Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17659
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Cherki El
Bahri
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Cherki El Bahri, Morocco
Represented by Younes Naoumi
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Duhok FC, Iraq
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
Olympic Club Safi, Morocco
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17659
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
•
•
The Moroccan player Cherki El Bahri (hereinafter: the Player or the Counter-Respondent
1);
The Iraqi club Duhok FC (hereinafter: Duhok or the Respondent / Counterclaimant),
affiliated to the Iraqi Football Association (IFA); and
The Moroccan club Olympic Club Safi (hereinafter: Olympic Club Safi or the CounterRespondent 2), affiliated to the Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football (FRMF).
2.
On 18 September 2024, the Player and Duhok entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 20 September 2024 until 1 July 2025.
3.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant IQD 23,800,000
as a monthly salary, as well as IQD 51,000,000 as a “Signing fee”, to give rise to a total
contractual value of IQD 265,200,000.
4.
Clause 9 of the Contract included, inter alia, the following provisions:
“3. This Contract may be terminated by either party, without consequences for the
terminating party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
4. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to the
Player compensation equal to the total amount of Nothing.
5 - If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to
the Club compensation equal to the total amount of Nothing.
6_The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under the
provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the
principles of parity and reciprocity of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances
related to the Contract’s conclusion and execution.
7_ This Contract may be terminated by either party, with no consequences for the
terminating party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
The following situations are deemed to be considered a just cause to terminate the
Contract (non-exhaustive list):
a. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (the player or the club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17659
b. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate the
Contract, provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
(…)”
5.
At an unspecified date in September 2024, Duhok allegedly paid the Player IQD 22,100,000
in cash.
6.
On 19 October 2024, Duhok allegedly paid the Player USD 10,000 (approximately IQD
13,000,000) as an “advance payment” in cash.
7.
On 7 December 2024, according to Duhok, the Player left Iraq due to an injury, which he
wished to be treated abroad for.
8.
In the meantime, via the messaging platform WhatsApp, the Player and the Club discussed
the Player’s absence and future return. The Player hereby emphasised that, besides his
injury, he was dealing with a family-related issue, whereas Duhok dismissed this argument,
and asserted that the Player had to return to Iraq in order to fulfil his contractual
obligations. Additionally, the Player pointed out that he had not yet been paid, whereas
Duhok replied stating that “your salaries for month 10 and month 11 are in the club when you
return back you can receive them”.
9.
On 9 December 2024, the Player put Duhok in default through a notice (hereinafter: the
Default Notice), whereby he requested payment of IQD 98,600,000 (corresponding to two
monthly salaries between October 2024 and November 2024, as well as the advance
payment of IQD 51,000,000), to be remitted within 15 days.
10. On 14 December 2024, the Player undisputedly returned to Iraq.
11. On the same day, Duhok allegedly made a payment of IQD 47,600,000 to the Player.
12. On 26 December 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract through the
issuance of a termination notice (hereinafter: the Termination Notice), invoking art. 14bis of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of the Player (hereinafter: the Regulations).
13. On 31 January 2025, the Player signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the New
Contract) with Olympic Club Safi, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2026. The
New Contract included a remuneration of MAD 17,000 per month and a signature bonus
of MAD 300,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17659
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 2 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
15. In his claim, the Player argued that he had a just cause to prematurely terminate the
Contract, due to overdue payables.
16. The Player specified that the outstanding amount at the time of termination exceeded two
monthly salaries and even included the signature bonus which was alone worth at least
two salaries.
17. Furthermore, the Player argued that he had put Duhok in default through the Default
Notice, to no avail.
18. As a result, the Player argued that he had a just cause to prematurely terminate the
Contract on 26 December 2024 through the Termination Notice.
19. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
« En la forme :
Déclarer la requête recevable.
