 4, 2024, the suspension of his contract,
effective September 1, 2024, due to the unjustified sanctions imposed by the club. This
suspension is fully in accordance with Annex 7 of the regulations on the status and transfer of
players in force in Sudan, and there is no legal or factual justification for the club's disciplinary
measures.
With regard to the contract extension dated January 27, 2024, we confirm that this extension is
invalid and was imposed without the mutual agreement of my client, which is an essential
condition under Swiss law. The extension was imposed as a condition for the loan of my client,
which violates Articles 1, 2, 29, and 30 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
Such pressure constitutes coercion, rendering the extension legally null and void. Furthermore,
the misuse of the TMS system to link my client's release to this extension violates several FIFA
provisions, including: Article 9.1, which requires issuance without undue delay or conditions;
Article 8.2 of Annex 3, which requires prompt processing to avoid manipulation of transfers.
Article 4 of Annex 3, which prohibits abuse of the system.

pg. 11

REF. FPSD-16957

We have officially informed the club of the nullity of this extension on August 5, 2024, and
confirm that it has no legal effect. The extension cannot modify or extend the original contract,
which is due to expire on November 1, 2024. We therefore request that the club officially
acknowledge that the contractual relationship will end on that date.
Furthermore, the six-month suspension imposed by the club without just cause is an implicit
acknowledgment of the suspension of the contract. This suspension, which lacks valid
justification, appears to be an attempt to manipulate my client's registration during the period
of war in Sudan. It is also worth confirming that upon the resumption of competitions in Sudan,
my client will complete the remaining three months of the contract, from September 1 to
November 1, 2024, as stipulated in the original agreement.
Until then, the contract remains suspended. My client also reserves the right to resume his duties
under the contract at the end of the war and upon the resumption of competitions under the
auspices of the Sudanese Football Federation.
Until then, my client remains in full compliance with all legal obligations. We therefore request
that the club cease all attempts to manipulate the transfer process, which has been used in bad
faith to exert pressure on my client. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
25. On 16 September 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Claimant:
“[…] Subject: Final Notice and Response to Your Letter Dated September 11, 2024
Greetings,
With reference to the warning we sent you regarding your wrongful conduct and your defenses,
which were far from focusing on appealing the penalty imposed on you by the Disciplinary
Committee, we would like to point out that your memorandum contained many inaccuracies
and an attempt to build a fictitious defense that has nothing to do with the actual facts.
1. Regarding the residency and securing your family's safety due to the war, we confirm that this
claim is untrue, as the residency in Qatar was arranged for you by the Al-Merrikh Association in
Qatar two years ago when you underwent cruciate ligament surgery. Your residency was
renewed again after being canceled [sic] by the previous sponsor, and it has nothing to do with
the war in Sudan.
2. Regarding the imposed fine, we find that it is not as excessive as you claimed. The last contract
signed with you was worth $300,000 upfront, which is a higher amount considering the repeated
injuries and loan spells.

pg. 12

REF. FPSD-16957

3. The relevant regulations were issued in 2024 during your loan period, and you were supposed
to receive a copy of them upon your return. A final warning was issued to you, clearly indicating
your violation of its provisions.
4. As for communication methods, the warnings and travel tickets were sent via WhatsApp, and
sometimes through email, in addition to representatives from Doha contacting you. This method
has proven effective, as you received the penalty via WhatsApp.
We would like to emphasize the following points, which were incorrectly presented and are
contrary to reality:
1. Incorrect Facts: Your memorandum contained numerous inaccuracies. The Al-Merrikh team
left Sudan on March 22 (during your loan period) and did not return. The team remained in
training camp in Ismailia, participated in the Sudanese Super Cup in Tanzania, then moved to a
friendly tournament in Nigeria before playing preliminary matches for the CAF Champions
League. After qualifying for the second round, the team played against the Royal Army in Juba,
then travelled [sic] to Rabat for the second match. Afterward, the team will participate in the
Mauritanian league with the approval of the Mauritanian, Sudanese, and African federations.
What is the connection between the war in Sudan and the team's intensive international
schedule?
2. The Alleged Leave: Who granted you leave? Did you inform the club's management of this?
Do you consider yourself on leave on your own without consulting the club's management,
especially since your contract requires full commitment to the team's programs?
3. Telephone Call: In a phone call with you, we asked you to join the team's delegation in Nigeria,
but you replied that you were considering loan offers from Libyan clubs and would travel
afterward. You were supposed to join the team’s African roster, which remained open until the
end of August, to contribute alongside your teammates as stipulated in your contract.
We hope for your full compliance with your contractual obligations and that you cease the
violations committed. This is a final warning; otherwise, we will take all legal actions in
accordance with the club's and the Sudanese Football Association's regulations. […]”
26. On 21 September 2024, the First Respondent answered the latest correspondence from
the Claimant as follows:
“[…] 1. Response to Allegations Regarding Residency and Security
The club’s claim that the player’s residence in Qatar that was provided by the club two years ago
is completely false. The player independently secured his residence after the war in Sudan began
in 2023. No assistance was provided by the club or any third party related to Al-Merrikh. The
accommodation was secured solely through the player’s personal efforts and resources. The
date of the residence issuance itself proves the club's claim to be untrue.

pg. 13

REF. FPSD-16957

Furthermore, the player was solely responsible for living expenses for himself and his family,
demonstrating a lack of financial or logistical support from the club, contrary to the allegations
made.
The club’s attempt to distort the truth about the player's circumstances is another example of
the bad faith shown throughout this period.
2. Response to Allegations Regarding the Fine
The claim that the fine is not excessive is factually inaccurate. The fine of $150,000 is 3,000 times
the player’s monthly salary of $50, making it an arbitrary and disproportionate penalty. The
Allegation that the player received an advance payment of $300,000 is misleading, as this
amount includes compensation for injuries and the loan agreement, and has justification for
the excessive fine. This indicates bad faith on the part of Al-Merrikh, thereby supporting the
player’s right to terminate the contract in accordance with Article 14.2 of the FIFA RSTP.
3. Response to Allegations Regarding Football Regulations
The club claims that the football regulations, which were issued during the player’s loan period
in 2024, would be provided upon his return. However, the player never received a copy of these
regulations nor was he informed of their contents. It is important to note that the player did not
return to Sudan and did not rejoin the team after the paid leave, making it unreasonable for the
club to accuse him of violating provisions he was not aware of and did not breach. Therefore,
this claim has no grounds.
Additionally, the fact that Al-Merrikh issued the disciplinary letter on September 1, 2024,
immediately after the player’s legal paid leave ended on August 31, 2024, clearly indicates bad
faith. The club imposed harsh sanctions without giving the player sufficient time to return or
communicate, especially considering the ongoing war in Sudan. The player’s safety concerns and
inability to return due to force majeure were completely ignored, and the timing of the penalty
demonstrates an abuse of power intended to coerce and unfairly punish the player. The club's
actions reflect a misuse of its dominant position, deliberately aiming to interfere with the player’s
rights. Furthermore, the club provided no formal evidence of how it expected the player to return
under such difficult circumstances. This timing and behavior highlight the bad faith shown by
the club, in violation of the FIFA regulations under Article 14.2 of the RSTP.
4. Response to Allegations Regarding Communication and Bad Faith
The club was fully aware that the player was in Qatar to secure residency and arrange his
family's relocation due to the ongoing war in Sudan. Despite this, the club imposed sanctions
during the player's legal leave, ignoring his critical safety needs. Theplayer obtained his
residency on August 28, 2024, yet the club imposed sanctions just a few days later, on September
1, 2024, clearly disregarding the player’s situation and acting in bad faith.
Under Article 14.2 of the FIFA RSTP, this constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. The club failed
to support the player or assist in protecting his family during a time of crisis, and imposed
disproportionate and unjustified sanctions immediately following the end of his legal leave. The

