Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17625
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Marks
Dambis
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
FK Liepaja, Latvia
FIRST RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Marks Dambis, Latvia
Represented by JT Lex Studio
SECOND RESPONDENT:
SPEZIA CALCIO S.R.L., Italy
Represented by Lombardi Associates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17625
I. Parties
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are the following:
•
The Latvian club, FK Liepaja (hereinafter: FK Liepaja or the Claimant / CounterRespondent), a professional football club affiliated with the Latvian Football Federation
(LFF);
•
The Latvian player, Marks Dambis (hereinafter: the Player or the First Respondent /
Counterclaimant); and
•
The Italian club, Spezia Calcio S.R.L. (hereinafter: Spezia or the Second Respondent), a
professional football club affiliated with the Italian Football Federation (FIGC).
2.
The First Respondent / Counterclaimant and the Second Respondent are hereinafter
jointly referred to as the Respondents.
3.
Additionally, the case file contains references to the Liepaja City Municipality Institution
Football School (hereinafter: the Liepaja School), which appears to maintain a partnership
with FK Liepaja and is responsible for overseeing amateur football activities.
Specifically, on 18 January 2019, FK Liepaja and the Liepaja School entered into a
“Cooperation Agreement” (hereinafter: the Cooperation Agreement), aimed at promoting
sporting activities in Liepaja and identifying / training prospective talents for FK Liepaja’s
U-21 team – such as the Player.
4.
5.
Pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement, FK Liepaja undertook to, inter alia, “transfer
financial resources to [the Liepaja School] in the amount of 50,000 EURO (fifty thousand euros)
annually no later than February 22 of the current year.” (cf., Clause 3.1.7 of the Cooperation
Agreement).
6.
It must be noted that both FK Liepaja and the Liepaja School are registered in the FIFA
Transfer Matching System (TMS) with different user accounts.
II. Facts of the case
7.
In early April 2023, the Player’s father and the Liepaja School exchanged WhatsApp
messages regarding the possibility of the Player joining / training with FK Liepaja. A
representative of the Liepaja School seemingly shared with the Player’s father draft
contracts intended to be signed between the Player and FK Liepaja, which included a
“scholarship” of EUR 300 per month.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17625
8.
On 24 April 2023, and as a result of the commercial partnership between the Liepaja
School and FK Liepaja, the Player and FK Liepaja entered into a “Youth non amateur player”
contract (hereinafter: the Contract), valid from the date of signature until 2 April 2026.
9.
Clause 5 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following:
“5. Payment for services
5.1. The Club pays the Player on a monthly basis on the ground of the signed Acceptance
Certificate for the services rendered. Official service payment in the amount of 300 EURO (net).
After signing the Acceptance Certificate, the service is considered completed.
5.2. The Club can also pay:
5.2.1. Unforeseen reasonable additional costs that were necessary for the Player to provide
services;
5.2.2. Health insurance: subject to regulations of the Republic of Latvia and upon Contract
with the Football player (all medical expenses covered by Club if insurance company can
not cover).”
10.
Clause 8 of the Contract provided the following:
“8. Termination of the Contract
8.1. The Contract is terminated upon expiry of validity period thereof or by mutual agreement of
the Parties. Early termination of the Contract is performed on the grounds provided for by current
LFF, FIFA rules and regulations and legislation of the Republic of Latvia in cases specified in this
Contract. The final settlement shall be made on the day of termination of Contract.
8.2. Early termination of the Contract is permitted in the following cases:
8.2.1 at the Club’s initiative without paying any compensation in favour of Football Player:
8.2.1.1. if the Football player systematically (3 and more times per year) does not
properly provide his services to the Club, or if he has been disqualified for at least 3
months’ time because of his own fault;
8.2.1.2. if the Football player has repeatedly failed to comply with p. 2.1-2.4., p. 7.3.,
and other provisions of the Contract and its Annex No 1;
8.2.1.3. use by Football Player (even occurring once) of the dope substances and/or
methods which was revealed in the course of dope;
8.2.1.4. breach of any of the declaration or guarantee granted by Football Player
stipulated in p. 7.3 of the present Contract, early termination of the present Contract
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17625
does not release the Player from compensation for damage caused to the Club in
this way;
8.2.1.5. in case of systematically non‑compliance with other terms of the Contract;
8.2.1.6. due to gross violation of the instructions of the Club coaches, doctors or the
Club’s administration;
8.2.1.7. in case the player gets injured outside club’s trainings or matches and as a
result of such unable to perform his services for longer than 1 month.
8.2.2. at the Football player’s initiative:
8.2.2.1. if the Club fails to comply with the terms of this Contract and such
circumstances last for more than 2 (two) months.
8.3. Upon termination of the Contract the Football player shall not disclose or use commercial
information or other confidential information about the Club’s activities as specified in this
Contract and in the Latvian legislative provisions for their own benefit or for the benefit of any
third party.
8.4. If the Football player terminates this Contract with the Club on his own initiative (of his own
free will) without justified reasons, then he shall pay the Club a monetary compensation in the
amount equivalent to 200,000 (two hundred thousand) euros (the Termination Clause). The cash
payment to the Club specified in this clause is made by the Football player (or by a third party as
directed by the Football player) not later than the day of dismissal.”
11.
Clause 10.5 of the Contract provided the following:
“Any disputes unsettled in the Club shall be considered based on FIFA, UEFA and LFF Rules and
Regulations. Should the Parties fail to settle the dispute in the said institutions, it shall be settled
in Latvian court and FIFA, UEFA in accordance with the legislative regulations and taking into
account the FIFA, UEFA and LFF directives.”
12.
The Contract was signed by FK Liepaja, the Player and the Player’s father, Mr Edgars
Dambis. However, it is undisputed that the Contract was never submitted to the LFF, and
the Player remained registered as an amateur with the Liepaja School as an amateur
player.
13.
In July 2024, the Player and Liepaja School entered into negotiations regarding the Player’s
future. In this context, and at Spezia’s request, the LFF issued a player passport dated 15
July 2024, which confirmed that the Player was registered as an amateur with the Liepaja
School and this was his only training club (hereinafter: the LFF Passport).
14.
On 25 July 2024, Spezia submitted a transfer offer to the Liepaja School via email.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17625
15.
On 27 July 2024, the Liepaja School accepted the offer and requested a draft transfer
agreement, which Spezia subsequently provided on 30 July 2024.
16.
On 30 July 2024, Spezia and the Liepaja School entered into a transfer agreement
(hereinafter: the Transfer Agreement) for the permanent transfer of the Player’s registration
from the Liepaja School to Spezia.
17.
The main provisions of the Transfer Agreement established the following:
“WHEREAS:
(A) SPEZIA is a professional football club affiliated to the Italian Football Association – Federazione
Italiana Giuoco Calcio (‘FIGC’) – and playing in the second division of Italy – SERIE B;
(B) LIEPAJA is a football club affiliated to Latvian Football Federation – Latvijas Futbola Federācija
(‘LFF’) and playing in Latvian Youth football championship;
(C) SPEZIA wishes to register for the first time as professional Mr. MARKS DAMBIS, an amateur
football player, national of Latvia, whose date of birth is 29/02/2008 (hereinafter the ‘Player’), and
who is currently registered as an amateur player with LIEPAJA;
(D) the Player is currently registered for LIEPAJA, which has agreed for the registration of the Player
with SPEZIA, not intending to hinder the Player in pursuing his future professional career abroad
and is willing to take every necessary action to facilitate the Player’s registration with SPEZIA;
(E) the Player has agreed to be registered for SPEZIA, for the first time as professional;
(F) LIEPAJA is willing to renounce its entitlement to claim from SPEZIA any Training Compensation,
due to training club(s) according to art. 20 and Annexe 4 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter the ‘Training Compensation’);
(G) SPEZIA wishes to remunerate LIEPAJA for the period of time during which has trained the
Player.
[…]
3. Remuneration for LIEPAJA
3.1. LIEPAJA hereby renounces to the Training Compensation due to LIEPAJA by SPEZIA for the
registration of the Player for the first time as a professional with SPEZIA.
3.2. As remuneration for the period of time during which LIEPAJA trained and developed the Player,
SPEZIA shall pay to LIEPAJA the compensation provided for in this clause 3.
Contingent Compensation
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17625
3.3. SPEZIA agrees to pay to LIEPAJA, by way of contingent compensation as remuneration for the
period of time during which LIEPAJA trained the Player, as follows (the ‘Contingent Compensation’):
1.1 € 5,000.00 (fivethousand/00 euros), plus any applicable VAT, when the Player makes his
20th Relevant Appearance for SPEZIA’s youth team (‘Squadra Primavera’); and
(a) € 10,000.00 (ten thousand/00 euros), plus any applicable VAT, when the Player makes
his 1st Relevant Appearance for SPEZIA’s men’s first team; and
(b) € 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand/00 euros), plus any applicable VAT, when the Player
makes his 7th Relevant Appearance for SPEZIA’s men’s first team in the Italian Second
Division Championship (‘Serie B’); and
1.2 € 50,000.00 (fifty thousand/00 euros), plus any applicable VAT, when the Player makes
his 7th Relevant Appearance for SPEZIA’s men’s first team in the Italian First Division
Championship (‘Serie A’).
3.4. For the purposes of clause 3.3:
(A) “Relevant Appearance” means the Player entering the field of play as a member of the
starting eleven line‑up or plays for a minimum of 45 minutes in a competitive men’s
first team or youth team (‘Squadra Primavera’) with reference to the Contingent
Compensation under lett. (a)‑ match;
3.5. Any amount of Contingent Transfer Compensation that becomes due and payable pursuant
to clause 3.3 shall be paid by SPEZIA to LIEPAJA by the date falling 30 (thirty) days after the date
on which such amount became due and payable pursuant to clause 3.3, subject to SPEZIA’s prior
receipt of a valid invoice from LIEPAJA in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Future transfer compensation (Sell‑on‑fee)
3.6. If following the registration of the Player as a professional, SPEZIA agrees to transfer, on a
permanent basis (excluding, for the avoidance of doubt, any temporary transfer save for any
temporary transfer agreed between SPEZIA and a third party football club where the Player
subsequently transfers to that third party football club on a permanent basis immediately
thereafter or at some later date) (a ‘Future Permanent Transfer’), the registration of the Player to
another football club for a future transfer fee (the ‘Future Transfer Fee’), SPEZIA shall pay to
LIEPAJA an amount (the ‘Sell‑on Fee’) that is equal to 5% (five percent) of ‘X’ minus ‘Y’, where:
(a) ‘X’ is any Future Transfer Fee actually received by SPEZIA in respect of the Future Transfer,
excluding:
(i) any applicable VAT and all amounts which actually paid to any person (including to
LIEPAJA) in respect of the Future Transfer Fee by way of training compensation or solidarity
payments or otherwise under applicable football rules and regulations; and
(ii) any future sell‑on fees which SPEZIA receives from any third party;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17625
(b) ‘Y’ is the value of any Contingent Compensation, paid or payable (even if only accrued and
due, but still not paid) by SPEZIA to LIEPAJA as at the date of the Future Transfer Permanent
Transfer.