Au fond :
1. Constater la résiliation unilatérale du contrat liant le joueur et le club défendeur pour
juste cause, conformément à l’article 7 du contrat et l’alinéa 2 de l’article 14 bis du
Règlement du statut et du transfert des joueurs RSTJ de la FIFA et pour la nonqualification du joueur.
2. Appliquer les dispositions du contrat du travail et ordonner le club défendeur de payer
au demandeur la valeur totale du contrat, c.-à-d. la somme de 565.200.000,00 IQD
détaillée comme suit :
• 51.000.000,00 IQD : l’avance sur le contrat.
• 214.200.000,00 IQD : les salaires mensuels du mois d’octobre 2024 au mois de Juin
2025 (23.800.000,00 IQD x 9 mois).
• 300.000.000,00 IQD : Compensation pour rupture de contrat sans juste cause.
3. Accorder au demandeur des intérêts au taux de 5% par an sur les montants arriérés
à partir des dates d’échéance jusqu'à la date du paiement effectif.
4. Et mettre les dépenses et les frais de procédures à la charge du défendeur. »
Freely translated into English:
"In form:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17659
Declare the application admissible.
On the merits:
1. Find that the contract between the player and the defendant club has been unilaterally
terminated for just cause, in accordance with Article 7 of the contract and Article 14bis(2)
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), and on the grounds
that the player is ineligible.
2. Apply the provisions of the employment contract and order the defendant club to pay
the claimant the total value of the contract, i.e. the sum of IQD 565,200,000.00, broken
down as follows:
• IQD 51,000,000.00: the advance on the contract.
• IQD 214,200,000.00: monthly salaries from October 2024 to June 2025 (IQD
23,800,000.00 x 9 months).
• 300,000,000.00 IQD: Compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
3. Grant the claimant interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the amounts in arrears from
the due dates until the date of actual payment.
4. And order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.”
b. Reply of Duhok and counterclaim
20. On 9 February 2025, Duhok filed a counterclaim against the Player and Olympic Club Safi.
21. According to Duhok, it had largely complied with its financial obligations at the time the
Contract was terminated. In particular, Duhok specified that it had remitted IQD 22,100,000
on 30 September 2024, which represented part of the signature bonus. Notably, Duhok
specified that the Player received this payment in cash, which was an “habitual method of
payment”.
22. Furthermore, Duhok argued that, on 19 October 2024, Duhok made a further cash
payment of USD 10,000, or approximately IQD 13,000,000, to the Player. As a result, Duhok
argued that an amount of around IQD 35,100,000 had been remitted to the Player by the
end of October 2024.
23. Thereafter, Duhok pointed out that the Player had requested a period of “vacation” in order
to recover from an injury. According to Duhok, it had agreed thereto in good faith,
expecting the Player to return on 12 December 2024.
24. During the Player’s absence, according to Duhok, he had been informed that the remaining
outstanding amounts which he was owed would be ready to be paid to him in cash, as soon
as he returned from his hiatus. Duhok hereby specified that it would not be able to make
a payment via bank transfer due to restrictions with international payments from Iraq.
25. Subsequently, according to Duhok, the Player had revealed that he would not be returning
to Iraq due to family-related issues. Duhok deemed – and informed the Player accordingly
– that his personal issues were not a reason to be absent from his contractual duties, and
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17659
requested the Player to return, otherwise it considered the Player’s absence a breach of
contract.
26. At this point, after insisting for the Player’s return, Duhok had booked a ticket for the Player
to return to Iraq on 14 December 2024. Following his return, it argued that it had paid the
Player in cash with an amount of IQD 47,600,000 – corresponding to the salaries of October
2024, November 2024 and the remainder of the advance payment in the amount of IQD
15,900,000. Duhok hereby referred to receipts signed by the Player, corroborating that he
had been handed this amount in cash.
27. Duhok argued that, notwithstanding the above, the Player proceeded to terminate the
Contract prematurely and without just cause, blatantly misrepresenting that he had not
received any remuneration since the beginning of the Contract.