pg. 14

REF. FPSD-16957

sanctions had no legal basis and further demonstrate the club's intent to punish the player
without just cause, highlighting their disregard for his personal safety and contractual
obligations.
5. Response to Incorrect Facts
The claim that the team left Sudan on March 22, 2024, and remained in training camps abroad
does not negate the player’s position. Al-Merrikh failed to secure entry visas for the player or his
family, leaving them unable to return safely or join the team. Furthermore, despite the club’s
activities outside Sudan, the player was not eligible or registered for any competition due to this
failure. The club acted in bad faith by neglecting the player’s need for security and basic support,
disregarding its responsibilities.
The connection between the war and the player’s situation is evident: Al-Merrikh ignored the
player's safety concerns and failed to assist in obtaining visas or making necessary
arrangements to facilitate his return, thus breaching its contractual obligations. The club’s
reliance on external activities has no bearing on the legal and humanitarian responsibilities
owed to the player. The failure to secure visas for the player and his family constitutes a serious
breach of contractual and fiduciary duties. Although the team left Sudan on March 22, 2024,
and attended training camps, the player was not registered or supported to join the team, and
the club disregarded the safety concerns, violating its obligation to provide a safe environment,
especially during the war in Sudan.
This negligence justifies the player's decision to terminate the contract under Article 14 of the
FIFA RSTP, which permits termination for just cause in the event of bad faith or force majeure.
The lack of support from the club during the player's legal leave and the imposition of unjust
sanctions indicates bad faith. The club’s multiple failures, including the failure to register the
player for competitions and ensure his safety, provide legitimate grounds for contract
termination.
6. Response to the Club's Complaint
The issue of the player’s family’s safety due to the ongoing war in Sudan was never addressed
by the club. The club did not offer any solution or assistance for their safety, which is why the
player travelled [sic] to Qatar to obtain residency for himself and his family. The club’s primary
concern was the return of the ITC, not the player’s safety. Furthermore, the claim that he was
supposed to be included in the team's African contradicts the fact that no support or applicable
arrangements were made for his return or his family's safety. The club’s failure to secure visas
and ensure the safety of the player and his family constitutes a breach of its contractual
obligations. The club was obligated to provide a safe and supportive environment, especially
during the war in Sudan.
By failing to fulfill these obligations, the club violated its duties under Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.
This breach justifies contract termination, as the club acted in bad faith by imposing sanctions
without legal justification.

pg. 15

REF. FPSD-16957

Moreover, the club's disregard for the safety of the player’s family and its refusal to offer a
solution demonstrate bad faith. Their only concern was retrieving the ITC for their own benefit.
The club’s actions reflect an abuse of power, and the lack of support during the player's legal
leave further highlights their failure to meet contractual obligations.
These violations, along with the force majeure situation arising from the war in Sudan, justify
contract termination. The club neglected its fundamental duties, leaving the player unprotected,
which clearly validates the player’s decision to terminate the contract.
7. Response to Al-Merrikh's Unfounded Allegations Regarding the Player's 30-Day Leave
Compliance with Labor Law and Contractual Rights: The contract and labor law clearly grant
the player the right to a 30-day leave each season. However, the player was never given the
opportunity to take leave, especially during the war due to family issues. Al-Merrikh’s failure to
comply constitutes a violation of the player's labor rights and contractual entitlements.
No Previous Leave Taken: The player’s contract with Al-Swahly [sic] ended on July 31, 2024.
Immediately afterward, the player travelled [sic] to Qatar to obtain residency to facilitate his
family’s relocation from Libya, which was necessary for their safety. The residency was obtained
on August 28, 2024. Nevertheless, the club did not offer any assistance in fulfilling its obligations
toward the player.
Sanction During Legal Leave: Al-Merrikh imposed a disciplinary sanction on the player on
September 1, 2024, just one day after his 30-day legal leave ended on August 31, 2024. This
action reflects bad faith on the part of the club. The timing of the sanction immediately after the
legal leave period indicates that the club acted unfairly by not allowing the player to fully exercise
his right to leave.
Unfounded Allegations Regarding Unauthorized Leave: The claim that the player took
unauthorized leave is incorrect. The player acted according to his contract and labor law by
taking legal leave for family reasons. The club was well aware of the player's situation and his
legitimate need to travel to Qatar to arrange residency and visas for his family. Al-Merrikh’s
failure to provide support or solutions for the player's family during the war demonstrates the
club's bad faith.
Violation of Contractual Obligations: Al-Merrikh's disciplinary sanction has no legal ground, as
the player was entitled to a 30-day legal leave. Imposing this sanction during the leave period
shows a clear attempt to intimidate the player and unfairly punish him, violating the club's
obligations under the contract and labor law.
Therefore, the club's actions, including imposing the sanctions, clearly constitute a breach of the
contract and labor law, providing the player with legitimate grounds for terminating the contract
under Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.

pg. 16

REF. FPSD-16957

Based on the facts and well-established legal grounds, it is clear that all the violations mentioned
by the club are completely unjustified. The club failed to fulfill its fundamental contractual
obligations, especially regarding the safety of the player and his family during the war in Sudan.
Therefore, I grant Al-Merrikh Club a 24-hour deadline to respond to our letter dated September
4, 2024, and confirm the suspension of the contract for six months due to exceptional
circumstances beyond the player's control. If the club does not respond properly and fairly, Mr.
Ahmed Hamed Mahmoud Mohammed will be compelled to terminate the contract with
immediate effect as of midnight on August 22, 2024.
These violations, including the unjustified sanctions, compel the player to exercise his right to
terminate the contract in accordance with Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.”
27. On 23 September 2024, the First Respondent signed an employment contract with the
Second Respondent (hereinafter: the New Contract), valid as from its date of signature until
23 February 2025.
28. The preface of the New Contract read as follows:
“This contract is made between Swehly Sports Club (the "First Party") and Ahmed Hamid
Mahmoud Mohamed (the "Second Party"), acknowledging the following:
The Second Party is under contract with AI-Merrikh Club until 30 April 2025, but due to the
ongoing war in Sudan, this contract has been suspended as of 1 September 2024 for a period
of six months.
Due to the war in Sudan, the Second Party's family is residing outside of Sudan and it is
impossible for them to return due to the ongoing conflict. The Second Party is seeking a secure
professional environment and freedom to work outside Sudan to support his family during this
difficult period.
During the suspension, the Second Party enters into this agreement with AI-Swehly to continue
his professional career in a safer jurisdiction, allowing him to support his family who are unable
to return to Sudan.
Swehly Sports Club acknowledges that this contract is independent of the Second Party's
suspended contract with AI-Merrikh and does not create any liability between AI-Swehly and AIMerrikh.”
29. According to the New Contract, the First Respondent was remunerated USD 30,000.

pg. 17

REF. FPSD-16957

30. On 26 September 2024, the Libyan Football Federation (hereinafter: the LFF) sent the
following correspondence to FIFA:
“[…] We are writing in response to the request made by the Sudan Football Federation (SFA) on
26 September 2024, in which they sought to cancel the transfer of the player, Ahmed Hamid
Mohamed, based on the claim of an "incorrect last contract end date" and the assertion that
the player’s contract with Al Merrikh SC "continues.
1- Grounds of Cancellation: "Incorrect Last Contract End Date" –Baseless and Without Merit.
We respectfully assert that the SFA’s cancellation request, based on an alleged "incorrect last
contract end date," is without merit. The player’s original employment contract with Al Merrikh
SC, valid from 1 November 2022 to 1 November 2024, was duly terminated by the player as of
1 September 2024 due to Al Merrikh SC's continuous bad faith actions, lack of cooperation, and
failure to ensure the player’s professional and personal interests, particularly during the ongoing
war and suspension of competitions in Sudan. The player’s termination of the contract was
communicated in writing, and the relevant documents, including the player's letters dated 4
September, 21 September, and 23 September 2024, confirm that the contract was lawfully
terminated.
2- Coercion and Manipulation: Extension of Contract on 27 January 2024.
On 27 January 2024, the player was coerced into signing an extension with Al Merrikh SC, with
the club conditioning the issuance of the ITC for his loan to Al Swehly SC upon his acceptance.
This forced extension was against the player's free will and directly violated FIFA’s regulations,
particularly Article 9.1 of the FIFA RSTP, which mandates that ITCs must not be contingent upon
any conditions, such as signing a new contract. This misuse of the ITC process is a clear violation
of the player’s rights and constitutes bad faith by Al Merrikh SC and the SFA.
3- Non-Cooperation and Bad Faith Actions by Al Merrikh SC.
The player was forced to terminate his contract with Al Merrikh SC due to the club’s failure to
cooperate in facilitating the player’s provisional registration and their refusal to suspend the
contract to allow the player to find new employment. The player's efforts to engage in
meaningful dialogue with Al Merrikh SC were disregarded, further confirming the just cause of
the player’s termination. These facts demonstrate that no valid contractual relationship exists
between the player and Al Merrikh SC beyond 1 September 2024.
4- Breach of FIFA Regulations and TMS Misuse.
The SFA’s cancellation request based on the claim that the player’s contract "continues" is in
direct violation of FIFA’s regulations. Under Article 8.2, Paragraph 4(b) of Annexe 3 of the FIFA
RSTP, the former association (SFA) is required to either deliver the ITC or reject the request only
if a valid contractual dispute exists. In this case, the player has already terminated his contract
per FIFA RSTP Article 14 due to the club’s breach of its obligations. Therefore, the SFA’s attempt
to claim that the contract continues is an improper use of TMS to manipulate the process,
constituting a breach of Article 8.2, Paragraph 4(b)