For the avoidance of doubt, if ‘Y’ is greater than ‘X’, then the Future Transfer Compensation shall
be zero.
(A) For the purposes of clause 3.6 ‘Future Transfer Fee’ shall mean any cash transfer fees SPEZIA
receives for the Future Permanent Transfer, including without limitation, any contingent
payments which SPEZIA receives at any time for the permanent transfer of the Player’s
registration, but excluding any sell‑on fees which SPEZIA might receive from any third party.]
3.7. Sell‑on Fee (if any) shall become payable by SPEZIA to LIEPAJA within 30 (thirty) days after the
date (or, if the fixed transfer fee payable to SPEZIA in respect of such Future Permanent Transfer
is payable to SPEZIA in instalments, after each relevant date on which SPEZIA actually receives the
Future Transfer Fee).
3.8. SPEZIA agrees to notify LIEPAJA of the terms (including the financial terms) of any Future
Permanent Transfer and of any subsequent amendments thereto, within 15 (fifteen) days of the
date of a Future Permanent Transfer and, if applicable, of the date of any subsequent amendment
thereof.
[…]
4. Undertakings, representations and warranties
4.1. LIEPAJA hereby undertakes, represents and warrants to SPEZIA that:
(A) it is the legal and beneficial owner of all rights and interest, of whatever nature, in the
registration (including 100% of the economic and federative rights) of the Player (the
‘Registration’), it holds the Registration absolutely and is free from any contractual obligations
and/or relationships with any other football club, intermediary, agent or any other legal entity
or person in respect of the Registration;
(B) LIEPAJA is (and shall remain until the date of completion of the Transfer) duly entitled to
transfer the Registration unencumbered to SPEZIA, such that SPEZIA shall become the
absolute beneficial owner of all interests and rights in connection therewith upon completion
of the Transfer pursuant to this Agreement;
(C) it shall, and it shall procure that the Player shall, do all things necessary to ensure the Player
becomes permanently registered with SPEZIA in accordance with the terms of this Agreement,
including but without limitation: (i) cancelling its registration of the Player and the Player’s
contract of employment with LIEPAJA; (ii) completing any regulatory forms and documents
requested by SPEZIA; and (iii) complying with any other instructions of SPEZIA in respect of the
Transfer;
[…]
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17625
(L) it accepts the sums to be paid to it by SPEZIA as expressly set out in this Agreement in full and
final settlement of any and all claims it may have in respect of the Player and the Registration,
and no further payments shall be made by SPEZIA to LIEPAJA in respect of the Transfer save
as contemplated herein;
(M) it has disclosed to SPEZIA the full details of any release clause, buy‑out clause or similar
provision which might affect SPEZIA’s rights and interests under this Agreement that exists in
any contract to which LIEPAJA and the Player are a party;
(N) LIEPAJA confirms that the terms of this Agreement and the sums payable hereunder are
sufficient to meet and discharge any release clause (or similar provision) contained in any
contract to which LIEPAJA and the Player are a party; and
(O) it shall immediately notify SPEZIA in the event that it becomes aware of a breach of any
representations, warranties and undertakings in this clause.
[…]
4.3. LIEPAJA undertakes that if it provides SPEZIA with any inaccurate, incomplete or false
information, this shall constitute a serious breach and just cause for the termination of this
Agreement at SPEZIA’s sole discretion, without prejudice to compensation for further damages
suffered by SPEZIA.
4.4. LIEPAJA shall fully indemnify and hold harmless SPEZIA from and against all claims, demands,
sports disciplinary proceedings, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, losses, judgments, costs and
expenses (including but not limited to reasonable legal fees and costs), whether or not involving a
third party claim, which arise out of or relate to any breach of any representation or warranty by
LIEPAJA.
4.5. SPEZIA hereby undertakes and warrants to LIEPAJA that it is fully entitled and authorized to
enter into this Agreement and fulfil its obligations hereunder.”
18.
Between 2 and 5 August 2024, the Player underwent medical examinations in Italy and
was diagnosed with acetabular malformation, a pre-existing hip condition.
19.
On 6 August 2024:
• The Player and Spezia signed a “Conttrato di Apprendistato Sportivo” (hereinafter:
the Italian Contract), valid from 6 August 2024 until 30 June 2026.
• The FIGC submitted a minor application request to FIFA (G-0002905) in TMS, which
included written authorization from the Player’s parents.
• Spezia initiated a transfer instruction to permanently register the Player (Transfer
ID: 885599 / 876544). The releasing club listed in the transfer instruction was
“Liepajas FS” i.e., the Liepaja School.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17625
20.
On 7 August 2024, FK Liepaja issued a default notice to Spezia, noting that it had learned
of a written transfer offer made by Spezia regarding the Player. FK Liepaja stated that the
Player was bound by a valid contract with the Club until 2 April 2026, which was signed
with the express consent of the Player’s parents and was fully compliant with Latvian law
and art. 18 and 19 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations). FK Liepaja asserted that any direct negotiations between
Spezia and the Player constituted a violation of the Regulations and formally requested
that Spezia immediately cease such negotiations. FK Liepaja reserved its rights in the
event of further breach of contract.
21.
On the same date, Spezia responded to FK Liepaja’s notice, denying that it had engaged
in direct negotiations with the Player regarding his transfer. Spezia also acknowledged
that the Player did not hold a professional contract and had always been registered as an
amateur.
22.
In parallel, representatives of Spezia and the Liepaja School exchanged WhatsApp
messages, during which the latter confirmed that the Player had only been registered in
Latvia as an amateur.
23.
Furthermore, Spezia contacted the LFF via email, requesting confirmation of the
legitimacy of the LFF Passport.
24.
On 8 August 2024, the LFF confirmed to Spezia that “no agreement or contract involving [the
Player] has been registered within the Latvian Football Federation’s player registration system”.
25.
On the same date, FK Liepaja issued a second notice, this time referring to the Contract
and asserting that it constituted a valid agreement with the Player, capable of triggering
the sporting consequences of breach of contract. FK Liepaja alleged that the Player had
provided false information regarding his status at the Club and stated that it was “ready
to consider relevant offers from [Spezia] regarding the possible transfer of [the Player]”. FK
Liepaja also reserved its rights to claim compensation in accordance with the Regulations.
26.
On 12 August 2024, Liepaja School entered a matching counter-instruction into TMS to
release the Player permanently.
27.
On 14 August 2024, the FIGC’s minor application for transfer of the Player was approved,
and the FIGC requested the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC), which was
delivered by the LFF on the same date.
28.
On 16 August 2024, the Player’s ITC was finalised, and the Player was registered with
Spezia. This registration also triggered the Electronic Player Process (EPP) (EPP-46754)
under the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17625
29.
As part of the EPP process, on 30 August 2024, the FIFA Clearing House (hereinafter: FCH)
released the Player’s EPP for review by the FIGC. The Liepaja School was listed as the sole
training club of the Player.
30.
On 11 September 2024, Spezia uploaded a copy of the Transfer Agreement to the EPP file,
identifying it as a waiver of training compensation by the Liepaja School.
31.
In parallel, on the same date, FK Liepaja issued a notice of default to the Player and his
father, recalling the terms of the Contract and demanding that the Player return to FK
Liepaja within 10 days.
32.
On 24 September 2024, FK Liepaja reiterated its warning to the Player and his father,
granting an additional 5 days for the Player to resume the Contract. FK Liepaja requested
that the Player contact club management to arrange travel to Latvia.
33.
Between September and October 2024, FK Liepaja sent further communications to the
Player’s father via WhatsApp.
34.
On 8 October 2024, FK Liepaja sent a letter to Spezia, stating as follows (quoted verbatim):
“We would like to refer to the matter of reference and, in particular, to our previous letters dated
7, 8 August, 11 and 24 September 2024.
As we have learned, Marks Dambis (also known as the ‘Minor Player’) returned from Spezia Calcio
on September 27, 2024. We would like to point out that the Minor Player has been at your club
since 5 August 2024, i.e. for almost 2 months. At the same time, as we have learned, the Minor
Player returned from your club with a hip injury and requires immediate treatment, despite the
fact that he left Latvia in perfect health.
In connection with this, we demand that you immediately provide all medical documents
regarding the Minor Player’s injury, as well as a detailed report on the treatment applied.
In addition, we consider it necessary to directly state to you that the behavior of Spezia Calcio
grossly violates not only FIFA regulations, but also the minimum moral and ethical standards of
professional relationships between people.
In this regard, we inform you once again that FK ‘Liepaja’ still fully reserves all its rights in case of
further violation by Spezia Calcio of the Contract between FK ‘Liepaja’ and Marks Dambis and
relevant articles of the FIFA RSTP.
Thank you for your kind attention to the above, which is without prejudice.”
35.
On 22 October 2024, the Player underwent surgery in Italy.
36.
On 23 October 2024, Spezia responded to FK Liepaja’s earlier notification, reiterating that
the Player had never been registered as a professional by FK Liepaja and, therefore, FK
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17625
Liepaja held no rights over his registration. Spezia denied any breach of contract and
requested that FK Liepaja cease further communications and unfounded allegations.
Spezia also stated that it would not respond to any future correspondence.
37.
On 29 October 2024, FK Liepaja issued a “last warning” to the Player and his father,
granting a final opportunity for the Player to resume his services by 8 November 2024. FK
Liepaja stated that failure to do so would result in termination of the Contract with just
cause.
38.
In November 2024, Mr Davids Jansons, identified by FK Liepaja as one of its
representatives, and Mr Patricks Ancans, identified by FK Liepaja as the Player’s agent
(hereinafter: the Agent), exchanged WhatsApp messages regarding potential training
compensation payable by Spezia to FK Liepaja.