28. As a result of the above, Duhok stated that it found itself misled, that the Player had acted
in bad faith, and that, besides having been paid with all his contractual dues, the Player
acted in bad faith when he left Iraq due to an injury, which turned out to be a family-related
matter.
29. Duhok also highlighted the Player’s tone and rhetoric, in the sense that this revealed he
had no interest in pursuing the continuity of the Contract. According to Duhok, the Player’s
bad faith became evident when he signed the New Contract. The former hereby argued
that the assertions as to family issues or injury were untrue, and that, in reality, the Player
was only interested in joining Olympic Club Safi, which had allegedly induced him to a
breach of contract.
30. Therefore, Duhok asserted that the Player had terminated the Contract without just cause,
and that Olympic Club Safi induced such breach, giving rise to liability for compensation.
31. As to the compensation sought, which according to Duhok, should be paid jointly and
severally by the Player and Olympic Club Safi, Duhok claimed that the average between the
value of the Contract at stake and the New Contract, as well as the specificity of sport, shall
be considered as determining factors.
32. In light of the above, Duhok’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. To Rejects the Player’s Claim.
2. To accept this Response and Counterclaim against the Player and the New Club.
3. To rule that the Player terminated the Contract without Just Cause; and
4. To condemn the Player and the New Club, jointly and severally to pay compensation
as follows:
• average remuneration with minimum of 166,600,000 IQD + 5% p.a. as from 26
December 2024; and
• Specificity of Sport: 142,800,000 IQD + 5% p.a. as from 26 December 2024.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17659
5. To impose Sports Sanctions on The Player and the New Club according to FIFA RSTP
as follows:
• To ban the Player for a duration of six months from participating in any football
activity based on Article 17 Para 3 of the FIFA RSTP.
• to ban the New Club from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two registration periods under article 17, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
FIFA RSTP.”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
33. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player effectively reiterated most of his previous
arguments as to the termination having been with just cause due to overdue payables.
34. In particular, as to the question of whether the amounts in dispute had remained unpaid,
the Player argued that the proofs of payment (co-signed receipts) provided by Duhok were
forged, and that the Player never signed such documents. Hereby, the Player included a
report from a calligraphy / forgery expert which concluded that the signatures contained
on the submitted receipts were not the Player’s.
35. Beyond this, the Player briefly argued that the alleged WhatsApp conversations which were
submitted to the file were authentic, but entirely out of context, and cannot be used to
establish a breach of contract.
36. Lastly, the Player asserted that the signature of the New Contract was no indication of any
willingness to terminate the Contract prematurely. Following Duhok’s alleged breach, the
Player argued he needed to find a new source of income, and hence signed the New
Contract. He concluded by asserting that in no way did the Olympic Club Safi induce a
breach of the Contract.
37. In short, the Claimant reiterated his initial requests for relief.
d. Olympic Club Safi’s reply to the counterclaim
38. In its reply to the counterclaim, Olympic Club Safi firmly denied that it induced the Player
into breaching the Contract.
39. On one hand, Olympic Club Safi argued that it is evident that the Player had a just cause to
terminate the Contract prematurely, and further, only after the Contract was terminated,
an initial contact was established with the Player’s agent.
40. Olympic Club Safi also emphasised that it wished to assure itself of the fact that the Player
was a free agent prior to engaging his services.
41. In short, Olympic Club Safi requested the counterclaim to be rejected.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17659
e. Duhok’s final comments
42. On 1 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited Duhok to provide its comments in
reply to the counterparties’ answers to the counterclaim.
43. In this regard, Duhok insisted that the proofs of payment were authentic and signed by the
Player. Hereby, Duhok submitted its own forensic report, produced by the local police
department.
44. As a result, Duhok insisted that the proofs of payment should be taken into account as
valid.
45. Lastly, Duhok reiterated its previous arguments and submissions.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 2 January 2025 and submitted for decision on
6 November 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
47. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Moroccan player and an Iraqi club, with the involvement of a Moroccan club.
48. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17659
b. Burden of proof
49. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
50. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
51. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for breach of contract, with a corresponding counterclaim by the
club against the player and his new club.
52. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just
cause due to outstanding remuneration, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations. Conversely,
Duhok argued that it had complied with its financial obligations under the Contract and
that, therefore, the Player terminated the Contract without just cause, induced by Olympic
Club Safi. For its part, Olympic Club Safi denied that it induced the Player into breaching
the Contract.
53. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with or without just cause, and the consequences arising
thereof.
54. First, the Chamber recalled that the Player claimed not having received signature bonus of
IQD 51,000,000 (around 2 monthly salaries), as well as his monthly remuneration as from
October 2024 until the date of termination of the Contract. Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that the Player has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in
default on 9 December 2024 (cf. the Default Notice), i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the contract on 26 December 2024 (cf. the Termination Notice).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17659
55. In this respect, the Chamber noted that that, in the case at hand, Duhok bore the burden
of proving that it indeed complied with its financial obligations under the Contract. In this
connection, the Chamber observed that Duhok has provided receipts allegedly signed by
the Player, the authenticity of which was disputed by the Player and, in turn, insisted upon
by Duhok.
56. Notwithstanding, the Chamber acknowledged that both parties have, herewith, submitted
expert reports concerning the authenticity of such documents. Due to the conflicting
conclusions by the respective expert reports, the Chamber decided to turn to other
relevant factors and considerations that could assist in establishing whether the disputed
payments took place.
57. In this context, the Chamber deemed that Duhok’s conduct was noteworthy. Indeed, Duhok
has argued that it had paid the Player in cash an amount of IQD 35,100,000 by the end of
October 2024 – and thus, prior to the Default Notice of the Player. Nevertheless, Duhok
failed to reply to the Default Notice – wherein the Player had asserted that he was not paid
a single amount since signing the Contract.
58. On top of this, the Chamber observed that Duhok confirmed that it had not paid “the
salaries for month 10 and month 11” (understood as October 2024 and November 2024)
in their WhatsApp conversation dated 7 December 2024, and that the Player would receive
these amounts in cash upon his return to Iraq.
59. The Chamber considered that this further undermines the Respondent’s line of argument
that any payments had already taken place on 30 September 2024 and 19 October 2024.
60. The Chamber emphasised that, in any event, even if the payments had indeed been made
as alleged, Duhok should have manifested this in reply to the Claimant’s Default Notice. In
the Chamber’s opinion, Duhok’s submission constitutes clear venire contra factum
proprium.
61. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that it could not take into account any of the proofs
of payment submitted by Duhok.
62. Having set out the above, the Chamber moved on to analyse the issue concerning the
Player’s absence.
63. In this respect, the Chamber firstly highlighted that Duhok had given its approval for the
Player to leave the club temporarily. The Chamber found that whether this was related to
an injury, or personal issues, is ultimately moot, as the Player, after being requested to do
so by Duhok, returned to Iraq after one week.
64. Particularly due to the short nature of the absence, and the fact that the Player had
subsequently returned almost immediately – with Duhok no longer pursuing any remedy
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17659
regarding this absence thereafter – the Chamber deemed that such absence can under no
circumstances be used to absolve Duhok from its financial obligations under the Contract,
nor to constitute an unilateral breach by the Player sufficient to give rise to a termination
without just cause by the latter.
65. Therefore, the Chamber ultimately concluded that Duhok has failed to meet the burden of
proving that it had complied with its financial obligations, leaving the following amounts
outstanding at the time the Contract was terminated: (i) IQD 51,000,000 as the signature
bonus, (ii) IQD 23,800,000 as the salary for October 2024, and (iii) IQD 23,800,000 as the
salary for November 2024. Hence, the Chamber determined that Duhok had failed to pay
the Player at least two monthly salaries.