pg. 18

REF. FPSD-16957

5- Suspension of Competitions and Invalid Sanction.
With no active competitions in Sudan due to the ongoing war, the imposition of a six-month
suspension and a USD 150,000 fine on the player on 1 September 2024 by Al Merrikh SC is
without any legitimate basis. This sanction has been improperly used to obstruct the issuance
of the ITC and restrict the player’s movement internationally. According to Article 12 of the FIFA
RSTP, any disciplinary sanction must be properly documented and justified. Al Merrikh SC’s
action lacks such justification and is a clear misuse of disciplinary procedures as a tool of
coercion.
6- Request for Immediate Action.
Given the baseless nature of the SFA’s cancellation request, we respectfully ask that FIFA TMS
Integrity and Compliance promptly reject the cancellation and authorize the provisional
registration of Ahmed Hamid Mohamed with Al Swehly SC. The player has already signed with
Al Swehly SC, and any further delay will cause irreparable harm to his career. We urge FIFA to
instruct the SFA to expedite the process by either accepting or rejecting the ITC request, enabling
the LFF to proceed with the request for provisional registration in accordance with Article 8.2,
Paragraph 6 of Annex3. This will allow the player to resume his professional career while the
ongoing contractual dispute is being resolved. […]”
31. On 2 October 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the First
Respondent:
“[…] Dear Mr. Ahmed Hamid (Al-Tesh),
We refer to your contract dated 27 January 2024, signed with Al-Merreikh Sports Club, which
extends until 30 April 2025. It has come to our attention that you have engaged in actions that
violate the terms of this contract. Accordingly, we would like to clarify the following points:
Facts:
1. You signed a valid employment contract with Al-Merreikh Sports Club on 27 January 2024, to
remain effective until 30 April 2025.
2. According to the contract, any party that unilaterally terminates the agreement without just
cause must compensate the other party with 500,000 Sudanese Pounds: “In the event that the
player terminates the contract without a valid reason, the player shall compensate the club in
the amount of 500,000 Sudanese Pounds.”
3. Despite completing your loan spell with Al-Sowehli [sic] SC in Libya, you failed to return to our
team’s camp on 27 July 2024 as stipulated.
4. On 5 August 2024, you notified the club of your intention to terminate the contract, citing FIFA
Regulations Article 17, and transferred an amount equivalent to the remaining contractual
period.

pg. 19

REF. FPSD-16957

5. On 11 August 2024, the club sent a notice asking you to rejoin the team’s delegation in
Benghazi within 48 hours, to which you did not respond.
6. As of 19 August 2024, the club issued a final warning for you to go to the team’s camp in Juba
no later than 22 August 2024 or face disciplinary actions.
7. Despite sending a flight ticket for your return, you have not complied with the club's
instructions.
8. On 26 August 2024, we formally summoned you to a disciplinary hearing for absenteeism.
9. As a result of your failure to cooperate, the club imposed the following sanctions on 1
September 2024 with a Fine of $150,000 USD
Therefore, and as a conclusion for the current situation:
1. Contractual Status with Al-Merreikh SC:
You are still under a binding contract with Al-Merreikh SC until the end of the 2024/2025 season,
as outlined in the employment agreement you signed on 27 January 2024. Your contract cannot
be terminated or transferred without the consent of our club, and your unilateral actions have
directly violated this agreement.
2. Unauthorized Contract with Al-Sowehli Sports Club:
We have confirmed that you signed a new contract with Al-Sowehli Sports Club while still under
contract with us. This constitutes a direct breach of Article 18 of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, which mandates that any club wishing to enter negotiations with
a player must notify the player’s current club in writing.
Furthermore, as your contract with us is still in force and you are within the protected period,
the signing of a new contract with Al-Sowehli [sic] is not only a violation on your part but also
exposes Al-Sowehli [sic] Sports Club to potential sanctions from FIFA for inducing a player to
breach their contract.
3. Consequences of the Breach:
By signing with another club during your valid contract with us, you have acted in bad faith,
which could result in severe consequences, including:
Sporting Sanctions: FIFA may impose a ban on your participation in matches for up to 6 months
as per Article 17 of the FIFA regulations.
Financial Penalties: You are also liable to compensate Al-Merreikh SC as per the contract, which
stipulates a penalty of 500,000 Sudanese Pounds for unilaterally terminating the contract
without just cause.

pg. 20

REF. FPSD-16957

This notice serves as a final warning. We urge you to reconsider your actions and revert to
fulfilling your contractual obligations with Al-Merreikh SC. Failure to resolve this matter amicably
will let us to escalate the issue to FIFA, where we will seek full compensation and disciplinary
actions against both you and Al-Sowehli [sic] Sports Club.
We look forward to receiving your response within the next 7 days. If we do not hear from you
by then, we will proceed with formal action to protect our rights. […]” On
32. On 3 October 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Second
Respondent:
“[…] We are writing to formally address the matter of our player, Ahmed Al Tesh (“the Player”),
and to bring to your attention serious concerns regarding your club’s recent actions in relation
to his employment contract. Despite our direct communications, we feel the need to clarify the
following points:
1. Contractual Agreement: On 17 January 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with
our club. This contract is legally binding and remains in force until 30 April 2025.
2. Premature Termination Allegation: Despite our numerous notifications to the Player, we have
made it clear that his contract is valid and enforceable through the end of the 30 April 2025. The
Player's actions to prematurely terminate the contract do not hold any legal standing.
3. Violation of FIFA Regulations: Your club’s negotiations with the Player, and the subsequent
signing of a new employment contract without our consent, violate Article 18, paragraph 3 of
the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. This article explicitly requires the
Player’s current club to be informed before entering negotiations with the Player, which was not
adhered to.
4. Contractual Stability: The Player remains under contract with us during the "protected
period," as defined by FIFA regulations. Signing a contract with the Player for the 2024/2025
season while disregarding our club’s ongoing contractual relationship constitutes a breach of
Article 5 of the FIFA Regulations.
5. Accordingly, your negotiations with the player and signing him a new employment contract
without the consent of Al Merrikh club or even informing the club in writing while the player still
under contract with us and in the protected period, constitute a severe breach for article 18 par.
3 of the FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players (“FIFA Regulations”) which states:
"A club intending to conclude a contract with a professional must inform the player’s current
club in writing before entering into negotiations with him. A professional shall only be free to
conclude a contract with another club if his contract with his present club has expired or is due
to expire within six months. Any breach of this provision shall be subject to appropriate
sanctions".

