Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17078
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Muntadher Mohammed Jebur Maslookhi
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Muntadher Mohammed Jebur Maslookhi, Iraq
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Esteghlal FC, IR Iran
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17078
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 13 August 2023, the Iraqi player, Muntadher Mohammed Jebur Maslookhi (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant), and the Iranian club, Esteghlal FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
August 2023 until the end of the sportive season 2025-2026. Indeed, Clause 3 of the
Contract states that, (quoted verbatim), ‘’This contract is valid and mandatory valid for three
seasons starting from August 2023 until the end of the sportive season 2025-26’’.
2.
In accordance with clause 4 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia ‘’the net amount of 75.000.000,000 IRR (Seventy Five billion Rials) for season
1402-1403 [2023-2024], the net amount of 100.000.000.000 IRR (One Hundred billion Rials) for
season 1403-1404 [2024-2025] and the net of amount 125.000.000.000 IRR (One Hundred and
twenty five billion Rials) for season 1404-1405 [2025-2026] which will be paid in Tehran.’’
3.
In addition, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant bonus remuneration, as per
clause 5 of the Contract, as follows, (quoted verbatim):
‘’Iran Pro League Championship: 10% of value of the contract
Iran Cup Championship: 5% of value of the contract
Qualification to AFC Champions League: 5% of value of the contract’’
4.
In regard to disputes resolution, clause 11 of the Contract provides ‘’Any disputes arising out
of or in connection with the present Contract shall be settled exclusively by the legal
bodies/committees/chambers of FIFA[…]’’.
5.
On 13 August 2023, the Claimant was loaned out by the Respondent to the Iranian club
Sanate Mes Rafsanjan (hereinafter: Rafsanjan) for the season 2023-2024, and the Claimant
signed an employment contract with Rafsanjan.
6.
According to the information retrieved from FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (hereinafter:
TMS), the 2023/2024 season in Iran concluded on 10 June 2024 and the 2024/2025 season
started on 27 June 2024.
7.
On 15 August 2024, the Claimant sent a formal notice, via email, to the Respondent
regarding his deregistration and exclusion from training sessions. In his letter. The notice
reads as follows, quoted verbatim:
‘’Dear Esteghlal FC Management.
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally address serious concerns
regarding our professional relationship, specifically, the recent deregistration of my
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17078
professional football contract with the Iranian Football Federation and the directive
excluding me from team training sessions.
1. Deregistration of My Contract
As you are aware, we entered into a professional football contract on 13 August 2024.
However, I have been informed that Esteghlal FC has deregistered me from the Iranian
Football Federation. This action effectively prevents me from participating in any
official matches or competitions, which is a fundamental breach of my rights as a
professional football player. According to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players [RSTP], Article 5.1 states that "A player must be registered at an
association to play for a club as either a professional or an amateur." You must notice
that deregistration or nonregistration of a professional football player by a club
can be considered a serious breach of contract, as it denies the player the ability
to fulfill their professional duties and obligations.
2. Exclusion from Training Sessions
In addition to the de-registration, I was recently instructed by the Club to refrain from
attending team training sessions. This exclusion not only hinders my ability to
maintain my professional fitness and skills but also further suggests that Esteghlal FC
may be attempting to undermine my professional standing.
The combined action of deregistering me and excluding me from training sessions can
be interpreted as a clear indication that Esteghlal FC is failing to uphold its contractual
obligations under Article 14 of the RSTP, these actions provide just cause for the
unilateral termination of the contract, as they severely impact my ability to perform
my professional duties and will put in danger my professional career.’’
8.
On 1 September 2024, the Claimant sent a second formal notice to the Respondent raising
the same concerns regarding his deregistration, and the registration of 5 other foreign
players by the Respondent, as well as his exclusion from all training sessions. In this
communication, the Claimant granted 48-hours to the Respondent to honour the
employment contract and mentioned that if the Respondent did not resolve the situation
he would ‘’be released from any employment relationship with [the] club’’. The second formal
notice reads as follows, quoted verbatim:
‘’ Dear Esteghlal FC Management,
I am writing to follow up on my previous correspondence dated 15 August 2024
concerning the deregistration of my status as a professional player for the 2024-2025
season. Our contract commenced on 13 August 2024. It has come to my attention that
your club has registered 5 foreign players, which is the maximum limit set by the Iran
Football Federation. The registered foreign players are as follows: Raphael Silva, Didier
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17078
Ndong, Gael Kakuta, Jaloliddin Masharipov and Gustavo Blanco Leschuk which they
have all played official matches in the Iranian premier league in this season in the
past 3 weeks. According to the Iran Football Federation’s regulations, only five foreign
players may be registered, leaving my current status unclear.