39.
On 6 December 2024, FK Liepaja contacted the LFF to request retroactive registration of
the Contract. This letter stated the following (quoted verbatim):
“Thank you for your reply to our letter regarding the transfer of Marks Dambis, who has a valid
contract with FK Liepaja until April 2, 2026, within the framework of the FIFA TMS system, to the
Italian football club Spezia Calcio. We inform you that FK Liepaja (hereinafter also referred to as
the Club) did not register the said contract with LFF with Marks Dambis (hereinafter also referred
to as the Minor Player) for the reason of not preventing him from playing in youth competitions,
however, we would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that the Club paid Marks
Dambis' salary in full and on time (please find attached). We would also like to draw your attention
once again to the fact that the contract between FK Liepaja and the Minor Player was signed with
the direct and explicit consent of Marks Dambis' parents.
The non-registration of the contract was also due to the fact that FK Liepaja planned to involve
Marks Dambis in working with the main team of the club starting from January 2025 and,
accordingly, also increase his salary. Taking into account all of the above, guided by p. 4.3.1. LFF
regulations for the specific status and salary of FK Liepaja, hereby requests you to register the
contract with Marks Dambis in the COMET system and make the appropriate changes to the
player passport of Marks Dambis. The said request is also justified by the fact that in case of
possible subsequent transfers of the Minor Player, FK Liepaja should be entitled to receive the
corresponding training compensation for the period from 24.04.2023 to 01.11.2024 (or at least
until 14.08.2024, i.e. the date of Marks Dambis' transfer to Spezia Calcio).
In addition, we also ask that no penalties be applied to FK Liepaja for the late registration of this
contract.”
40.
On 10 December 2024, the LFF responded to FK Liepaja’s letter, stating that the Contract
could not be registered, as the Player’s registration rights (and the ITC) had already been
transferred to the FIGC on 14 August 2024.
41.
Within the EPP case, on 31 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged
receipt of the Transfer Agreement from Spezia and invited the Liepaja School to submit
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17625
its position on the documentation by 5 February 2025. The communication included the
following statement: “Please note that no further deadlines will be provided. Should you fail
to reply within the set deadline, we may proceed on the basis of the file as it stands”.
42.
On 7 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat confirmed that no response had been
received from the Liepaja School and issued the “Determination of the FIFA general
secretariat on EPP 46754” (hereinafter: the EPP Determination). The EPP Determination
provided, inter alia, the following:
“12. Liepajas FS would in principle be entitled to training compensation for having registered the
player at some point in time between the start of the calendar year of player’s 12th birthday and
the end of the calendar year of player’s 21st birthday, but given that training compensation is
deemed included in the transfer fee paid by the new club, no training compensation is due to this
training club.
13. No club is entitled to training compensation.”
43.
The EPP Determination also established the following:
“18. Pursuant to article 57 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Statutes and in accordance with article 10 of
the FCHR, this decision may be appealed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport within 21 days
of notification. The final EPP will remain available in TMS.”
III. Proceedings before FIFA
44.
On 30 December 2024, FK Liepaja filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of FK Liepaja
45.
FK Liepaja maintained that a valid employment contract (i.e., the Contract) had been
executed with the Player, with a term extending to 2 April 2026. It pointed out that the
Contract was signed by both the Player and his legal guardian (father), and FK Liepaja had
consistently paid the agreed remuneration until November 2024. FK Liepaja contended
that the Player satisfied the criteria of a professional under art. 2 of the Regulations,
having received monthly payments exceeding his football-related expenses.
46.
FK Liepaja nonetheless stated that it had agreed with the Player not to register the
Contract in order to allow for his participation in youth competitions. It stated the
following in this respect (quoted verbatim):
“13. Due to the fact that when signing the Contract the Player was 15 years of age and in order to
maintain and receive for the Player playing practice in the relevant youth competitions held under
the auspices of the Latvian Football Federation (hereinafter as the ‘LFF’), FK “Liepaja” and the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17625
Player’s father mutually decided to temporarily postpone the registration of the Contract with the
LFF, including to ensure a smooth transition for the Player to adult football and to preserve the
opportunity to play in the LFF youth competitions.
Herewith, we also note that an agreement was reached between the Claimant and the Player’s
father that the contract would be registered with the LFF in January 2025 (including the possibility
of extending it on improved terms for the Player - a monthly remuneration of EUR 500.00 net)
when a Player is included in the Club’s main team.”
47.
Despite the Contract being in full force and effect, and FK Liepaja having consistently
fulfilled its financial and developmental obligations – including monthly salary payments
and training support – it alleged that the Player entered into negotiations with Spezia in
August 2024. These negotiations allegedly occurred without prior written notice to FK
Liepaja.
48.
FK Liepaja argued that both Respondents engaged in a pattern of deliberate and
coordinated bad faith conduct that violated both the terms of the Contract and the
principles of FIFA and Swiss law. Despite being fully aware of the existence of a valid
employment contract between the Player and FK Liepaja, the Respondents proceeded
with negotiations and ultimately signed a professional contract without notifying FK
Liepaja. According to FK Liepaja, this concealment was maintained for over four months,
during which time the Respondents intentionally delayed communication and obstructed
FK Liepaja’s ability to amend the player’s EPP within the FCH inspection period.
EPP process and entitlement to training compensation
49.
FK Liepaja alleged that Spezia failed to exercise due diligence, disregarding formal
warnings and refusing to investigate the Player’s contractual status, even after receiving
direct notice. FK Liepaja emphasised that Spezia’s actions disrupted the legal order of
player transfers and breached provisions of the Regulations, particularly those concerning
contractual stability and the prohibition of unauthorised negotiations. FK Liepaja stated
that the Agent was also implicated in this misconduct, creating false expectations of a
possible settlement.
50.
Furthermore, FK Liepaja highlighted Spezia’s contradictory behaviour, which included
initial expressions of willingness to negotiate training compensation followed by a refusal
to confirm such terms in writing. According to FK Liepaja, this conduct violated the legal
principle of venire contra factum proprium, which prohibits a party from acting against its
own prior conduct that created legitimate expectations. The Respondents’ actions were
described by FK Liepaja as unethical, indecent, and in breach of the Procedural Rules
Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), which mandates good
faith in all legal proceedings.
51.
In light of the above, FK Liepaja challenged the accuracy and reliability of the LFF Passport.
FK Liepaja argued that this passport contained erroneous information regarding both the
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17625
Player’s status and his last registered club. According to the Club, the Player had signed a
valid professional contract with it on 24 April 2023 and had been receiving monthly
remuneration since then. The Club reiterated that the decision to delay registration with
the LFF until January 2025 had been mutually agreed with the Player’s father to allow the
Player to continue participating in youth competitions. However, due to the Player’s
breach of contract, the Club submitted the Contract for registration earlier than planned.
52.
The Club asserted that the LFF’s refusal to register the Contract and amend the Player’s
EPP was based on incomplete and misleading information, which failed to reflect the
Player’s professional status and contractual obligations. It cited jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to support its position,
arguing that the designation of a player’s status in a passport issued by a federation is not
determinative. Instead, the decisive factor is the existence of a written contract and the
payment of remuneration exceeding the player’s football-related expenses.
53.
Furthermore, the Club criticised Spezia’s reliance on the LFF Passport as justification for
its actions, stating that such reliance did not constitute good faith or proper due diligence,
especially given that FK Liepaja had formally notified Spezia of the existing contract. The
Club concluded that the LFF Passport (and the EPP Determination) should be amended to
reflect the Player’s professional status with FK Liepaja from 24 April 2023 onward, and
that this correction was essential for the Club’s entitlement to training compensation
under FIFA regulations.
Contractual stability
54.
FK Liepaja emphasised the foundational importance of the principle of contractual
stability in professional football, as enshrined in both the Regulations and Swiss law under
the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda. FK Liepaja argued that once a contract is validly
signed, it must be respected and fulfilled by both parties unless terminated by mutual
agreement or for just cause. The Club cited FIFA Circular No. 769/2001 and relevant CAS
jurisprudence to support the assertion that contractual stability is essential for the
integrity of football, protecting clubs, players, and the broader sporting ecosystem.
55.
FK Liepaja maintained that it had fully complied with its contractual obligations, including
timely payment of the agreed monthly salary to the Player, and had never received any
complaints or claims from the Player regarding the Contract’s execution. In contrast, the
Player had grossly violated several key provisions of the Contract, including failing to
respond to communications, not reporting a serious injury, engaging in unauthorised
negotiations with another club, and ultimately signing a contract with Spezia without
permission.
56.
The Club argued that these actions constituted a unilateral termination of the Contract
without just cause. It further noted that the breach occurred during the protected period,
which under the Regulations warrants sporting sanctions. The Club concluded that the
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17625
Player’s conduct, combined with Spezia’s inducement and bad faith, undermined the
principle of contractual stability and justified both financial compensation and disciplinary
measures.
Compensation
57.
FK Liepaja argued that the unilateral termination of the Contract by the Player entitled the
Club to compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations. The Club emphasised that the
Contract included a liquidated damages clause (clause 8.4), which clearly stipulated that
in the event of termination without justified reasons, the Player should pay the Club a
fixed amount of EUR 200,000.
58.
According to FK Liepaja, this clause was voluntarily agreed upon by both parties and was
valid and enforceable under Swiss law. FK Liepaja supported its claim by referencing
established FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, which allegedly affirms the primacy of
contractual clauses over the default compensation parameters in art. 17 of the
Regulations. Specifically, the Club cited CAS 2020/A/7187, which allegedly confirms that
where a liquidated damages clause exists, it should be the primary basis for calculating
compensation.
59.
FK Liepaja also argued that the clause in question meets all formal requirements under
Swiss law for a “clause pénale,” including clarity of parties, conditions, and amount.
Moreover, FK Liepaja stressed that such clauses do not need to be reciprocal to be valid,
a position supported by CAS in CAS 2015/A/3999 and CAS 2019/A/6626.
60.
In justifying the EUR 200,000 compensation amount, FK Liepaja also pointed out to its
substantial investment in youth development, including over EUR 575,000 in support of
the Liepaja School, and the Player’s projected market value of at least EUR 1,000,000. The
Club asserted that the compensation is proportionate and reflects both direct and indirect
damages suffered due to the premature termination. Additionally, the Club requested
interest at a rate of 5% p.a. from 16 August 2024 until full payment is made.
Sporting sanctions and joint liability of Spezia
61.