66. Based on the above, and considering that (i) Duhok owed the Player at least two monthly
salaries, (ii) the Player put Duhok in default and granted at least 15 days to remedy the
default and (iii) Duhok failed to comply with its financial obligations, the Chamber
concluded that the Player had a just cause to terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis
of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
67. The Chamber first highlighted that, since the Player had just cause to terminate the
employment relationship, this necessarily led to the conclusion that Duhok’s counterclaim
against the Player and Olympic Club Safi must be rejected in its entirety.
68. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences arising from the termination with just cause executed by the Player.
69. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination
corresponded to the signature bonus (IQD 51,000,000) and the salaries for October and
November 2024 (IQD 23,800,000 each). The Chamber also remarked that, considering that
the termination occurred on 26 December 2024, the salary for December 2024 (IQD
23,800,000) shall also be taken into account as part of the outstanding remuneration,
based on the standard practice of the Football Tribunal.
70. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which
were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. IQD
122,400,000.
71. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date following each due date
until the date of effective payment.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17659
72. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by Duhok in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
73. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber recalled
that clause 9 established:
“4. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to
the Player compensation equal to the total amount of Nothing.
5 - If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to
the Club compensation equal to the total amount of Nothing.
6_The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under the
provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the
principles of parity and reciprocity of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances
related to the Contract’s conclusion and execution.
7_ This Contract may be terminated by either party, with no consequences for the
terminating party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
The following situations are deemed to be considered a just cause to terminate the
Contract (non-exhaustive list):
a. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (the player or the club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.
b. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate to
Contract, provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
(…)”
74. The Chamber noted that this clause did not provide for compensation in the event that the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause. In any case, the Chamber considered that,
if clause 9.4 were to be interpreted as applicable because it stipulated the consequences
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17659
in case of breach of contract by Duhok, it would not be proportional and could also be
inapplicable. Therefore, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was
included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
75. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
Duhok to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
76. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. The Chamber noted that the
Contract would have been valid for additional six months (from January 2025 to June 2025)
had the Player not terminated it. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount
of IQD 142,800,000 (i.e., IQD 23,800,000 times six) serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
77. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
78. Indeed, the Player found employment with Olympic Club Safi and signed a contract valid
as from 31 January 2025 until 30 June 2026. In accordance with the pertinent employment
contract, the Player was entitled to MAD 17,000 per month and to MAD 300,000 for a
signing fee, which was to be paid in two instalments, the first one with the registration of
the contract and the other one on 30 June 2025. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that
during the overlapping period (31 January 2025 to 1 July 2025, i.e., five months and two
days) the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of MAD 386,133.33, that is, MAD
17,000 times five plus MAD 1,133.33 (two days) plus MAD 300,000. The Chamber also noted
that this amount was approximately IQD 49,469,858 at the date of the signature.
79. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by Duhok, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17659
80. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that, although the Player could have been entitled
to additional compensation equal to three monthly salaries, art. 17 of the Regulations
establishes that the overall compensation may never exceed the residual value of the
prematurely terminated contract. Therefore, considering that three monthly salaries would
amount to IQD 71,400,000 and, thus, the overall compensation would exceed the residual
value of the Contract, the Chamber decided to limit the additional compensation to IQD
49,469,858.
81. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Duhok must pay the amount of IQD
142,800,000 to the Player (i.e., IQD 142,800,000 minus IQD 49,469,858 plus IQD
49,469,858), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
82. Taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 27 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
83. Lastly, the Chamber decided to reject the claim for extra compensation of IQD 300,000,000,
as there is neither a contractual basis, nor a regulatory basis for this claim.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
85. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
86. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Duhok must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17659
87. Duhok shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
88. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17659
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Cherki El Bahri, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Duhok FC, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- IQD 122,400,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount IQD 51,000,000 as from 19 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount IQD 23,800,000 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount IQD 23,800,000 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount IQD 23,800,000 as from 27 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- IQD 142,800,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
27 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counterclaimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1 in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17659
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17659
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. 19