I wish to formally express my concern that I was deregistered for the current season
without prior notice. Despite multiple attempts to reach the club over the past three
weeks via email and telephone, I have received no response. The deregistration of a
professional player without cause constitutes a significant breach of contract under
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), specifically Article 5.1.
Moreover, I have been excluded from all training sessions this season as directed by
the club. This exclusion severely impairs my ability to maintain the fitness and skills
necessary to fulfill my professional responsibilities. It also indicates that Esteghlal FC
does not intend to include me in its squad this season, further evidencing the club’s
unwillingness to meet its contractual obligations, particularly given that the league
has already commenced, and the club has participated in three matches.
The combined actions of deregistration and exclusion from training are clear breaches
of contract and provide just cause for the unilateral termination of our agreement
under RSTP Article 14. These actions substantially undermine my ability to perform
my professional duties and jeopardize my career.
We are hereby granting 48 hours for you to inform us of your decision regarding
whether you wish to honor your binding employment contract. The 48 hours will end
on September 03.2024, at 15:00 Tehran time. Failure to respond within timeframe will
trigger Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (FIFARSTP), resulting in termination from your side without just cause. This action would
hold your club liable for all legal responsibilities and consequences.
Subsequently, in the event of a lack of response, I will be released from any
employment relationship without your club, I will then be at liberty to contract with
any other clubs without incurring any consequences, whether they be sporting
sanctions or financial compensation obligations from your club. The club is obligated
to compensate our client according to Article 17 of FIFA-RSTP.
Please be note that we are open to enter a negotiation to resolve this matter amicably,
avoiding filing any claim before FIFA-Football Tribunal’’.
9.
On 17 September 2024, the Claimant signed a new employment agreement with Iranian
club, Nassaji Mazandaran valid for 2 seasons from 17 September 2024 until the end of the
football season 2025-2026.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17078
10. Art. 3(A) of this new employment agreement provides that the ‘’Salary of the first season […]
183/500 United Arab Emirates AED […] One hundred eighty-three thousand and five hundred
AED (sic).’’
11. Art. 3(A) of the new contract provides that the ‘’Salary of the second season […] 183/500 United
Arab Emirates AED […] One hundred eighty-three thousand and five hundred AED (sic).’’
12. On the same day, the Claimant provided a document entitled ‘’Amendment for Employment
Contract’’ stating that the second season (2025-2026) of the contract was cancelled.
13. On 8 October 2024, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, granting it 10 days to pay
him ‘’the total net amounts of 225,000,000,000 Rials -/ ‘’Two hundred twenty-five billion rials’’ as
compensation, which was the residual value of the Contract at the time of the notice for
allegedly not registering him and preventing him from attending training sessions.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 13 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
15. The Claimant mentions that after his return from loan in June of 2024, he was deregistered
by the Respondent in violation of the Contract and art. 5 and 14 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: ‘‘the Regulations’’).
16. In addition, the Claimant submits that he was prevented from attending training sessions
and playing official matches, in violation of his fundamental rights as a player.
17. He therefore claims that after sending two notices of default, he terminated the Contract
with just cause.
18. He claims that he is entitled to compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations and claims
the residual value of the Contract for the remaining two seasons, namely IRR
100,000,000,000 for 2024-2025 (1403/1404) and IRR 125,000,000,000 for 2025-2026
(1404/1405) for a total of IRR 225,000,000,000.
19. The Claimant requests additional compensation valued at 6 months of salary under art. 17
of the Regulations, raising that the termination of contract occurred under egregious
circumstances. He mentions that the early termination has left him unemployed and
unable to sign with another club, that it diminished his market value, and that the
Respondent’s conduct of not answering communication and allegedly deregistering him
has aggravated the situation.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17078
20. Based on this, he claims IRR 62,500,000,000 as additional compensation.
21. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
‘’1) To accept this claim against the Respondent.
2) To consider the Respondent liable for the termination of the Employment Contract with just
cause
during the protected period under Article 14 of FIFA-RSTP.
3) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant an amount of 225,000,000,000 Rials -/ “Two
hundred twenty-five billion rials” as Compensation for the residual value of the Employment
Contract
according to article 17 of FIFA-RSTP explained as follows:
a. Net amount of 100,000,000,000 IRR-/ “One hundred billion rials”- Residual Amount for the
2024/2025 Season a long with 5% interest shall be calculated as from 1 September 2024.
b. Net amount of 125,000,000,000 IRR-/ (“One Hundred and Twenty-Five Billion Rials”)- Residual
Amount for the 2025/2026 Season (1404/1405). along with 5% interest shall be calculated as
from 1 September 2024
4) To condemn the Respondent to pay the claimant an additional head of compensation of IRR
62,500,000,000 -/ “Sixty-two billion, five hundred million Iranian Rials” plus under the specificity
of sport as provided for under Article 17 of FIFA-RSTP.
5) To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum over
entire amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the effective
payment.
6) To ban the Respondent from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally,
for two registration periods.
7) To fix a sum of USD (5,000-/) “five thousand dollars”, to be paid by the Respondent to the
Claimant, to help the payment of its legal fees and costs.’’
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Respondent mentions several procedural issues regarding the Power of
Attorney submitted by the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent stated that the power of
attorney did not specify the football tribunal, had no date of issuance and validity, did not
specify the scope of representation and that the signature it bears was not verified, and
therefore contravened the requirements of the procedural rules.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17078
23. The Respondent submits that the Claimant was not deregistered but rather that he was not
selected by the coaching staff for a specific competition, namely the Persian Gulf Pro
League, which amounts to a technical decision and not to a deregistration.
24. In support of his position, the Respondent submitted a registration card from the AFC and
a game sheet from the AFC Champions League match against Al Gharafa SC from Qatar, on
16 September 2024, in which the Claimant is listed as eligible and participating.
25. The Respondent mentions that the Claimant’s allegation regarding the alleged prohibition
from training and participating in matches are unsubstantiated and therefore should be
rejected as the Claimant has not discharged his burden of proof.
26. The Respondent alleges that the Claimant had negotiated an employment contract with
another club, namely Arak Aluminium FC while still under contract.
27. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
‘’1. Reject the Claimant’s assertion of just cause termination.
2. Dismiss the Claimant’s demand for compensation, as it lacks evidentiary support.
3. Reduce any potential compensation by factoring in the claimant’s new earnings with Nassaji
Mazandaran. ‘’
c. Replica of the Claimant
28. In its replica to the Respondent’s answer, the Claimant mentioned that he was not included
in the team’s roster for certain competitions and that this exclusion amounts to a ‘’de facto
deregistration’’ which gives rise to the Claimant’s right to terminate his contract under art.
14 of the Regulations and subsequently claim compensation.
29. In support of his position, the Claimant submits that he was not included in the team roster
for the 2024-2024 and 2024-2025 season as displayed on the website ‘’Transfermarkt.com’’.
30. In addition, the Claimant submits that the Respondent’s failure to answer his
communication regarding the deregistration is evidence that the Respondent had indeed
deregistered him.
31. The Claimant submits that the failure to answer his communication is further evidence that
he was prevented from training and mentions that the Respondent failed to submit
evidence that he had indeed trained with the Respondent, which, according to him, justified
his termination of the Contract.
32. The Claimant denies having entered an unauthorized negotiation with another club while
under contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17078
33. He mentions that the evidence provided by the Respondent are ‘’speculative media reports
about the player's potential transfer, which lack credibility’’.
34. The Claimant mentions that the 17 October 2024 notice ‘’were merely an attempt to urge the
Claimant to seek compensation for the remaining amounts in the contract in accordance with
FIFA regulations. At the time, the contract had already been terminated by the Claimant for just
cause’’.
35. The Claimant adds that the statement of Aluminium Arak FC on which the Respondent
relates is contradictory to the Respondent’s assertions and that ultimately no agreement
was reached between Aluminium Arak FC and the Claimant.
36. The Claimant mentions that he is entitled to ‘’the maximum compensation corresponding to
the residual value of their relevant contract’’ regardless of any contract they signed after the
termination of the Contract with the Respondent. The Claimant mentions ‘’signing a new
contract does not erase the damages caused by the unjust termination’’ and reiterates it should
be awarded the residual value of the Contract, namely IRR 225,000,000,000.
37. The Claimant also reaffirms his request for additional compensation mentioning that the
actions of the Respondent infringed on his personal rights, adding ‘’An athlete who is not
actively participating in competitions depreciates on the market and reduces his future career
opportunities. Athletes have therefore a right to actively practice their profession’’.