FK Liepaja further argued that the breach occurred during the protected period defined
by Regulations. As such, the breach triggered not only financial liability but also sporting
sanctions, including a four-month suspension from official matches, which may be
extended to six months due to aggravating circumstances. These aggravating factors
include the Player’s complete disregard for his contractual obligations, failure to
communicate with the Club, and concealment of the transfer to Spezia.
62.
FK Liepaja also highlighted Spezia’s role in inducing the breach and its failure to conduct
proper due diligence, which further supported the claim for joint and several liability
under art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations. FK Liepaja asserted that Spezia had full knowledge
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17625
of the Contract, as evidenced by formal communications sent in early August 2024.
Despite this, Spezia proceeded to sign the Player and facilitate his international transfer
without engaging in proper negotiations.
63.
FK Liepaja emphasised that Spezia ignored multiple warnings and failed to verify the
Player’s contractual status, even after being explicitly informed. This behaviour, according
to the FK Liepaja, meets the threshold for inducement under FIFA’s regulatory framework
and jurisprudence. The Club also references the “Interim Regulatory Framework” adopted
by FIFA, which clarifies that the burden of proof lies with the claiming club to demonstrate
inducement, a burden FK Liepaja claimed to have met through documented evidence and
correspondence.
64.
Furthermore, FK Liepaja requested that Spezia be banned from registering new players
for two consecutive registration periods, as provided under art. 17 par. 4 of the
Regulations when a club is found to have induced a breach during the protected period.
Training compensation
65.
FK Liepaja claimed its right to receive training compensation based on art. 20 of the
Regulations, which required that training compensation be paid to a player’s training club
when the player was registered as a professional for the first time or transferred before
the end of the calendar year of his 23rd birthday. FK Liepaja emphasised that the Player
had been trained under its supervision between 24 April 2023 and 16 August 2024, during
which time he had a valid professional contract and received monthly remuneration.
66.
FK Liepaja calculated the compensation in accordance with Annexe 4 of the Regulations,
which outlined the applicable training costs per category. As a category 3 club, FK Liepaja
determined its entitlement to be EUR 44,281.15, broken down into EUR 6,904.11 for the
Player’s 15th year and EUR 37,377.04 for his 16th year. FK Liepaja also requested interest
at a rate of 5% p.a. from 16 September 2024, the date by which the compensation should
have been paid, citing FIFA and CAS jurisprudence supporting interest accrual in cases of
delayed payment.
67.
FK Liepaja clarified that its claim for training compensation was independent of its claim
for breach of contract. Even if the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected the
liquidated damages clause, FK Liepaja argued that the training compensation must still
be awarded. It also noted that Spezia’s conduct, particularly its failure to act in good faith
and its role in inducing the player’s breach, did not exempt it from its financial obligations
under FIFA’s regulatory framework.
68.
In conclusion, FK Liepaja requested that the DRC recognise its right to training
compensation for the development of the Player and award the full amount of EUR
44,281.15 plus interest, regardless of the outcome of the breach of contract claim.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17625
Evidentiary Requests
69.
FK Liepaja submitted the evidentiary requests, quoted verbatim:
“154. As an evidential measure, in accordance with FIFA Procedural Rules art.13 par.6 the
Claimant requests by the Respondents the production of the entire file that led to the illegal
transfer of the Player to the [Spezia]. In particular, the Claimant requests to order the
Respondents to disclose the following evidences:
(i) professional contract between the Respondents with its all annexes;
(ii) any correspondence between the Respondents that preceded the illegal transfer and the
conclusion of a professional contract between them;
(iii) any correspondence and possible agreements between Respondent 2 and the School that
preceded the illegal transfer of the Player and the conclusion of a professional contract between
the Respondents.
155. Since the Claimant does not have at his disposal the contract between the Respondents and
other relevant documentations, the Claimant reserves the right to amend and/or expand upon its
Prayers for relief.”
Requests for relief
70.
FK Liepaja submitted the following relief:
“156. [FK Liepaja] would like to appeal to the respected DRC attention due to the fact that this
case is very important for the Club as we feel ourselves cheated. We would like to stress that we
will use all legal opportunities in order to defend the Club from such bad faith behaviour from
side of the Player and [Spezia].
157. We hope and believe that this matter will be treated impartially regardless of the status of
the [Italian Club].
158. For the reasons specified in this Statement of the Claim and in accordance to the FIFA RSTP
and FIFA Procedural Rules the Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA DRC decides as follows:
-
Rule that FIFA DRC has jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the present Statement of the
Claim and that it is admissible.
-
Rule that the Player Passport provided by the LFF is erroneous and should be substituted
with the correct one, which explicitly provides that the Player Marks Dambis was
registered as a professional football player for [FK Liepaja] starting from 2 April 2023 till
16 August 2024.
-
Rule that the Player terminated without just cause the Contract with the Claimant, and as
such acted in breach of the employment agreement and that [Spezia] is jointly and
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17625
severally liable for the termination of the Contract by the Player without just cause.
-
Rule that the Player should pay contractually stipulated compensation for termination of
the Contract without just cause in the amount of EUR 200,000.00 net, with the joint and
several liability of [Spezia] with the interest of 5% per annum on the amount of
compensation for the termination of the Contract without just cause starting with 16
August 2024 until the date of effective payment, with the joint and several liability of
[Spezia].
-
Impose sporting sanctions on the [Player] in forms of six-month restriction on playing in
official matches and impose sporting sanctions on [Spezia], in form of ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
-
Rule that [Spezia] is liable to pay to the Claimant the training compensation, calculated
in accordance with the procedure, provided for in the FIFA RSTP and FIFA Clearing House
Regulations, but in any event in the amount not less than EUR 44,281.15. net with the
interest of 5% per annum starting with 16 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
-
Rule that both Respondents shall jointly and severally bear all procedural costs, if any,
and shall be ordered to reimburse the Claimant any filing fees and/or advances of costs,
paid to the FIFA Football Tribunal and be ordered to pay the Claimant a contribution
towards the legal and other costs incurred by the latter in relation to these proceedings.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Player
71.
On 30 August 2025, the Player submitted his reply to the claim and filed a counterclaim
against FK Liepaja.
Jurisdiction
72.
The Player began by challenging the jurisdiction of the DRC, asserting that the dispute was
purely domestic.
73.
The Player claimed that the Contract between the Player and FK Liepaja had never been
registered with the LFF, and the Player had remained officially registered as an amateur
with Liepaja School. The subsequent transfer to Spezia in Italy did not retroactively create
an international dimension, and, therefore, FIFA lacked jurisdiction.
74.
According to the Player, the Contract itself also included a jurisdiction clause that
prioritised Latvian courts and domestic remedies before involving FIFA or UEFA.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17625
Substance
• Standing to sue
76.
The Player argued that FK Liepaja lacked legal standing (locus standi) to bring a claim
before the DRC. The core of the argument was that the Club had failed to register the
Contract with the LFF, and as a result, the Player was never officially registered as a
professional with the Club. Instead, the Player remained registered as an amateur with
Liepaja School, as confirmed by the LFF Passport.
77.
The Player emphasised that registration is a fundamental requirement under both FIFA
and LFF internal regulations (hereinafter: the LFF Rules) for establishing a valid
employment relationship. Without such registration, the Club could not claim to have any
binding contractual rights over the Player. The LFF had also rejected the Club’s attempt to
register the Contract retroactively, further confirming that the Contract had no legal
effect.
78.
Additionally, the Player highlighted that FIFA’s rules on the protection of minors are strict
and that unregistered minors fall outside the protective scope of FIFA’s regulatory
framework. The Club’s failure to register the Player not only violated these rules but also
exposed the Player to potential exploitation. The Player argued that this failure rendered
the Club a “stranger” to the employment relationship it sought to enforce and, therefore,
unable to claim compensation or allege breach of contract.
79.
In conclusion, the Player asserted that the Club’s failure to comply with mandatory
registration requirements invalidated its claim and deprived it of standing to sue either
the Player or Spezia for breach of contract or training compensation.
• Amateur status
80.
The Player argued that he was officially registered as an amateur with Liepaja School prior
to signing with Spezia, and not with FK Liepaja. This was confirmed by the LFF Passport
dated 15 July and confirmed on 7 August 2024. According to FIFA and LFF Rules, a player
must be registered with a national association to be considered either a professional or
an amateur. The Player emphasised that merely signing a contract does not establish
professional status unless the contract is registered and the player is paid more than the
actual expenses incurred.
81.
The Player further cited art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which defines a professional as
someone who has a written contract and is paid more than their effective expenses. The
EUR 300 monthly payments made by the Club did not exceed the Player’s actual costs
(such as schooling and training) and therefore could not be considered remuneration
under FIFA’s definition. As such, the Player maintained his amateur status.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17625
82.
Additionally, the Player highlighted that the LFF Passport is the key document used to
determine training compensation and player history. Since LFF and FCH both recognised
the Player as an amateur, the Club’s claim that he was a professional was unfounded. The
Player concluded that his amateur status was legally and factually established, and that
the Club’s arguments to the contrary lacked merit.
• Non-Registration of the Contract
83.
The Player reiterated that the Contract allegedly signed with FK Liepaja was never
registered with the LFF, and this failure rendered the Contract legally ineffective. The Club
admitted that it had not registered the Contract and later attempted to do so retroactively,
but the LFF rejected the request due to the expiration of the regulatory deadline.
84.
The Player emphasised that under art. 5, 8, and 11 of the Regulations, registration is a
prerequisite for a player to be officially recognised as part of a club. Without registration,
any appearance in official matches would be considered illegitimate, and clubs could face
sanctions. The responsibility for registration lies solely with clubs – not players.
85.
Additionally, the Player pointed out that FK Liepaja violated several LFF Rules, including
failing to notify Liepaja School and the LFF before engaging in negotiations with the Player,
as required under art. 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of the LFF Rules. The Club also failed to comply with
rules governing the registration of minor players, which are designed to protect young
athletes from exploitation.
86.
The Player concluded that the Club’s failure to register the Contract and follow mandatory
procedures meant that no valid employment relationship had been established. As a
result, the Club could not claim breach of contract or seek compensation. The Player
maintained that registration is not a mere formality but a legal requirement that creates
binding effects within the FIFA regulatory framework.
• Lack of employment relationship
87.