pg. 21

REF. FPSD-16957

6. Player Termination Without Just Cause: The Player has terminated his contract without just
cause. We emphasize that all financial obligations to the Player have been met without default
or delay, and our club has consistently honored the terms of the contract.
7. FIFA Sanctions: Should your club continue to ignore these contractual obligations, both your
club and the Player may face significant sanctions under Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations. These
include a transfer ban for two registration periods for your club and a suspension for the Player.
Additionally, your club could be liable for financial compensation to Al Merrikh club SC.
8. Accordingly if your club insisted on breaching and violating the abovementioned articles of
FIFA Regulations after noting that the Player is still under contract with Al Merrikh SC, and also
you did not comply with the main and crucial principle of FIFA "Maintenance of the Contractual
Stability between Professionals and Clubs", by completing the procedures of signing with the
Player a new employment contract covering the same period of the Player contract with Al
Merrikh SC without prior notifying us or getting our approval, This will makes your club and the
Player subject to heavy sanctions from FIFA as stated under article 17 of the FIFA Regulations
which are, 1) Sporting sanction by banning your club from registering any new players for two
registration periods and imposing restriction on the player between 4 and 6 months, 2) financial
sanction by obliging your club to pay adequate compensation to Al Merrikh SC because of
contacting the Player and singing a new contract with him without our approval, in addition to
inducing and encouraging the Player to terminate his contract with us.
9. In light of the longstanding and positive relations between Sudanese and Libyan clubs, we
prefer to resolve this matter amicably. We strongly urge your club to cease any further actions
in breach of FIFA regulations and propose an immediate resolution.
10. We will be waiting for your urgent reply after receiving this letter to settle this matter finally
in amicable way and stop this breach and In case, we do not receive a prompt response
addressing this breach, we will proceed with filing an official claim with FIFA to safeguard our
club's rights and hold all parties accountable for this serious violation and for the player breach
and act of termination by signing new contract with your club covering the same period of his
contract with Al Merrikh SC.
We look forward to your prompt response and your cooperation in resolving this matter in a
manner consistent with FIFA regulations and principles of fair play. […]”
33. On 9 October 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the SFA:
“[…] Subject: The Incident Concerning the Request for the International Transfer Certificate (ITC)
of Player Ahmed Hamed Mahmoud
Greetings,
1. Al-Merrikh Sports Club extends its warmest regards and wishes for your continued success.

pg. 22

REF. FPSD-16957

2. With reference to the above-mentioned subject, we inform you that Al-Swehli Club of Libya
signed a contract with the aforementioned player despite being aware that the player has a
valid contract with our club until April 30, 2025.
3. The Libyan Football Association requested the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC)
from the Sudanese Football Association. Given the ongoing nature of the contract with AlMerrikh Sports Club, the Sudanese Football Association rejected the request.
4. The Libyan Football Association submitted a petition to the previous decision by the Sudanese
Football Association to FIFA.
5. We have issued a final notice to the player, instructing him to join the team, and the notice
was sent to him via email and his mobile phone.
6. We have also notified Al-Swehli Club of Libya about the breach of contract between our club
and the player via email.
7. The Sudanese Football Association holds records of all the aforementioned points (3, 4, 5, and
6). […]”
34. On 24 October 2024, the LFF requested FIFA the International Transfer Certificate
(hereinafter: the ITC) of the First Respondent for registration purposes within the Second
Respondent.
35. On 30 October 2024, the ITC request from the LFF was granted with immediate effect by
the Players’ Status Chamber, without prejudice to any possible decision from the Dispute
Resolution Chamber regarding a contractual dispute between the Claimant and the First
Respondent, as well as with the Second Respondent.

II. Proceedings before FIFA
36. On 5 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
37. In its claim, the Claimant argued that the First Respondent terminated the Second Contract
without just cause by way of its correspondence dated 5 August 2024, and had failed to
pay the residual value of the Second Contract to the SFA, as indicated in said
correspondence. In addition, the Claimant argued that the Second Respondent induced
the First Respondent to terminate the Second Contract.

pg. 23

REF. FPSD-16957

38. In continuation, the Claimant argued that the First Respondent failed to return to the team
following his loan to the Second Respondent, and that the latter induced the First
Respondent to terminate the Second Contract in order to subsequently benefit from his
services without paying any compensation.
39. Considering the foregoing, the Claimant argued that it is entitled to compensation in
accordance with the substantial value of the First Respondent’s services, the liquidated
damages clause of SDG 500,000,000 established in article 10 of the Second Contract, and
additional compensation of USD 75,000 as per the specificity of sport. In this regard, the
Claimant noted that the First Respondent attracted competitive offers from various clubs.
40. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. To accept this Claim against the First and Second Respondent;
2. To condemn the First and Second Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay compensation in
light of the high services value of the Player as national team star, equivalent to USD 830,000
which also is amounting to the liquidated damage clause in the Contract; in addition to the
specificity of sport amounting to USD 75,000; equals a total amount of USD 905,000 as
compensation for termination without just cause plus 18% interest p.a. from the date of the
termination.
3. To impose Sports Sanctions on First and Second Respondents according to FIFA RSTP as
follows:
▪ To ban the First Respondent for a duration of six months from participating in any football
activity based on Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP; and
▪ To ban the Second Respondent Al Swehli Club from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for two registration periods under article 17of the FIFA RSTP.
4. To order the Respondents to pay a contribution part of the legal expenses and attorney’s fees
of the present Claim in amount of 20,000 USD.“
b. Additional comments of the Claimant
41. 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 27
February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Claimant 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.
42. In this context, the FIFA general secretariat received a correspondence from the Claimant
in reply thereto, in which it reiterated its initial position and requests for relief, noting that

pg. 24

REF. FPSD-16957

the First Respondent terminated the Contract without just cause and that the Second
Respondent induced him in the termination of the employment relationship.
c. Position of the First Respondent
43. In his reply, the First Respondent first argued that the extension of the Contract, through
the conclusion of the Second Contract, is null and void on the following grounds: (i) he
signed it under duress for the completion of his loan to the Second Respondent; (ii) the
Claimant failed to sign the Second Contract; and (iii) the extension of the employment
relationship does not meet the requirements of article 12 of the Contract.
44. In addition, the First Respondent argued that the liquidated damages clause of SDG
500,000,000 stipulated in the Second Contract is disproportionate to his monthly salary
and thus cannot be considered valid.
45. Furthermore, the First Respondent stated that in August 2024, following his loan to the
Second Respondent, he travelled to Qatar on annual leave, given the ongoing war in Sudan
and his urgent humanitarian needs.
46. In continuation, the First Respondent argued that his correspondence dated 5 August 2024
did no terminate the employment relationship, but rather suspended it, as stated in his
subsequent correspondence dated 4 September 2024. With respect to the justification for
suspending the employment relationship, the First Respondent invoked the war in Sudan,
which he claims constitutes a force majeure event, as well as the abusive disciplinary
sanctions imposed by the Claimant. In particular, the First Respondent emphasized that he
was subjected to disciplinary sanctions without being afforded a due process, notably the
right to be heard and that all football activities had been suspended by the SFA at the time,
rendering it impossible for him to perform his obligations towards the Claimant.
47. Lastly, the First Respondent stated that the purpose of his correspondence dated 21
September 2024 was to request the Claimant’s recognition of the suspension of the
employment relationship and to obtain permission to sign a short-term employment
contract with the Second Respondent during his suspension, in order to provide for his
family.
48. In view of the above considerations, the First Respondent submitted the following requests
for relief:
“I. Main claims
1- Nullity of the alleged contract extension of January 27, 2024 Declare the “extension” of the
contract until April 30, 2025 null and void ab initio, Confirm the expiration date of the original
contract as November 1, 2024;

pg. 25

REF. FPSD-16957

2- Recognition of the legitimate suspension of the contract due to force majeure Confirm that
the original contract (November 1, 2022 – November 1, 2024) was legally suspended as of
September 1, 2024 due to: The civil war in Sudan (Annex 7 RSTP); Unfair disciplinary sanctions
(six-month suspension and a fine of USD 150,000) imposed without due process.
3- Rejection of allegations of unilateral breach Rule that the Player did not terminate the contract
and acted in accordance with Art. 14 RSTP (just cause) and Art. 119 CO (impossibility of
performance).
4- Annulment of disciplinary sanctions Annul the six-month suspension and USD 150,000 fine,
which are deemed illegal, disproportionate and issued without respect for procedural rights (Art.
7 and 12 RSTP).
5- Rejection of the claim for compensation of USD 830,000 Dismiss all compensation claimed by
Al-Merrikh SC, as the penalty clause is null and void (Art. 163 CO) and contrary to the principles
of proportionality.
II. Additional requests
6- Condemnation of Al-Merrikh SC for abuse of procedure Sanction the Club for: Manipulation
of the TMS system (Annex 3, Art. 8.2 and 14 RSTP); Coercion during the signing of the extension
(Art. 28-30 CO); Intentional delay in issuing the CIT (Art. 9.1 RSTP).
7- Consideration of humanitarian circumstances Recognize the player's right to continue his
professional activity with Al-Swehly SC, in accordance with Annex 7 RSTP (force majeure) and
human rights protection standards.
8- Legal costs and damages Order Al-Merrikh SC to bear all legal costs;”
(Freely translated from French)
d. Position of the Second Respondent
49. In its reply, the Second Respondent contended that it did not induce the First Respondent
to terminate his employment relationship with the Claimant, arguing instead that the
relationship had merely been suspended due to the ongoing war in Sudan and the
disciplinary sanctions imposed on the First Respondent by the Claimant. In this regard, the
Second Respondent stated that its employment relationship with the First Respondent
must be considered as humanitarian assistance during the war in Sudan, a period of force
majeure, as the said employment contract with the First Respondent was expressly limited
to the duration of his suspension from the Claimant.
50. In continuation, the Second Respondent argued that the disproportionate disciplinary
sanctions imposed by the Claimant on the First Respondent created a situation of