38. The Claimant therefore reaffirms his claim for additional compensation of ‘’62,500,000,000
Iranian Rials (sixty-two billion five hundred million Iranian Rials), corresponding to six months'
salary’’.
39. The Claimant therefore restated his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
40. In its duplica, the Respondent restates that the Claimant’s contract remained valid and that
he was part of the list of players submitted to the AFC for the Asian Competitions.
41. The Respondent mentions that if a player alleges having been excluded from training, he
bears the burden to prove this allegation which in the present case the Respondent alleges
the Claimant hasn’t discharged.
42. In addition, the Respondent reiterates that the Claimant had entered negotiations with
Aluminum Arak FC while he was already under contract, in breach of his duty of loyalty,
and that he terminated his contract unilaterally in breach of the principle of Pacta Sunt
Servanda.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17078
43. The Respondent mentions that compensation in case of termination without just cause is
subject to mitigation, and it should be applied to the present case.
44. The Respondent concluded by restating its request for relief.
a. Information from the Islamic Republic of Iran Football Federation (IRIFF)
45. Upon invitation from the FIFA general secretariat, on 7 May 2025, the IRIFF confirmed that
the Claimant was never registered with Esteghlal FC in their records.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17078
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 13 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 6 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
47. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Iraqi player and an Iranian club.
48. 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 January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
49. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
50. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17078
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
51. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the date and circumstances of the termination, as well as the
consequences thereof.
52. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to first establish who
terminated the contract and when the termination happened. Once this is established, it
must be determined whether the termination occurred with just cause, and whether
compensation should be awarded.
53. The Chamber first noted that Claimant made contradicting claims in the sense that he
mentions in his submissions that it is the Respondent who terminated the Contract without
just cause, by failing to answer his letters of 15 August 2024 and 1 September 2024,
allegedly deregistering him and preventing him from training, but also submits that he
terminated the contract with just cause because of the silence of the Respondent.
54. While on the other hand, the Chamber considered the Respondent’s position to the effect
that the termination occurred because of the Claimant’s actions.
55. In that sense, the Chamber noted that the Claimant sent a default notice to the
Respondent, on 1 September 2024, stating that he would consider his contract terminated
on 3 September 2024, if the Respondent did not answer him.
56. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that, by 3 September 2024, the Respondent had not
answered the Claimant.
57. Considering the deadline granted by the Claimant in his 1 September 2024 letter, the clear
reference that the Claimant would consider himself relieved of the employment
relationship with the Respondent, and the absence of response from the Respondent, the
Chamber considered that the Claimant effectively terminated his contract on 3 September
2024.
58. Having established that the Contract was terminated on 3 September 2024 by the Claimant,
the Chamber moved to the assessment of just cause.
59. The Claimant mentions that in any case he was allowed to terminate the Contract with just
cause because the Respondent failed to register him.
60. In assessing which party terminated the Contract, the Chamber observed that the Claimant
sent two communications to the Respondent to complain about his non-registration and
exclusion from training sessions, first on 15 August 2024, and on 1 September 2024. Of
note for the Chamber was the fact that both communications were sent to the email
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17078
address listed on TMS as the contact email for the Respondent, which is binding on clubs
as per art. 10 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
61. The Chamber also noticed that the Respondent never contested receiving these
communications.
62. The Chamber also reviewed the evidence provided by both parties in support of their
respective positions and considered that the Claimant’s reliance on the information
available on the website Transfermarkt.com is not sufficiently reliable to confirm whether a
player is in fact registered with a club, as it is not considered an official source for these
purposes.
63. As for the evidence submitted by the Respondent in support of its position, the Chamber
observed that the player selection list from an AFC Champions League match that occurred
on 16 September 2024, listed more players than normally used in a football match, which
made it inconclusive in demonstrating the Player’s registration.
64. Considering the above, the Chamber took note of the information provided by the IRIFF to
the FIFA general secretariat on 7 May 2025 confirming that the Claimant had never been
registered by the Respondent.
65. In that sense, the Football Tribunal’s longstanding jurisprudence that the deregistration, or
lack thereof (non-registration), deprives athletes of their fundamental right to participate
in competitive activities, which can have serious consequences on their careers, and
therefore is motive for immediate termination of contract with just cause.