The Player argued that no valid employment relationship ever existed between him and
FK Liepaja. The foundation of this argument was that there had been no formal transfer
agreement between Liepaja School – where the Player was registered as an amateur –
and FK Liepaja. The Cooperation Agreement between the Club and the School was general
in nature and did not mention the Player or transfer any federative rights to the Club.
88.
The Player emphasised that under LFF Rules, a transfer of a minor player requires a formal
process, including a signed registration form and confirmation in the LFF “COMET system”.
Neither FK Liepaja nor the Liepaja School initiated such a transfer. Additionally, the
Contract was signed outside the official transfer window, further supporting the claim that
it was not intended to be a valid employment contract.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17625
89.
The Player also pointed out that he only trained with the Club on three occasions and
never played in any official matches. The EUR 300 monthly payments made by the Club
were described as a scholarship or school fee under the Cooperation Agreement, not
remuneration for football services. These payments were made to a minor’s personal
account, which the Player argued was inappropriate and further evidence that no
employment relationship existed.
90.
Finally, the Player noted that the Club failed to provide him or his parents with a copy of
the Contract, as required under LFF Rules. Without a transfer agreement or proper
registration, the Club could not claim to have established an employment relationship
with the Player.
• Alleged breaches by the Player
91.
The Player rejected FK Liepaja’s allegations that he and his family failed to communicate
or breached obligations. He clarified that the Club never sent any formal communication
via email or official channels. Instead, the only contact was through WhatsApp messages
to the Player’s father. These messages, according to the Player, were responded to, and
the Club was informed about the Player’s medical condition and upcoming surgery.
92.
The Player also pointed out that the Club had not contacted the family for over a year –
from March 2023 to September 2024 – despite claiming to have had an active contractual
relationship. The Club only reached out after learning of the Player’s move to Spezia and
then delayed its own actions, including the request for late registration of the Contract.
93.
Furthermore, the Player emphasised that his transfer to Spezia was conducted properly
through the Transfer Agreement between Liepaja School and Spezia. This agreement
confirmed that the Player was registered as an amateur and that Liepaja School held his
federative rights. The Player’s parents also declared that he had played only for Liepaja
School, not FK Liepaja.
94.
The Player concluded that there was no breach of contract because no valid employment
relationship existed with the Club. The Club’s allegations were therefore unfounded, and
the Player had no legal or sporting obligations toward FK Liepaja.
• Bad faith of FK Liepaja
95.
The Player accused FK Liepaja of acting in bad faith throughout the entire situation. He
stated that he and his family had trusted the Club and Liepaja School to support his
football development, but the Club exploited his vulnerable position as a minor.
Specifically, the Club deliberately delayed registering the Contract and failed to involve the
Player in any meaningful sporting activities for 16 months, effectively obstructing his
career.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17625
96.
The Player argued that FK Liepaja used the Cooperation Agreement with Liepaja School
to lure young players into signing contracts under the pretence of professionalism, while
intentionally postponing registration. This conduct, according to the Player, violated FIFA
and LFF Rules and demonstrated a pattern of negligence and manipulation.
97.
The Player also criticised the Club for attempting to shift blame onto the LFF for the failed
registration and for making unsubstantiated claims about the Player’s market value and
potential. He emphasised that the TMS and LFF records clearly showed he was registered
as an amateur with Liepaja School, not FK Liepaja.
98.
Furthermore, the Player rejected the Club’s claim that the delay in registration was
mutually agreed upon, noting that no evidence of such an agreement existed. He also
pointed out that FK Liepaja waited nearly 20 months to request late registration – well
after the Player had signed with Spezia and received his ITC.
99.
The Player concluded that the Club’s actions were not only procedurally flawed but also
morally questionable. He argued that the Club’s conduct caused significant emotional
distress to him and his family, especially given his subsequent medical diagnosis and
decision to end his football career. As a result, the Player sought moral damages for the
harm caused by the Club’s abusive and baseless claims.
• Wrongful Compensation
100. The Player argued that the compensation sought by FK Liepaja, particularly the
enforcement of a liquidated damages clause for EUR 200,000, was legally unfounded and
grossly disproportionate. First, he maintained that the clause had no binding effect
because the Contract was never registered and thus lacked legal validity under both FIFA
and LFF Rules.
101. Even if the compensation clause were considered valid, the Player contended that it was
one-sided and abusive. The Contract had been drafted entirely by the Club without any
negotiation or input from the Player or his parents. Moreover, the termination clause only
imposed financial consequences on the Player, while exempting the Club from any liability
in the event of termination – violating the principles of reciprocity and fairness.
102. The Player cited DRC and CAS jurisprudence, which consistently held that compensation
clauses must be proportionate to the Player’s remuneration and the overall context. Given
that the Player received only EUR 300 per month (which he argued was a scholarship, not
salary), he argued that the EUR 200,000 penalty was manifestly excessive. The Player
requested that, if any compensation were deemed payable, it should be calculated under
art. 17 of the Regulations, which considers factors such as the Player’s salary, time
remaining on the Contract, and the circumstances of termination.
103. Finally, the Player invoked art. 163 par. 3 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), which
allows courts to reduce excessive penalties. He concluded that the Club’s claim for
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17625
compensation was not only legally unsupported but also abusive in nature and should be
dismissed or significantly reduced.
• Conclusion
104. In conclusion, the Player reiterated that all claims made by FK Liepaja regarding
contractual stability and breach of contract were unfounded and should be dismissed. He
emphasised that the Club had failed to register the Contract, establish a valid employment
relationship, or comply with FIFA and LFF Rules. As a result, FK Liepaja could not claim any
legal or financial rights against him.
105. The Player also invoked art. 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), arguing that the Club’s failure to properly register and engage him in football
activities violated his right to participate in sports and develop holistically. The Club’s
prolonged inaction and negligence, particularly over a 20-month period, demonstrated a
lack of genuine interest in his career and well-being.
106. Due to a serious congenital hip condition, the Player pointed out that he had since decided
to end his football career. This decision, compounded by the Club’s conduct and the stress
of the legal proceedings, had caused significant emotional and reputational harm to both
him and his family.
107. The Player concluded by asserting that the Club’s attempt to impose contractual
obligations on a minor – without proper registration, consent, or procedural compliance
– was contrary to good faith, Swiss law, and the protective framework established by FIFA
for minors. He therefore requested moral damages for the distress and suffering caused
by the Club’s abusive and baseless claim, calculated as follows:
Moral damage
Psychological suffering caused by
unreasonable and unjustified
conduct of the Claimant (failure to
register the minor player or the
Contract; not training the minor
player; and failing to uphold
contractual stability)
Emotional distress and
reputational harm caused to the
minor player and his family (the
deliberate delay in registration
created a cloud of uncertainty,
followed by the stress and pressure
from the legal proceedings)
The Claimant created instability in
the professional career of the
Amount in
EUR
Legal basis
Period
12,500
Based on Article 5 para. 1 and
Article 13 of the [Regulations]
and principles of Pacta sunt
servanda and good faith in
employment contracts under
Swiss law (Article 18 of the
[SCO])
24 April
2023 to 6
December
2024
12,500
Based on Article 11 and Article
19bis of the [Regulations]
24 April
2023 to
the
present
date
12,500
Based on Article 2 para. 2 of
the [Regulations]
24 April
2023 to 6
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17625
minor player (impact on current
and future opportunities) and it
has not fairly remunerated the
minor player under the alleged
contract.
Failure to engage the minor player
in sporting activities
December
2024
12,500
Article 31 of the United
Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
24 April
2023 to 6
December
2024
108. The Player submitted the following requests for relief:
“146. [The Player] humbly requests the following relief:
(a) To admit this Response along with all its annexes;
(b) To dismiss the Claimant’s Statement of Claim in its entirety;
(c) In the alternative, to declare that the liquidated damage clause is manifestly excessive and,
should any compensation be deemed payable by [the Player] in the event of termination
without just cause, it shall be calculated in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP;
(d) To not hold the Respondent liable for any responsibility of [Spezia];
(e) To order the Claimant to bear any and all legal costs of [the Player], related to these
proceedings in the amount of 10,000 CHF;
(f) To award moral damages in favour of [the Player], and
(g) To grant any additional or alternative relief that may be appropriate given the circumstances
of the present matter.”
c. Reply of Spezia
109. On 1 September 2025, Spezia submitted its reply to the claim.
Jurisdiction
110. Spezia contested the jurisdiction of the DRC, arguing that the dispute was purely domestic
and therefore fell under the competence of the LFF or Latvian courts. As the Contract was
never registered with the LFF, the Player remained officially registered as an amateur with
Liepaja School. As such, the dispute concerned the validity and enforceability of an
unregistered domestic contract, not an international transfer.
111. Spezia emphasised that the subsequent registration of the Player with Spezia and the
issuance of the ITC were separate and unrelated events. According to Spezia, a domestic
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17625
employment dispute cannot be retroactively transformed into an international one simply
because the player later transferred abroad.
112. Furthermore, Spezia argued that art. 22 of the Regulations, which governs FIFA’s
jurisdiction over international disputes, was misapplied by FK Liepaja. The Player also
cited the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Recognition Principles, which
affirm that national-level bodies should handle domestic employment-related disputes.
Additionally, the Contract itself included a jurisdiction clause that referred to Latvian
courts and FIFA / UEFA only as a secondary option, reinforcing the argument that the
matter should be handled domestically.
113. In conclusion, Spezia argued that the DRC does not have jurisdiction.
Substance
• No breach of contract
114. Spezia defended itself against the claim that the Player had a valid professional contract
with FK Liepaja at the time of his transfer. Spezia emphasised that it had conducted
thorough due diligence before signing the Player. Specifically, on 15 July 2024, Spezia
obtained the LFF Passport, which confirmed that the Player had been registered
exclusively with Liepaja School as an amateur since 2019. Based on this information,
Spezia initiated transfer discussions with Liepaja School, not FK Liepaja.
115. Spezia claimed that it proceeded with the transfer in good faith, relying on official
documentation and direct confirmations from both Liepaja School and the LFF. The LFF
explicitly stated that no professional contract involving the Player had ever been
registered in its system. Spezia also received declarations from the Player and his parents
confirming that he had only played for the Liepaja School and had never signed a
professional contract.
116. It was only after the Player’s registration with Spezia had been completed that FK Liepaja
attempted to register the Contract with the LFF – on 6 December 2024, nearly four months
after the transfer. The LFF rejected this late registration, stating that the Player’s transfer
had already been finalised and that the contract could not be retroactively recognised.