pg. 26

REF. FPSD-16957

impossibility for the latter to perform his obligations towards the Claimant. In particular,
the Second Respondent stated that the outbreak of the war in Sudan led to the suspension
of all domestic football activities, that the Claimant relocated abroad without provided
assistance to the First Respondent.
51. Considering the foregoing, it is the position of the Second Respondent that the
correspondence it received from the First Respondent on 4 September 2024 was lawful
and justified by humanitarian necessity. In fact, the Second Respondent asserted that the
First Respondent’s temporary employment constituted the exercise of a fundamental right
to work under exceptional circumstances and conditions of objective impossibility, which,
in its view, cannot be construed as an inducement for the First Respondent to terminate
his employment relationship with the Claimant.
52. Lastly, the Second Respondent pointed out that the employment contract with the First
Respondent was drafted in a way to not interfere with his suspended employment
relationship with the Claimant.
e. Replica of the Claimant
53. In its replica, the Claimant rejected the First Respondent’s assertion that he was forced to
sign the Second Contract and that its liquidated damages clause is invalid. In particular, the
Claimant argued that the said clause is proportionate with the market value of the First
Respondent and the damages it suffered due to the early termination of the Second
Contract.
54. In addition, the Claimant argued that the First Respondent’s correspondence dated 5
August 2024 constitutes an equivocal and unambiguous declaration of termination of their
employment relationship. In this context, it is the position of the Claimant that the
subsequent attempts from the First Respondent and the Second Respondent to frame the
said correspondence as a suspension of the employment relationship are retrospective
and have no legal basis.
55. With respect to the allegations of force majeure, the Claimant pointed out that it continued
its football activities in Egypt and participated in the Mauritanian league as well as in CAF
competitions. In this regard, the Claimant argued that the First Respondent failed to rejoin
the team after his loan to the Second Respondent, despite the assistance provided, its
efforts and invitations.
56. In continuation, the Claimant argued that the First Respondent’s alleged annual leave in
August 2024 has no contractual basis and that his failure to rejoin the team after his loan
to the Second Respondent was unjustified and unauthorized.
57. Concerning the Second Respondent’s argument that it signed the First Respondent out of
humanitarian necessity, the Claimant argued that it cannot overcome its inducement in the

pg. 27

REF. FPSD-16957

First Respondent’s breach of the Second Contract. In this regard, the Claimant pointed out
that the Second Respondent engaged, without its notification, in negotiations and the
signing of an employment contract with the First Respondent while the Second Contract
was still valid.
58. In view of the above, the Claimant reiterated its initial requests for relief.
f. Duplica of the First Respondent
59. Despite being invited to do so, the First Respondent failed to provide its duplica.
g. Duplica of the Second Respondent
60. In its duplica, the Second Respondent reiterated its initial position, and submitted the
following requests for relief:
“1. Declare the claim inadmissible and Contract 2 null and void ab initio
Reject the claim in its entirety as procedurally and substantively inadmissible, as it is based solely
on “Contract 2,” a document that:
• Was filed exclusively in Arabic, with all English-language fields blank, in breach of FIFA
Procedural Rule 13(1);
• Has an entirely unfilled Schedule 2, lacking any agreed remuneration, performance
terms, bonuses, or essential obligations under Swiss CO Art. 319(1);
• Was signed by the Player under coercion, conditioned upon ITC release on 27 January
2024, vitiating consent under Swiss CO Art. 28;
• Was never countersigned by the Club or approved by the SFA;
• Was only inserted into the file months later, never communicated to the Player or
negotiated.
Accordingly, Contract 2 must be declared null and void ab initio, and the claim must be
dismissed in limine.
2. Acknowledge that Contract 1 was the only valid contract and declare the claim inadmissible
on legal grounds
Confirm that Contract 1 (dated 1 November 2022) was the only binding and legally valid contract
governing the employment relationship, and that:
• It was filed exclusively in Arabic, with all English-language fields left blank, in violation
of FIFA Procedural Rule 13(1);
• No certified English translation was provided, making the filing procedurally
inadmissible for evidentiary reliance;

pg. 28

REF. FPSD-16957

•

•

The Player did not terminate this contract, but lawfully suspended itunder force
majeure, invoking Article 14 of the RSTP, due to the armed conflict in Sudan, nonpayment, and lack of safety or visas;
Contract 1 governed the relationship until its natural expiry and was never replaced
or properly amended.

Therefore, the claim must also be declared inadmissible for lacking a procedurally valid legal
basis, and all requests for sanctions or compensation under Contract 1 must be rejected.
3. Confirm that the Player acted with just cause and did not breach Contract 1
Declare that the Player did not terminate Contract 1, nor did he breach it without just cause.
Instead, the Player lawfully suspended his contractual obligations on 23 September 2024, in
accordance with Article 14(1) and 14bis of the FIFA RSTP, in response to the following:
• The Club had already imposed a six-month ban on the Player from all football-related
activity, starting 1 September 2024, coupled with a USD 150,000 fine—an extreme
penalty 3,000 times higher than his basic monthly salary of USD 50;
• From 27 January to 23 September 2024, the Club paid no salary whatsoever, and
failed to meet any basic contractual or humanitarian obligations;
• The Player, abroad with his displaced family, faced an urgent immigration crisis, as
their visas had expired and no safe, legal alternative was provided by the Club;
• No relocation support, visa sponsorship, or lawful return pathway was offered, and
the Club made no effort to assist in ensuring the safety or welfare of the Player’s
family. The force of Contract 1, signed on 1 November 2022, was radically altered by
the outbreak of war in Sudan, which continues to this day, along with the suspension
of all domestic football competitions. These external circumstances fundamentally
changed the conditions of performance and triggered the right to suspend obligations
under force majeure, as recognized by FIFA RSTP Article 14bis, the 2023 Commentary,
and CAS jurisprudence.
In light of these facts, the Player’s suspension of Contract 1was a proportionate and lawful
remedy under FIFA’s framework. It responded directly to the Club’s ban, wage default, and failure
to safeguard the Player’s humanitarian situation.
Therefore, the Player acted with just cause, and no breach, termination, or liability may be
attributed to him under the RSTP or Swiss law.
4. Confirm that the Player’s registration with Al-Swehly SC was lawful and that no inducement
occurred
Declare that the Player’s temporary employment with Al-Swehly SC, from 23 September 2024 to
23 February 2025, was:
• Fully lawful;
• Non-inducive; and

pg. 29

REF. FPSD-16957

•

Humanitarian in nature, consistent with Article 14bisand Annex 7of the FIFA RSTP.

This employment was initiated only after Al-Merrikh SC imposed a six-month global ban on the
Player on 1 September 2024, and after the Player had lawfully suspended Contract 1 based on
force majeure and just cause. Specifically:
• The contract with Al-Swehly SC was time-limited to match the Club-imposed
suspension period (23 September 2024 to 23 February 2025);
• It was signed in response to the Player’s free agent declaration dated 4 September
2024, after the suspension was in effect;
• It was executed outside the protected period, and therefore does not engage Article
17of the RSTP;
• The contract conferred no sporting or financial gain to Al-Swehly —the Player did not
play a single minute, and the club derived no competitive advantage;
• It served a purely humanitarian purpose, helping the Player maintain lawful residence
abroad and support his family during a time of war, without interfering with any
enforceable employment relationship.
Accordingly, the Player’s registration with Al-Swehly SC was fully compliant with FIFA’s
humanitarian framework. No pre-suspension contact occurred, and no sporting or financial
benefit was obtained by the Libyan club. Al-Swehly acted solely to support the Player’s relocation
and humanitarian needs during a period of lawful suspension, without inducing breach, seeking
gain, or interfering with any valid contract. Therefore, the accusation of inducement is factually
baseless, legally unsubstantiated, and must be dismissed in full under Articles 18(3) and 17 of
the FIFA RSTP.
5. Reject all requests for financial compensation and sporting sanctions
Reject the Claimant’s demand for USD 830,000 in liquidated damages, USD 75,000 for specificity
of sport, and any request for sporting sanctions, including bans or joint liability.
These requests must be denied because:
• No breach occurred because the Player did not terminate his contract, but lawfully
suspended on the basis of force majeure, non-payment, and the Club’s own
disciplinary ban;
• The only contract relied upon by the Claimant —Contract 2 —is null and void ab initio
due to lack of counter-signature, blank remuneration fields, lack of essentials
lelement [sic] of valid contract , no mutual negotiations, and coercion under Swiss CO
Articles 1 and 28;
• The alleged penalty of 500,000,000 Sudanese pounds, embedded only in Contract 2,
has no legal effect and cannot trigger Article 17 RSTP;
• The Player’s monthly salary under Contract 1 was USD 50, making the Club’s USD
150,000 fine on 1 September 2024 grossly disproportionate, in breach of the principle
of proportionality under FIFA and CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2016/A/4676, § 88);