66. The Chamber also took into account the allegations of the Respondent that the Claimant
engaged in negotiations with another Iranian club, Aluminium Arak, while still under
contract. While this behaviour raises serious concerns, the Chamber observed that the
evidence submitted by the Respondent were media reports, which contain unconfirmed
information, and this action, if ever it occurred, must be placed in the context that the
Claimant did not receive answers from the Respondent to its communications and was not
registered.
67. Considering the above, the Chamber determined that the termination of contract derived
from the following chain of events:
a. On 10 June 2024, the Claimant’s loan with the Iranian club
Sanate Mes Rafsanjan ended, as it was the final day of the season in Iran
according to the information on TMS;
b. On 11 June 2024, the Claimant should have returned to Esteghlal FC;
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17078
c. On 15 August 2024, the Claimant sent a first letter to the Respondent
mentioning that he was not registered and prevented from training;
d. Between 11 June 2024 and 15 August 2024, the Respondent did not
register the Claimant;
e. Although no specific request was made in the 15 August 2024 letter, the
Respondent did not answer this letter;
f. On 1 September 2024, having not received an answer to its first letter, the
Claimant sent a second letter to the Respondent stating that the situation
remained the same, and granting the Respondent a final 48-hour delay,
until 3 September 2024, otherwise he would consider the Contract to be
terminated; and
g. On 3 September 2024, the Claimant did not receive an answer from the
Respondent and effectively terminated the Contract.
68. Considering the non-registration of the Claimant from 11 June 2024 until 16 September
2024, and the Respondent’s silence regarding the Claimant’s letter, the Chamber
determined that the Claimant terminated the Contract with just cause under art.14 of the
Regulations on 17 September 2024 by signing a contract with F.C. Nassaji Mazandaran, as
the Respondent had over 3 months to remedy the situation, as per art. 18(5) of the
Regulations.
69. The Chamber referred in particular to the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition),
which in page 136 and 137 establishes:
“ (…) a club – as an employer – has the duty to protect the personality rights of
the player –as an employee. The career development of a footballer may be
prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty to allow its players
to engage in the activity for which, in principle, they have been employed and are
qualified to perform. (…) A similar approach applies to the non-registration of a
player. This often happens where a club does not undertake all the necessary due
diligence to determine that a player it has signed is eligible to be registered to
participate in a championship (e.g. due to a specific foreign player rule, or specific
squad size limit) or, as has been seen in recent cases, where a club fails to obtain
the ITC (through its own decision or negligence) before the close of the relevant
registration period, despite having signed an employment contract with a player.
Again, it is the club’s responsibility to register the player on time. If the registration
cannot be completed, the player will not be able to participate in organised
football. Therefore, if it fails to act, the club is effectively blocking the player’s
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17078
access to competitive football. This is a violation of a footballer’s fundamental
rights, and gives the player concerned just cause to terminate the contract. (…)”
70. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that since the Claimant had contacted
the Respondent to raise the matter of his non-registration, and did not receive an answer,
he was entitled to terminate his Contract under these circumstances, as non-registration
or deregistration has been considered in the Football Tribunal’s longstanding jurisprudence
as a motive for immediate termination with just cause by players.
ii. Consequences
71. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the termination of contract with just cause by the Claimant.
72. The Player has not claimed overdue salaries, and no evidence has been provided in this
regard.
73. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
74. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
75. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
76. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of IRR 225,000,000,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17078
from the beginning of the 2024-2025 season until the end of the 2025-2026 season), which
is set to end on 22 June 2026.
77. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Claimant’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
78. Indeed, the Claimant found employment with the Iranian club Nassaji Mazandaran. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to a
monthly salary of? AED 183,500, or approximately IRR 2,099,129,900. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of IRR
2,099,129,900.
79. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
termination did not take place due to said reason (i.e. overdue payables) by the
Respondent and therefore decided that the Claimant shall not receive additional
compensation.
80. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
IRR 222,900,870,100 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
81. 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 3 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Consequences of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
82. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17078
83. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
84. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 5 June 2001 and the
relevant contract with the Club was concluded on 13 August 2023. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Player terminated the contract with just cause on 3 September
2024. The breach of contract by the Club had therefore occurred within the protected
period.
85. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had already been held liable of breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, in particular in cases
FPSD-9312, FPSD-10620, and FPSD-16911.
86. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
87. 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.
88. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
89. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
90. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17078
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
91. In view of the above, the DRC decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
92. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which
is available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
d. Costs
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17078
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Muntadher Mohammed Jebur Maslookhi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Esteghlal FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- IRR 222,900,870,100 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 3 September 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
6.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17078
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. 20