117. Spezia argued that the failure of FK Liepaja to register the Contract within the required
timeframe rendered it legally non-existent under football regulations. Therefore, no rights
or obligations could arise from it, including the EUR 200,000 claim for liquidated damages.
Spezia also highlighted the disproportionate nature of the claim, given that the Player’s
alleged monthly salary was only EUR 300.
118. In conclusion, Spezia maintained that it had acted transparently and responsibly
throughout the transfer process, and that FK Liepaja’s claims were unfounded and should
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17625
be dismissed. Furthermore, Spezia firmly denied any involvement in or inducement of a
contractual breach concerning the Player.
119. In this respect, Spezia argued that it could not have induced a breach of a contract it had
no knowledge of, especially one that had not been registered and was not reflected in any
official records. Spezia highlighted that the burden of proof for inducement lay with FK
Liepaja, and in this case, FK Liepaja had failed to demonstrate any such inducement.
120. In conclusion, Spezia asserted that it had not induced the Player to breach any contract
and should not be held jointly and severally liable. It requested that all claims against it be
dismissed.
• No training compensation
121. Spezia further contended that FK Liepaja had no entitlement to claim training
compensation for the Player. First and foremost, Spezia recalled that the Player had never
been registered with FK Liepaja. This fact alone, Spezia contended, disqualified FK Liepaja
from any claim to training compensation.
122. Additionally, Spezia pointed out that the Player’s registration with Spezia occurred in
August 2024, after the FCHR had come into force on 16 November 2022. As a result, any
entitlement to training compensation would have had to be processed through the EPP
review system under the FCHR. Despite being aware of the Player’s transfer, FK Liepaja
failed to participate in the EPP process or challenge the EPP Determination that followed.
123. The EPP Determination concluded that any potential training compensation due to
Liepaja School was already included in the transfer fee paid by Spezia. It also confirmed
that no club, including FK Liepaja, was entitled to separate training compensation or
solidarity contributions. Since the FK Liepaja did not contest this determination, it became
final and binding.
124. In light of these facts, Spezia maintained that FK Liepaja had no legal or regulatory basis
to claim training compensation and requested that this part of the claim be rejected.
125. Spezia submitted the following requests for relief:
“173. In light of all the above, the Second Respondent respectfully requests the DRC to issue a
decision:
a)
CONFIRMING that it has no jurisdiction to decide on the Claim filed by FK Liepaja; as a
result,
b)
DECLARING the Claim filed by FK Liepaja inadmissible.
Subsidiarily:
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-17625
c)
CONFIRMING that the Contract between FK Liepaja and the Player is of no effect; as a
result,
d)
REJECTING the Claim filed by FK Liepaja in its entirety.
On a further subsidiary basis:
e)
CONFIRMING that FK Liepaja failed to prove Spezia’s involvement in the alleged breach
of the Contract; as a result,
f)
REJECTING the Claim filed by FK Liepaja against Spezia.
On a further subsidiary basis:
g)
CONFIRMING that the Player was never registered with FK Liepaja; as a result,
h)
REJECTING the training compensation Claim filed by FK Liepaja.
In any case:
i)
ORDERING FK Liepaja to bear all procedural costs related to the present proceedings.”
d. Reply to the counterclaim by FK Liepaja
126. On 18 September 2025, FK Liepaja submitted its reply to the Player’s counterclaim.
Jurisdiction
127. FK Liepaja defended the jurisdiction of the DRC to hear the dispute, including its claim for
training compensation. It argued that the Player’s international transfer to Spezia created
an international dimension, satisfying the criteria under art. 22 of the Regulations. FK
Liepaja emphasised that the FCHR do not exclude DRC jurisdiction and that art. 10 par. 3
of the FCHR allows complex cases to be referred to the DRC.
128. FK Liepaja claimed that it had exhausted all administrative remedies, acted in good faith,
and followed proper procedures, including contacting its national federation and filing a
timely claim with FIFA.
Substance
129. FK Liepaja maintained that the Contract was valid and executed in good faith. It had been
signed with the consent of the Player’s father, and the Player had received regular monthly
payments of EUR 300 for over one and a half year. FK Liepaja claimed that it provided
training, access to youth competitions, and gradual integration into the senior team.
Conversely, the Player had never raised any complaints during this period.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-17625
130. FK Liepaja argued that its conduct was consistent with the principles of minor protection
and contractual stability under FIFA regulations. It also noted that the Player had been
regularly called up to the Latvian national youth teams, further confirming the FK Liepaja’s
support for his development.
131. FK Liepaja further stated that the medical condition faced by the Player was congenital
and pre-existing, and that the Player had passed all medical examinations during his time
at the club and while playing for the national youth teams. FK Liepaja emphasised that
Spezia had conducted its own medical examination before signing the Player and had
chosen to proceed with a two-year contract. Therefore, Spezia bore full responsibility for
the Player’s health during the term of their agreement. FK Liepaja also noted that it had
requested medical information from Spezia, which was ignored, further breaking any
potential causal link.
132. FK Liepaja insisted that it was entitled to training compensation due to its substantial
investment in the Player’s development. The Player had been with the club for over one
and a half year, received regular salary payments, and participated in senior team
activities. FK Liepaja stressed that it contributed over EUR 575,000 to youth development
since 2019 and had the Cooperation Agreement with Liepaja School. FK Liepaja argued
that its role as a training club was legitimate and protected under art. 20 and Annexe 4 of
the Regulations. It also criticised Spezia for failing to conduct proper due diligence and for
disregarding FK Liepaja’s communications during the transfer process.
133. In continuation, FK Liepaja criticised the Player for presenting contradictory legal
positions. On one hand, the Player denied the validity of the Contract and the jurisdiction
of the FIFA DRC. On the other hand, he filed a counterclaim before the same body, seeking
moral damages based on the allegedly invalid contract. FK Liepaja argued that this
amounted to an abuse of procedural rights, intended to delay proceedings and create
confusion.
134. FK Liepaja argued that the Player’s counterclaim for moral damages was legally untenable.
According to FK Liepaja, under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence, moral damages are only
awarded in exceptional cases where specific criteria are met: violation of personality
rights, unlawful conduct, severe emotional harm, a proven causal link, and absence of
alternative remedies. FK Liepaja emphasised that the Player had failed to provide any
medical reports, psychological assessments, or factual documentation to support his
claims. Assertions of emotional distress and reputational harm were deemed speculative
and lacked evidentiary support. FK Liepaja also pointed out that the Player’s arguments
were inconsistent, emotional, and legally irrelevant, especially since the claims were made
by the Player but referred to alleged harm suffered by his family.
135. FK Liepaja updated its requests for relief as follows:
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-17625
“81. For the reasons specified in this Answer and the Statement of Claim and in accordance to the
FIFA RSTP and FIFA Procedural Rules the Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA DRC decides as
follows:
-
Rule that FIFA DRC has jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the present Statement of the
Claim and that it is admissible.
-
Rule that the Player Passport provided by the LFF is erroneous and should be substituted with
the correct one, which explicitly provides that the Player Marks Dambis was registered as a
professional football player for FK Liepaja starting from 2 April 2023 till 16 August 2024.
-
Rule that the Player terminated without just cause the Contract with the Claimant, and as
such acted in breach of the employment agreement and that “Spezia is jointly and severally
liable for the termination of the Contract by the Player without just cause.
-
Rule that the Player should pay contractually stipulated compensation for termination of the
Contract without just cause in the amount of EUR 200,000.00 net, with the joint and several
liability of “Spezia” with the interest of 5% per annum on the amount of compensation for the
termination of the Contract without just cause starting with 16 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment, with the joint and several liability of “Spezia”.
-
Impose sporting sanctions on the Player Marks Dambis in forms of six-month restriction on
playing in official matches and impose sporting sanctions on “Spezia”, in form of ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
-
Rule that “Spezia” is liable to pay to the Claimant the training compensation, calculated in
accordance with the procedure, provided for in the FIFA RSTP and FIFA Clearing House
Regulations, but in any event in the amount not less than EUR 44,281.15 net with the interest
of 5% per annum starting with 16 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
-
Rule that both Respondents shall jointly and severally bear all procedural costs, if any, and
shall be ordered to reimburse the Claimant any filing fees and/or advances of costs, paid to
the FIFA Football Tribunal and be ordered to pay the Claimant a contribution towards the
legal and other costs incurred by the latter in relation to these proceedings.”
IV. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Jurisdiction and admissibility
136. First of all, the DRC (hereinafter also referred to as: the Chamber) 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 30 December 2024 and submitted for decision on 16
October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-17625
137. The Chamber then turned to the assessment of its jurisdiction to adjudicate on this
matter, recalling that art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) and b) of the Regulations (July 2025) provided as
follows:
“22. Competence of FIFA
1. Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress before
a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
a) disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability
(articles 13-18) where there has been an ITC request and a claim from an interested party in
relation to said ITC request, in particular regarding the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or
compensation for breach of contract;
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension; the
aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be decided by
a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution body operating
under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the
National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction clause must be
exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement
applicable to the parties.”
138. In this context, the Chamber observed that both the Player and Spezia contested the
DRC’s jurisdiction. The Respondents argued that the dispute was purely national in nature,
as it allegedly involved two Latvian parties, namely FK Liepaja and the Player, and that no
ITC request had been made between them. On this basis, they maintained that neither
art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) nor lit. b) of the Regulations was applicable. Furthermore, they
submitted that any issues relating to training compensation should have been addressed
exclusively within the framework of the EPP review system, and not before the DRC.
139. Conversely, the Chamber noted that FK Liepaja firmly rejected this position. FK Liepaja
argued that the Player’s subsequent registration with Spezia, a club affiliated to the FIGC,
inherently conferred an international dimension on the dispute, thereby triggering the
DRC’s jurisdiction pursuant to art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations. FK Liepaja further
submitted that the FCHR do not exclude the competence of the DRC, in particular in
complex cases or where the FCH itself may refer a matter to the DRC in accordance with
art. 10 par. 3 of the FCHR. In addition, FK Liepaja relied on recent CAS jurisprudence
confirming that the DRC may retain jurisdiction even where a matter has been subject to
the EPP process, provided there is no abuse of procedural rights.