pg. 30

REF. FPSD-16957

•

•

There is no economic damage suffered by the Club: the Player did not play, no transfer
was blocked, no replacement cost incurred, and no sporting competition was active
in Sudan;
The Player’s suspension was humanitarian and protective, not strategic or profitdriven —as recognized under FIFA and CAS jurisprudence.

Therefore, no financial compensation, liquidated damages, or sporting sanctions are legally or
factually justified against either the Player or Al-Swehly SC. The Respondents acted in full
compliance with FIFA’s humanitarian and regulatory mandates.
4. Confirm the legality of the Player’s registration with Al-Swehly
Declare that the Player’s six-month contract with Al-Swehly SC:
• Was signed after the suspension, not during a protected period;
• Covered only the suspension window (23 September 2024 –23 February 2025);
• Brought no sporting or financial gain to Al-Swehly;
• Was registered lawfully under Annex 3, Article 8.2 RSTP, based on humanitarian
grounds.
5. Dismiss all claims for compensation and liquidated damages
Reject the Claimant’s request for USD 830,000 / SDG 5 million, as:
• The Player never breached a valid contract;
• Contract 2 is void;
• No loss was substantiated by the Claimant;
• No transfer value or financial damage occurred.
6. Dismiss all requests for sporting sanctions
Reject any sanction under Article 17 or 18.3 of the RSTP:
• The Player acted with just cause;
• Al-Swehly did not induce a breach;
• No evidence of misconduct or bad faith was presented.
7. Deny any request for joint liability against Al-Swehly
Confirm that Al-Swehly is not jointly liable:
• It acted afterthe suspension;
• No pre-contractual contact or inducement occurred;
• Its engagement was humanitarian, not competitive.
8. Order the Claimant to bear the full costs
Request that Al-Merrikh SC bear:

pg. 31

REF. FPSD-16957

•
•

All procedural costs;
A contribution to the Respondents’ legal expenses, given the baseless and procedurally
flawed nature of the claim.”

h. Unsolicited correspondence from the Claimant
61. On 29 June 2025, i.e., after the closure of the submission phase on 25 June 2025, the
Claimant filed unsolicited correspondence, which has been disregarded in accordance with
art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
62. 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 5 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 25 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
63. 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 competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Sudanese club and a Sudanese player with the involvement of a Libyan club.
64. 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.
65. With respect to the Second Respondent’s challenge to the admissibility of the Second
Contract based on art. 13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber took note that it was
raised only in its duplica. In this regard, the Chamber wished to remind the parties that the
duplica is limited to only addressing the Claimant’s replica, and that any challenge
concerning the Claimant’s statement of claim, such as the admissibility of the Second
Contract, should have been raised in the response to the claim. In fact, the Chamber
observed that neither the Second Respondent nor the First Respondent contested the
content of the Second Contract in their respective replies to the claim.

pg. 32

REF. FPSD-16957

66. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber pointed out that the following items of the
Second Contract remained undisputed between the parties in the first round of
submissions:
−

According to the Second Contract, the Claimant undertook to pay the First
Respondent a monthly salary of SDG 100,000.

−

Article 6 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“1. The Player is entitled to thirty (30) days leave per contractual year.
2. Leave if primarily to be taken during match-free periods and must be used for
relaxation purposes. Leave dates must be agreed upon with the Club. […]”

−

Article 10 of the Second Contract read as follows:
“[…] If the Club terminates this Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to
the Player compensation equal to the total amount of: five hundred million Sudanese
pounds only.
If the Player terminates this Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to
the Club compensation equal to the total amount of: five hundred million Sudanese
pounds only. […]”

67. In this context, the Chamber concluded that the Second Respondent tacitly accepted the
content of the Second Contract during the first round of submissions and, by failing to raise
any objection at that stage, waived its right to challenge its admissibility. Thus, the Chamber
held that the Second Respondent was estopped from contesting the admissibility of the
Second Contract in the second round of submissions, pursuant to the principle of non
venire contra factum proprium, as well as the principles of procedural fairness and due
process.
68. In view of the above considerations, the Chamber decided to reject the Second
Respondent’s challenge to the admissibility of the Second Contract.
69. Lastly, the Chamber stated that the arguments pertaining to the validity of the Second
contract, also raised by the Second Respondent, shall be addressed in the merits.
b. Burden of proof
70. 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

pg. 33

REF. FPSD-16957

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
71. 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
72. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a club against a player and his new club for breach of contract.
73. The Chamber first noted that, according to the Claimant, the First Respondent terminated
the Second Contract without just cause on 5 August 2024 and the Second Respondent
induced him to do so.
74. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, according to the First Respondent, the extension
of the Contract, through the conclusion of the Second Contract, is null and void and that,
in any case, his correspondence dated 5 August 2024 did not terminate the employment
relationship with the Claimant, but rather suspended it due to the war in Sudan and the
abusive disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber
acknowledged the position of the First Respondent, according to which he claims that the
war in Sudan constitutes a force majeure event.
75. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Second Respondent argued that it did not induce
the First Respondent to terminate his employment relationship with the Claimant, arguing
instead that the relationship had merely been suspended due to the ongoing war in Sudan
and the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Claimant on the First Respondent. In
particular, the Chamber noted that, according to the Second Respondent, the First
Respondent’s temporary employment constituted the exercise of a fundamental right to
work under exceptional circumstances and conditions of objective impossibility, which, in
its view, cannot be construed as an inducement for the First Respondent to terminate his
employment relationship with the Claimant.
76. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (i) whether the
Second Contract should be considered null and void; (ii) the date of termination of the
Second Contract, if applicable; and (iii) if so, whether the termination of the Second
Contract occurred with just cause.

pg. 34

REF. FPSD-16957

Should the Second Contract be considered null and void?
77. Taking into account the parties’ fundamental disagreement as to whether the Second
Contract allegedly concluded between the parties on 27 January 2024 can be considered
as a valid and binding employment contract, the Chamber first noted that the First
Respondent did not dispute signing the Second Contract, but argued that he was forced to
sign it.
78. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as analysed by the Football Tribunal and
confirmed by CAS on several occasions, any claim of duress needs to be proven, and a
signed employment contract is binding upon the parties unless there is sufficient evidence
to the contrary.
79. Considering the foregoing and the lack of evidence filed by the First Respondent to support
its argumentation of duress, the Chamber concluded that the Second Contract is valid and
binding on the parties. In fact, the Chamber referred to the Football Tribunal’s longstanding
jurisprudence according to which a party signing a document of legal significance,
generally, does so on its own responsibility and is so liable to bear the legal consequences
of it.
80. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be
considered as valid and binding, apart from the proof of consent from the parties, it should
contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the
contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee.
81. In the present matter, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file and the
position of the respective parties, who did not timely dispute the content of the Second
Contract, the Chamber concluded that all such elements were included in the said
document. In other words, the Chamber held that the Second Contract indeed included all
the relevant information at the basis of an employment relationship between the
contractual parties. Specifically, the Chamber pointed out that it remained undisputed
between the parties that the Second Contract contained the signature of both parties,
provided for the duration of the employment relationship, the remuneration payable and
that the First Respondent was employed as a footballer by the Claimant.
82. Lastly, the Chamber noted the First Respondent’s contradictory position regarding his
employment relationship with the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber observed that the
correspondence exchanged between the Claimant and the First Respondent demonstrate
that their employment relationship was extended through the Second Contract. In
particular, the Chamber took note of the First Respondent’s correspondence dated 5
August 2024, in which he specifically refers to the binding effects of the Second Contract,