140. Moreover, FK Liepaja alleged procedural bad faith on the part of the Respondents,
particularly by concealing the existence of a professional contract and by creating
circumstances that allegedly prevented the timely amendment of the EPP data. FK Liepaja
asserted that it had acted in good faith, had sought an amicable resolution of the dispute,
and had exhausted all relevant procedural avenues prior to filing its claim with FIFA. On
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-17625
this basis, it concluded that the DRC was the appropriate body to adjudicate both the
alleged breach of contract and the training compensation claims.
141. Against this background, the Chamber considered that the assessment of jurisdiction
should be conducted separately in respect of: (i) the claim relating to the alleged breach
of contract and FK Liepaja’s request for compensation pursuant to art. 17 of the
Regulations, together with the Player’s counterclaim; and (ii) the claim concerning training
compensation and the requested rectification of the LFF Passport / EPP Determination.
Breach of contract and consequences
142. With regard to the breach of contract claim, the Chamber observed that the Respondents
challenged the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal on the grounds that the Player’s move
was allegedly consensual and occurred between the Liepaja School and Spezia. They
argued that this circumstance rendered the dispute domestic in nature and unrelated to
any ITC request. They further maintained that the dispute lacked an international
dimension, given that both the Player and FK Liepaja are Latvian. Finally, they relied on an
alleged jurisdiction clause in the Contract designating the Latvian courts as the competent
forum.
143. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations,
as introduced under the Interim Regulatory Framework, and emphasised that, in cases
involving a club and a player of the same nationality, the decisive element for establishing
FIFA’s jurisdiction was indeed the involvement of a new club affiliated to a different
member association.
144. In other words, the existence of, or connection to, an ITC request or a dispute related
thereto must be interpreted broadly. This was particularly so given that the current
Regulations no longer allow a party or an association to refuse the issuance of an ITC, with
the aim of safeguarding the player’s contractual freedom (cf., art. 11 par. 3 of Annexe 3 to
the Regulations).
145. The Chamber noted that this interpretation had already been upheld in CAS
jurisprudence, notably in CAS 2023/A/9955, to which the Chamber concurred, where the
following was stated:
“70. The need for a club to oppose the issue of the ITC is not a decisive element in the context of
the jurisdictional question at stake here and does not necessarily follow from the interpretation
of Article 22(1)(a) RSTP. Any dispute in which a club requests the payment of compensation for a
player's alleged breach of contract, extending that liability, by virtue of Article 17(2) RSTP, to the
new club, is normally implicitly related to the issue of that player's ITС.
[…]
75. In relation with the jurisdictional issue, the Panel is satisfied that in the present case, the
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-17625
jurisdiction of the FIFA DRC should only have been excluded (i) if the filing of the Claim against
the New Club was an obvious "abuse of rights"; or (ii) if the period of time between the
termination of the Employment Contract and the signature of the New Employment
Contract was so totally, manifestly long as to reveal that the relation between those
events is without any doubt inherently “segmented” (see, among others, CAS 2009/A/1996,
para. 38, in which the Panel decided that thirteen months constituted a sufficiently long period
to conclude no foreign club had been involved in the controversy; on the other hand, see CAS
2020/A/7054, para. 203, in which that Panel concluded that Article 22(1)(a) RSTP might be subject
to an exception in case where a lot of time passes between the termination of the old contract
and the international move to a new club).”
(emphasis added by the DRC)
146. In the present case, the Chamber considered that the absence of a formal objection to
the ITC and the involvement of the Liepaja School could be relevant to the merits of the
dispute but did not affect the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal. The central issue
remained the Player’s registration status, and particularly the alleged absence of a valid
registration with FK Liepaja.
147. Likewise, the Chamber considered that the ratio legis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) applied in the
present matter: the involvement of Spezia, a club affiliated to a foreign association,
conferred an international dimension on the dispute. Furthermore, the Chamber
considered that the core of the dispute was ultimately “employment-related” vis-à-vis the
broad interpretation adopted in FIFA jurisprudence. Further, neither the sequence of
events nor the conduct of the parties indicated an abuse of rights or an artificial creation
of an international element that would justify excluding FIFA’s jurisdiction.
148. Furthermore, the Chamber held that the Respondents’ reliance on an allegedly exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of national courts did not alter this conclusion, as the relevant
provision also referred to FIFA, thereby acknowledging the possibility of international
proceedings.
149. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the dispute concerning the alleged breach of
contract and the ensuing consequences fell within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the
Regulations.
EPP and training rewards
150. The Chamber then proceeded to assess the parties’ dissenting views on the requested
rectification of the LFF Passport / FIFA determination on EPP 46754.
151. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the FCH has exclusive competence for the
administration and management of the EPP process. However, such exclusivity did not
imply that EPP-related determinations may be challenged at any time or without
restriction before the Football Tribunal. Conversely, the applicable regulatory framework,
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-17625
in particular art. 10 par. 3 (a) of the FCHR, should be interpreted in accordance with the
procedural safeguards and the distinct institutional roles established therein.
152. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 10 par. 3 (a) of the FCHR provided that the
FIFA general secretariat – and not the parties – may refer a matter to the DRC for
assessment in cases of legal or factual complexity. Such referral remains discretionary
and must occur within the procedural confines of the EPP process. As a result, the DRC
wished to outline that individual clubs are therefore not entitled to circumvent this
mechanism by unilaterally submitting EPP-related disputes to the Football Tribunal. Any
contrary interpretation would undermine both the integrity and the finality of the EPP
system.
153. Moreover, the Chamber emphasised that the Football Tribunal is not competent to
review, amend, or rectify player passports issued by national associations. Such passports
constitute administrative records governed by domestic registration frameworks and fall
outside the Football Tribunal’s adjudicative powers. Accordingly, the Chamber stressed
that any challenge to the accuracy or completeness of a player passport should be
pursued through the relevant federation-level procedures and/or disciplinary
mechanisms, rather than before the Football Tribunal.
154. Consequently, the Chamber already considered that it was not in a position to decide on
this part of the Club’s claim.
155. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and arguendo - i.e., even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that this aspect of the dispute was to fall within the DRC’s jurisdiction – the
Chamber identified a procedural impediment preventing any examination of the merits.
In particular, FK Liepaja did not participate in the EPP process due to its own decision not
to register the Player and, consequently, failed to raise any objections within the
applicable deadlines. The relevant stakeholders, including the only club identified as a
training club (namely the Liepaja School), were duly invited to participate in the process,
and the LFF was also involved.
156. In this context, the Chamber was not persuaded by FK Liepaja’s allegations of procedural
bad faith on the part of the Respondents. In particular, the Chamber observed that: (i) FK
Liepaja was duly informed of the Player’s transfer to Spezia; (ii) FK Liepaja itself
acknowledged that it had consciously decided not to register the Player, thereby waiving
the regulatory position typically associated with training compensation claims; and (iii) any
alleged misconduct would, in any event, concern FK Liepaja’s contractual or commercial
relationship with the Liepaja School and would have to be pursued before the competent
national authorities or courts.
157. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the determination on the EPP 46754 was duly
notified to all concerned parties and constitutes a final and binding decision pursuant to
the FCHR. Allowing FK Liepaja to reopen the matter before the Football Tribunal would
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-17625
not only be incompatible with the applicable procedural framework but would also
jeopardise legal certainty and the efficient functioning of the EPP system.
158. Consequently, even if the Chamber were to hypothetically accept jurisdiction over this
aspect of the dispute, the claim would nonetheless be inadmissible due to the procedural
bar resulting from FK Liepaja’s failure to register the Player and consequently to
participate in the EPP process and the finality of the EPP Determination.
159. The Chamber further recalled that any challenge against an EPP Determination must be
pursued exclusively through an appeal before CAS. This is expressly provided for in the
FCHR and reiterated in the EPP Determination itself, which clearly states that the decision
is final, subject only to appeal before CAS.
160. In light of the above, and in addition to the jurisdictional barrier, the Chamber found that
this part of the claim was equally inadmissible. Notably, the determination on the EPP
46754 was duly notified to the relevant stakeholders, including the Player’s training club
and the competent association, and no appeal was lodged within the prescribed time
limit. As such, the decision has acquired final and binding effect and may not be revisited
by the Football Tribunal (res judicata).
b. Applicable legal framework
161. The Chamber then 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.
c. Burden of proof and evidentiary requests
162. 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 TMS.
163. At this stage, the Chamber also addressed the evidentiary requests submitted by FK
Liepaja in its claim. However, it found that such requests did not comply with the
threshold of “relevance” set out in art. 13 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules. Moreover, the
Chamber considered that the documentation already submitted by the parties, together
with the information available in TMS, was sufficient to enable it to render its decision.
pg. 35
REF. FPSD-17625
d. Merits of the dispute
164. 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
165. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that the parties’
disagreement on the merits of the case essentially revolved around two issues: (i) training
compensation; and (ii) the alleged breach of contract.
166. As a preliminary matter, the Chamber recalled that the claim relating to training
compensation had already been declared inadmissible and, as such, would not be
examined further in the present proceedings.
167. With regard to the alleged breach of contract, the Chamber recalled that FK Liepaja
submitted that the Player was bound by a valid professional employment contract at the
time of his registration with Spezia. According to FK Liepaja, the Player breached said
contract by signing with Spezia without having validly terminated the contractual
relationship or obtained its consent. FK Liepaja maintained that the transfer was effected
in violation of the principle of contractual stability as set out in the Regulations.
Furthermore, FK Liepaja asserted that it acted in good faith throughout the process,
attempted to resolve the matter amicably, and complied with all procedural requirements
prior to lodging its claim. In this context, it also alleged procedural bad faith on the part
of the Respondents, accusing them of concealing the existence of the professional
contract and of manipulating the EPP process so as to prevent FK Liepaja from asserting
its rights in due time.
168. Conversely, the Chamber considered that the Respondents, for their part, rejected the
allegation of breach of contract and contested FK Liepaja’s position on several grounds.
169. Initially, they argued that the Player was never registered as a professional with FK Liepaja
and, at all relevant times, retained amateur status. On this basis, they submitted that no
valid and binding employment relationship existed that could give rise to a breach under
the Regulations. Consequently, they maintained that the Player was free to sign with
Spezia without any contractual obligation vis-à-vis FK Liepaja.
170. The Respondents further emphasised that the Player was not formally registered with FK
Liepaja in a manner capable of triggering contractual rights and obligations. In particular,
they submitted that FK Liepaja failed to complete the necessary administrative and
pg. 36
REF. FPSD-17625
regulatory steps to establish the Player’s professional status, including proper registration
through the relevant national and international systems.
171. Finally, the Respondents denied any procedural misconduct. They argued that any
deficiencies in the registration or documentation of the Contract were attributable solely
to FK Liepaja’s own conduct or omissions. In their view, there was no concealment or
manipulation of the EPP review process, and the Player’s transfer to Spezia was lawful and
fully compliant with the applicable regulatory framework.
172. The Chamber also recalled that in response to FK Liepaja’s allegations, the Player lodged
a counterclaim for moral damages, asserting that the club’s conduct caused him
reputational harm and emotional distress.
173. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber noted that it should determine, first, whether a valid
employment relationship existed between the Player and FK Liepaja and, second, should
such a relationship be established, whether it was unlawfully breached by the Player,
either alone or with the involvement of Spezia. In parallel, the Chamber considered that
it was also tasked with assessing the merits of the Player’s claim for moral damages.
174. The Chamber then proceeded to assess each of these issues in turn.
A. The purported employment relationship
175. Before addressing the substantive legal issues, the Chamber recalled the following factual
elements, which are not disputed by the parties:
•
The Player was affiliated with the Liepaja School and, within the framework of the
cooperation agreement concluded between the Liepaja School and FK Liepaja, he
was offered a contract by FK Liepaja. At the relevant time, the Player was a minor.
•
The Contract provided for a monthly remuneration of EUR 300 and included a
compensation clause in the amount of EUR 200,000 in the event of unilateral
termination.
•
FK Liepaja deliberately chose not to register the Contract with the LFF. The Club did
not submit any evidence demonstrating that this decision was taken with the
Player’s knowledge or consent.
•
The Player and the Liepaja School – which held the Player’s registration – negotiated
and consented to the Player’s transfer to Spezia. In this context, the Liepaja School
and Spezia entered into a transfer agreement regulating the financial consequences
of the move, notably the waiver of training compensation in exchange for contingent
payments.
pg. 37
REF. FPSD-17625
176. In light of the above, the Chamber first examined whether the unregistered contract could
be considered valid and binding under the applicable Regulations.
177. In this respect, the Chamber observed that it remained undisputed that the Player and FK
Liepaja signed a written agreement providing for monthly remuneration and a
compensation clause in the event of unilateral termination. Both parties acknowledged
the existence and content of this agreement.
178. Contrary to the Respondents’ submissions, the Chamber recalled that the absence of
registration of an employment contract with the national association does not, in itself,
render such a contract null and void or devoid of legal effect. The obligation to register
employment contracts lies with clubs and cannot, as a general rule, be held against
players. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that FK Liepaja’s deliberate decision not to
register the contract does not, per se, negate its formal validity.
179. The Chamber therefore considered that the Contract could be disregarded solely on the
basis of its non-registration, as suggested by the Respondents.
180. That being said, the Chamber emphasised that the mere existence or signature of a
contract is not sufficient, in itself, to establish the existence of an employment relationship
within the meaning of the Regulations, nor to automatically trigger the application of
contractual stability provisions.
181. On the contrary, after a comprehensive assessment of the case file, the Chamber found
that the overall assessment of the factual circumstances and, in particular, the conduct of
the parties does not support the conclusion that a genuine professional employment
relationship existed between the Player and FK Liepaja.
182. First, the Player participated exclusively in amateur competitions and never appeared in
any official match for FK Liepaja’s first team. This sporting reality, in the Chamber’s view,
was incompatible with the status of a professional player actively engaged under an
employment contract.
183. Second, the remuneration stipulated in the Contract – EUR 300 per month – did not
correspond to the level typically associated with professional football. The Player’s
explanation that this amount was linked to a scholarship rather than a salary was found
to be credible and consistent with the broader context of his sporting activity within the
Liepaja School. Moreover, the Chamber considered that the significant disparity between
the monthly remuneration and the contractual compensation clause of EUR 200,000
further casted doubt on the professional nature of the arrangement. According to the
DRC, such imbalance raised serious questions as to whether the Contract was intended
to reflect a genuine employment relationship or rather served a different, strategic
purpose.
pg. 38
REF. FPSD-17625
184. Third, while the Player acknowledged having received payments from FK Liepaja for a
limited period, the Chamber found it essential that the Club itself admitted that it only
intended to register the Player as from January 2025. In addition, the Chamber found no
evidence on file demonstrating that the Player continuously rendered sporting services to
FK Liepaja in a manner consistent with a professional employment relationship.
185. Fourth, the Chamber considered that the issue of registration was of particular relevance.
According to consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the right to participate in
official matches is a core element of professional status. Registration is not a mere
administrative formality but the mechanism through which a player becomes eligible to
compete and fulfil the obligations arising from a professional contract. In the present case,
the Chamber deemed that FK Liepaja not only prevented the Player from participating in
official competitions but also expressly acknowledged that it chose not to register the
contract due to the Player’s qualification as minor and participation in amateur
competitions. In the Chamber’s opinion, such conduct was incompatible with the
existence of a genuine employment relationship.
186. Fifth, the Chamber noted that FK Liepaja failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that
it maintained regular or structured communication with the Player or his representatives
during the alleged contractual period. On the contrary, the DRC pointed out that the file
indicated that the Player’s sporting relationship was managed exclusively by the Liepaja
School, which held his registration and oversaw his development. According to the
Chamber, this further supported the conclusion that FK Liepaja did not exercise the typical
rights and obligations of an employer under a professional contract. Rather, the Chamber
considered that the Contract appeared to have been intended to preserve potential future
rights, contingent upon a possible registration of the Player at a later stage.
187. Sixth, the Chamber underlined that FK Liepaja never informed the LFF of the Player’s
registration, not even at amateur level. Throughout the relevant period, the Player
remained solely registered with the Liepaja School, which held his sporting rights and
administered his participation in competitions. By remaining entirely outside the official
registration framework, the Chamber considered FK Liepaja knowingly accepted the risk
of being excluded from decisions relating to the Player’s future and forfeited any
entitlement to regulatory rights associated with formal registration, including training
compensation.
188. Seventh, the Chamber found no indication of any abuse of rights attributable to the
Respondents. FK Liepaja was informed of the Player’s transfer to Spezia, and there was
no evidence suggesting that the move was concealed or executed in bad faith. Moreover,
FK Liepaja itself acknowledged that it deliberately chose not to register the Player, thereby
consciously weakening its own regulatory position. According to the Chamber, any
allegations of misconduct would, in any event, concern FK Liepaja’s contractual
relationship with the Liepaja School – the entity that held the Player’s registration and
negotiated the transfer, including warranties and representations in favour of Spezia.
pg. 39
REF. FPSD-17625
Furthermore, those allegations fall outside FIFA’s scope of review, and they should be
pursued, if at all, before the competent courts and with the involvement of all relevant
parties.
189. Eighth and finally, the Chamber observed that the relationship between the Player, the
Liepaja School, and Spezia was conducted in a coordinated and consensual manner. The
parties concluded a formal transfer agreement regulating all sporting and financial
consequences of the Player’s move. Notably, the Transfer Agreement expressly addressed
training compensation, which was waived by the Liepaja School as the registered training
club. According to the Chamber, there was no indication of any contentious element or
contractual breach arising from the transfer. On the contrary, the process reflected
mutual consent and cooperation, further distancing FK Liepaja from the operational and
regulatory aspects of the Player’s career at the relevant time.
190. In view of the foregoing, and having carefully examined the facts, the conduct of the
parties, and the applicable Regulations, the Chamber concluded that no employment
relationship existed between the Player and FK Liepaja.
191. The Chamber found that although a contract was formally signed, the reality of the parties’
conduct demonstrated that the Player operated as an amateur affiliated with the Liepaja
School. He participated exclusively in amateur competitions, never rendered sporting
services to FK Liepaja, and was registered solely with the Liepaja School. The
remuneration stipulated and paid under the Contract was insufficient to outweigh the
substantial factual evidence indicating the absence of a genuine professional
engagement.
192. The Chamber therefore considered that, while the Contract may be formally valid, it did
not reflect the true intentions or conduct of the parties and did not give rise to a
professional employment relationship capable of triggering breach‑of‑contract
consequences. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that no breach of contract could be
established against either the Player or Spezia.
193. Furthermore, the Chamber held that FK Liepaja’s conduct could not be endorsed. By
choosing not to register the Player, failing to inform the LFF of his status, and remaining
outside the regulatory framework, the Club knowingly assumed the associated risks. The
Chamber emphasised that there is (or should be) no mechanism for retroactive
registration, and FK Liepaja could not benefit from its own conduct by subsequently
seeking financial compensation after the Player lawfully pursued his career elsewhere.
According to the Chamber, such a change of position was barred by the principle of venire
contra factum proprium, which prevents a party from acting inconsistently with its prior
conduct to the detriment of another.
194. In other words, the Chamber concluded that FK Liepaja could not selectively rely on the
existence of the Contract only when it served its financial or strategic interests. Such
pg. 40
REF. FPSD-17625
conduct, in the Chamber’s view, undermined the integrity of the regulatory framework
and the protections afforded to players, particularly minors, under the FIFA system.
Similarly, the Chamber warned that repeated conduct of this nature may warrant further
scrutiny and could potentially trigger compliance review by the competent FIFA bodies.
195. By way of conclusion, the Chamber decided that FK Liepaja’s claim for breach of contract
is fully dismissed.
B. The Player’s counterclaim for moral damages
196. The Chamber then turned to the Player’s counterclaim for moral damages, in which he
alleged that FK Liepaja’s conduct and the initiation of the present proceedings caused him
reputational harm and emotional distress.
197. While the Chamber was mindful of the seriousness of such allegations and acknowledged
that disputes of this nature may affect a player’s personal and professional situation, it
emphasised that the Player failed to substantiate his claim. In particular, no evidence was
submitted to demonstrate the existence, extent, or quantification of the alleged moral
damage. In the absence of any supporting documentation or objective proof, the
Chamber decided that it was not in a position to assess the claim on its merits.
198. Moreover, and in any event, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with the established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Regulations, there was no legal or
regulatory basis for the award of moral damages.
199. Accordingly, the Chamber ruled that the Player’s counterclaim should be equally rejected.
e. Costs
200. 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.
201. 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.
202. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 41
REF. FPSD-17625
V. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, FK Liepaja.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, FK Liepaja, is rejected insofar as it
is admissible.
3.
The counterclaim of the First Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
4.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 42
REF. FPSD-17625
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. 43