pg. 35

REF. FPSD-16957

as well as his response to the Claimant’s claim where he challenges the proportionality of
the liquidated damages clause set out in article 12 of the Second Contract.
83. Thus, the Chamber decided that the Second Contract was in fact a valid and binding
employment contract and shall be considered in the case at stake, as the contractual basis
of the present dispute.
When was the Second Contract terminated?
84. After a thorough analysis of the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that the Second
Contract was terminated by the First Respondent through its correspondence dated 5
August 2024 addressed to the Claimant.
85. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the following wording of the said correspondence:
“[…] Subject: Notice of Termination of the Employment Contract Dated 27/01/2024, Pursuant to
Clause 3 of Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
Greetings,
On 27/01/2024, the employment contract binding me to Al-Merrikh Sports Club was extended,
with the new termination date set for 30/04/2025. Clause 3 of Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players stipulates that:
Unilateral breach without just cause or sporting just cause after the protected period shall not
result in sporting sanctions. Disciplinary measures may, however, be imposed outside the
protected period for failure to give notice of termination within 15 days of the last official match
of the season (including national cups) of the club with which the player is registered. The
protected period starts again when, while renewing the contract, the duration of the previous
contract is extended
On 22/07/2024, Al-Merrikh Sports Club played its last official match of the 2023/2024 season.
Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, I hereby notify you of the
termination of the said employment contract, dated 27/01/2024, pursuant to Clause 3 of Article
17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. I also inform you that I have
transferred an amount equivalent to the remaining contractual period to the bank account of
the Sudanese Football Association for your benefit. […]”
86. Upon reviewing the above correspondence, the Chamber considered that the clear and
unambiguous wording employed leaves little room for interpretation and can reasonably
and comfortably be understood as having been intended to have the legal effect of
terminating the Second Contract and, thus, the employment relationship between the
Claimant and the First Respondent.

pg. 36

REF. FPSD-16957

87. Considering the foregoing, and in light of the fact that the disciplinary sanctions imposed
by the Claimant on the First Respondent were issued on 1 September 2024, i.e., after the
termination of the Second Contract on 5 August 2024, the Chamber disregarded the First
Respondent’s argument that the suspension of the Second Contract was justified, notably
on the grounds of alleged abusive disciplinary measures. In other words, the Chamber
stated that since the sanctions postdate the termination of the Second Contract, it
considered that they cannot retroactively justify a purported suspension that would have
occurred while the Second Contract was still in force.
88. In any event, the Chamber pointed out that there is no contractual or regulatory basis for
the First Respondent to suspend the Second Contract. In this regard, the Chamber wished
to remind the parties that Annexe 7 of the Regulations, to which the First Respondent refers
in his correspondence dated 4 September 2024, is not applicable to the present matter as
it does not concern an employment contract of an international dimension concluded
between a player and a club affiliated to the Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF) or the
Football Union of Russia (FUR).
89. Lastly, the Chamber deemed important to emphasize the contradictory behaviour of the
First Respondent, who initially referred to the termination of the Second Contract in his
correspondence dated 5 August 2024, but subsequently referred to a suspension of the
Second Contract in later communications addressed to the Claimant. Accordingly, the
Chamber reiterated that, based on the clear and unambiguous wording of the First
Respondent’s correspondence dated 5 August 2024, he did, in fact, intend to terminate the
Second Contract on that date.
Did the First Respondent have just cause to terminate the Second Contract with the
Claimant?
90. At this stage, the Chamber recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, 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 measure.
91. Further, the Chamber highlighted that, according to article 14 of the Regulations, in general,
just cause to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a
party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual
relationship. In this respect, the Chamber stated that the foregoing is in line with its wellestablished jurisprudence and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

pg. 37

REF. FPSD-16957

92. In continuation, the Chamber deemed important to recall that contractual stability is the
backbone of the entire football season, and employers and employees in the football world
are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship without
a valid reason. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that the early termination of an
employment contract without just cause has consequences – both financial and sporting.
In other words, the Chamber stressed that, although the Regulations allow for the parties
to modulate the effects of such a premature termination, its jurisprudence also sets certain
boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty and the
legitimate expectation of contractual stability.
93. With the above principles in mind, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber
established the following:
−

The employment relationship between the Claimant and the First Respondent
started in November 2022, i.e., prior to the start of the war in Sudan taking place as
of April 2023. Nonetheless, the Chamber was of the opinion that it cannot be
omitted that, even before the Contract was signed, Sudan experienced considerable
safety risks and therefore it must be conceded that the First Respondent was aware
of the possible risks.

−

It appeared that the Claimant proactively sought opportunities to continue its
football related activities despite the ongoing war in Sudan. In particular, the
Chamber took note that the Claimant secured on 31 July 2024 the opportunity to
participate in the Mauritanian league. In this regard, the Chamber also noted that
the Claimant continuously attempted to contact the First Respondent, to no avail,
in order to accommodate him to join the team after his loan to the Second
Respondent, even providing him with a flight ticket on 19 August 2024.

−

In this context, it became apparent to the Chamber that the First Respondent
refused to fulfil his obligations pursuant to the Second Contract and that his
assertion that he was on annual leave in August 2024, following his loan to the
Second Respondent, could not be upheld. In particular, the Chamber considered
that such argumentation was not supported with the necessary documentary
evidence in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, such as an
authorization from the Claimant pursuant to article 6 of the Second Contract.

−

Further, the Chamber highlighted that the First Respondent never seemed to have
addressed his concerns for his safety to the Claimant, nor did he seek to contact the
Claimant in order to discuss on a possible solution or to request from the latter
security guarantees prior to the termination of the Second Contract. In fact, the
Chamber noted that the First Respondent only responded to the Claimant’s
repeated communications after the latter imposed disciplinary sanctions on 1
September 2024.

pg. 38

REF. FPSD-16957

−

Lastly, the Chamber held that the present matter is not a case of force majeure, as
in CAS 2014/A/3463 & 3464, as the sole fact of the war in Sudan does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that the employment contract between the
Claimant and the First Respondent could no longer be executed. In this particular
case before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), the difference was that the
rendering of services was no longer possible: “In case of force majeure, a party can be
prevented from performing all or part of its contractual obligations. An event of force
majeure is beyond the parties’ control. The Egyptian civil war which put an end to the
2012/2013 season, and which admittedly occurred on 1 April 2013 constitutes force
majeure.” In other words, the Chamber found that it was also the First Respondent’s
responsibility to contact the Claimant, in order to discuss whether a solution could
be found for the situation in which the Claimant considered it impossible to fulfil his
contractual duties, given the fact that he was the party unwilling to further comply
with his contractual obligations. Whereas the Chamber did not disregard altogether
the seriousness of the First Respondent’s allegations and concerns for his safety in
the midst of an ongoing conflict, it pointed out that those were not supported by
sufficient evidence such as to constitute a legal and/or factual impossibility to
perform the Second Contract. Under these circumstances, the Chamber concluded
that the termination of the Second Contract did not constitute an ultima ratio
measure.

94. In light of the above considerations, the Chamber determined that far from acting with
caution, the First Respondent decided to unilaterally terminate the Second Contract
without notice by means of his correspondence dated 5 August 2024, thereby terminating
his contract without just cause.
ii. Consequences
95. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the First Respondent.
96. As a preliminary point, the Chamber recalled that this matter is governed by the Interim
Regulatory Framework as reflected in the January 2025 edition of the Regulations,
applicable in casu. By way of context, the Chamber underlined that said framework
impacted the following rules:
•

the calculation of compensation payable in the event of a breach of contract by a
player or coach;

•

the burden of proof in relation to joint and several liability for compensation
payable for a breach of contract;

pg. 39

REF. FPSD-16957

•

the burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract (and the
related sporting sanction against the new club of a player); and

•

the procedure regarding the issuance of an ITC.

97. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, for the present purposes, the relevant
rules are those related to (i) the calculation payable by a player in case of a breach of
contract; (ii) the question of the joint and several liability of the new club; and (iii) the
burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract.
98. Having established the above, the Chamber 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. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that, according to the
principle of positive interest, the claiming party must be put in the position it would find
itself in, had the breach of the contract not occurred and had the contract been duly
performed.
99. Therefore, before even addressing how the principle of positive interest would apply to this
case, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the Second 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.
100. In this regard, the Chamber recalled the wording of article 10 of the Second Contract, which
established the following:
“[…] If the Club terminates this Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to the
Player compensation equal to the total amount of: five hundred million Sudanese pounds only.
If the Player terminates this Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to the Club
compensation equal to the total amount of: five hundred million Sudanese pounds only. […]”
101. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that,
although it fulfilled the criteria of reciprocity, it did not fulfil the criteria of proportionality,
in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and therefore could
not be taken into account for establishing the amount of compensation payable to the
Claimant.
102. In particular, the Chamber noted that article 10 of the Second Contract establishes a
compensation of SDG 500,000,000 in the event that the First Respondent terminated the
Contract without just cause, which represents 5,000 times his monthly salary and more

pg. 40

REF. FPSD-16957

than 300 times the value of the Second Contract. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that
the residual value of the Second Contract as from the date of its termination, i.e., 5 August
2024, corresponds to SDG 900,000.
103. In view of the above considerations, the Chamber determined that the amount stipulated
in article 10 of the Second Contract is disproportionate in view of the First Respondent’s
remuneration and the principle of contractual stability.
104. Thus, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s compensation for the First Respondent’s
breach of the Second Contract must be determined in accordance with art. 17 of the
Regulations, the damage suffered by the Claimant and the positive interest principle.
105. Bearing in mind the above principles, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the onus is on the Claimant to quantify, substantiate and
prove the damage that it allegedly suffered as a result of the breach of the Second Contract.
106. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant’s principal contention centered on
compensation commensurate with the “high services value of the Player”, claiming an
amount of USD 830,000 which was also the amount stipulated in the liquidated damages
clause under article 10 of the Second Contract, and additionally requesting compensation
of USD 75,000 in accordance with the principle of specificity of sport.
107. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the Interim Regulatory Framework and confirmed
that the specificity of sport was no longer one of the criteria used to determine
compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Chamber held that the
Claimant’s contentions in this respect must be rejected. In any event, the Chamber
emphasized that the specificity of sport was never intended to constitute as standalone
head of damage and that it was only a correcting factor to either increase or decrease the
payable compensation in a given set of circumstances. Be it as it may, the Chamber
underlined again that such correcting factor is no longer foreseen in the Regulations, and
it is therefore not applicable.
108. In continuation, the Chamber considered that, given the specific circumstances of the
present matter, the remuneration of the First Respondent for rendering his services under
the Second Contract, can be considered in order to establish the damage suffered by the
Claimant. In fact, given the circumstances of the present matter, the Chamber found it
reasonable to depart from the fact that under a fixed-term employment contract, both
parties have a similar and mutual interest and expectation that the term will be respected,
subject to termination by mutual consent or the existence of just cause. In this respect, the
Chamber referred to the fundamental principle of contractual stability and contract law,
pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by parties
in good faith. In other words, the Chamber stated that when a player and a club sign an

pg. 41

REF. FPSD-16957

employment contract, both parties are fully entitled to assume that both parties will comply
with their contractual obligations towards each other and that if a different approach was
adopted, this would mean disregarding such an essential principle.
109. In accordance with the foregoing, notably the circumstances of this individual case and the
Claimant’s specific submissions regarding the First Respondent’s market value and the
agreed compensation between the parties, the Chamber determined that the First
Respondent’s remuneration as foreseen in the breached Second Contract could a priori be
awarded to the Claimant, as it constitutes a reliable basis on which to establish the
economic value that the First Respondent’s services represented for the Claimant. In this
regard, the Chamber was of the opinion that this remuneration bears correlation to the
value of the First Respondent’s services, which the Claimant lost and caused it damage in
light of the First Respondent’s breach of the Second Contract.
110. In addition, the Chamber assessed the evidence provided by the Claimant to demonstrate
the First Respondent’s market value, such as his profile on Transfermarkt, references to
the market value of similar football players, and an alleged article stating that he was the
main reason for its qualification to the top six ranked championship. In this respect, the
Chamber found that the said evidence did not prove further damage allegedly suffered by
the Claimant as a result of the breach of the Second Contract, and that, in any event, the
Claimant did not provide any evidence regarding the hiring of a new player to replace the
First Respondent.
111. Further, the Chamber acknowledged the fact that, on 15 August 2024, the Claimant
received an offer of USD 150,000 from the Libyan club Al Nasser SC to obtain the services
of the First Respondent. Nevertheless, the Chamber found that the foregoing lacks
probative value to quantify, substantiate and prove the damage that the Claimant suffered
as a result of the breach of the Second Contract. In particular, the Chamber took note that
the Second Contract had already been terminated on 15 August 2024, thus a purported
loss deriving from said offer cannot be considered a direct consequence of the First
Respondent’s breach. In any event, the Chamber noted that the amount of the offer was
not specifically included in the Claimant’s requests for relief.
112. At this stage, the Chamber recalled that the First Respondent did in fact undertake, in its
notice of termination of the Second Contract dated 5 August 2024, to proceed with the
payment of the residual value of the Second Contract to the Claimant, although such
payment was never quantified and was never made.

pg. 42

REF. FPSD-16957

113. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at
hand, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the breach
of the Second Contract in the amount corresponding to the remuneration of the First
Respondent under the terms of the Second Contract, from the date of its unilateral
termination until its end date, i.e., from 5 August 2024 until 30 April 2025. In this respect,
the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant did not expressly include the residual value
of the Second Contract in its requests for relief, but underlined that the amount awarded
nonetheless fell within the scope of the compensation requested and substantiated by the
Claimant for the breach of the Second Contract.
114. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the First Respondent must pay the amount of
SDG 900,000 to the Claimant, i.e., his monthly salary of SDG 100,000 under the Second
Contract times 9 months, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
115. Lastly, 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 5 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Joint liability
116. The Chamber then referred to art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that a
player’s new club shall be held jointly liable to pay compensation if, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club
induced the player to breach their contract.
117. Similarly, the Chamber took note that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations states that a sporting
sanction shall be imposed on a player’s new club if, having regard to the individual facts
and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club induced the Player
to breach the contract during the protected period.
118. In this context, the Chamber turned to the consideration of the matter of inducement, as
it is key for determining any consequences that may apply to the Second Respondent. In
doing so, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant had the burden of proof to
demonstrate that the Second Respondent induced the First Respondent to breach the
Second Contract.
119. With the above in mind, and considering the individual facts and circumstances of this case
as well as the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that it is not possible to determine
that the Second Respondent induced the First Respondent to terminate the Second
Contract. In particular, the Chamber found that, although it is uncontested that the First
Respondent was on loan to the Second Respondent for a period of six months prior to the
termination of the Second Contract on 5 August 2024, the existence of the Loan

pg. 43

REF. FPSD-16957

Agreement, in itself, does not prove inducement by the Second Respondent for the First
Respondent to terminate his employment relationship with the Claimant.
120. In fact, the Chamber emphasized that the Claimant failed to discharge its burden of proof
in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, having failed to submit sufficient
evidence to demonstrate any act of inducement from the First Respondent. Rather, the
Chamber considered that the Claimant merely established a temporal connection between
the expiry of the Loan Agreement and the date of termination of the Second Contract,
which, absent further evidence, amounts to nothing more than suspicion.
121. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Second Respondent shall not be
held jointly liable for the payment of the amount of compensation due to the Claimant. For
the same reasons, the Chamber held that no sanctions shall be imposed on the Second
Respondent.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
122. 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.
123. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official
matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
124. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the First 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 restriction on
playing in official matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become
immediately effective on the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
125. The First 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.
126. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.

pg. 44

REF. FPSD-16957

d. Costs
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.

pg. 45

REF. FPSD-16957

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.

The claim of the Claimant, Al Merreikh KH, is partially accepted.

2.

The First Respondent, Ahmed Hamid Mohamed, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount:
- SDG 900,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 5
August 2024 until the date of effective payment.

3.

Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

4.

Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

5.

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 First Respondent shall be restricted on any football-related activity up until the due
amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months.
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.

6.

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.

7.

This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal:

Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

pg. 46

REF. FPSD-16957

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. 47