Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17677
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Florian
Kamberi
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Florian Kamberi, Switzerland
Represented by Sabin Liviu Gherdan
RESPONDENT:
ACSM Politehnica Iasi, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17677
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 July 2024, the Swiss player Florian Kamberi (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Romanian club ACSM Politehnica Iasi (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from the date of
signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
Article 3 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following:
“Article 3: Player’s obligations
The Player undertakes:
[…]
xvi. to observe and be subject to the articles of association, protocols, procedures, rules,
and regulations of the Romanian Football Federation and the statutes, regulations, rules,
decisions etc. of UEFA and FIFA, as well as to the Internal Regulations of the Club.”
3.
Article 4 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Article 4: Remuneration
i.
The Club shall pay to the Player a signing bonus in the amount of 30.000 (thirty
thousand) Euro net. The payment will be made on 01 September 2024, at latest, in
counter value of Lei according to the middle exchange rate of EUR towards Lei of
the Central European Bank on the effective day of payment.
ii.
The Club undertakes to pay the Player for his professional services a monthly net
amount of EUR net 9.500,00 (nine thousand five hudred) in counter value of Lei
according to the middle exchange rate of EUR towards Lei of the Central European
Bank on the effective day of payment3, to be paid at the latest on 15 of the month,
for services provided on previous month.
iii. When the Player achieves a total of 12 goals and assists combined in official games
in competitive season. The Player will get a bonus of 10.000 (ten thousand) Euro
net. After The Player achieve a total of 12 goals and assists combined on the season
and consequently receives the bonus above, he will be entitled to additional a
bonus of 1000 (one thousand) Euro net for each subsequent goal /assist in an
official game of the Club, subject to additional condition that the Club does not lose
the game in question.
iv. If the Club will win Romanian Cup, the Club shall pay to the Player bonus up to
24.880 (twenty-four thousand eight hundred and eighty) Lei net (the equivalent of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17677
5000 Eur net), depending on the number of minutes in which the player effectively
entered on the field in Cup games in the season when Club won the said
competition.
v.
If the Club will qualify to play in Play-Off stage of Romanian Championship - Liga
1, the Club shall pay to the Player a bonus up to 24.880 (twenty-four thousand eight
hundred and eighty) Lei net (the equivalent of 5000 Eur net), depending on the
number of minutes in which the Player effectively entered on the field in
Championship games - Liga 1 in the season when the Club qualified to Play-Off
stage - Liga 1.
vi. If the Club will finish the Romanian Championship - Liga 1ina position (from 1 to 4
in Play-Off stage of Liga 1) to qualify to play in UEFA Club Competitions, the Club
shall pay to the Player a bonus up to 99.000 (ninety-nine thousand) Lei net (the
equivalent of 20,000 Eur net), depending on the number of minutes in which the
Player effectively entered on the field in Championship games - Liga 1 of season
when the Club qualified to play in UEFA Club Competitions through Romanian
Championship.
vii. The Club will pay to the Player during the term of this contract, 2 (two) return plane
tickets from Switzerland to Romania or from Romania to Switzerland. The Player
will use these plane tickets when the season is over or during winter break.
viii. The Player’s remuneration and other financial entitlements will be paid to the
Player as follows, always indicating the reason for the relevant payment (eg
‘Payment June 2023’) (please specify the applicable payment method).”
4.
Articles 13 and 14 of the Contract provided the following:
“13. Termination of the contract
i.
This contract is automatically terminated at the end of the period for which it is
concluded.
ii.
This contract may be terminated before its date of expiry, by mutual agreement of
the parties.
iii. The player or the club may unilaterally terminate the contract only subject to the
conditions and with the consequences stipulated by the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players of FIFA/FRF (as applicable).
iv. If the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract with just cause, the other
party shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17677
in force (as applicable). Similarly, if the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the
contract without just cause, the terminating party shall be sanctioned in
accordance with the provisions of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF in force (as applicable).
14. Choice of forum
i.
The Club and the Player shall take all measures to settle the disputes and
differences which may arise out of the present Agreement by means of
negotiations. In case the Player and the Club fail to solve the dispute, it shall be
submitted exclusively to the competent FIFA bodies, and, on appeal to the Court of
Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne Switzerland.”
5.
On 27 November 2024, the Club paid the Player RON 49,771 (approx. EUR 10,000) with the
reference “PRIMA DE INSTALARE CONF CTR – PARTIALA”.
6.
On 4 December 2024, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, demanding payment of
the following amounts (quoted verbatim) within 15 days, in verbis: “20,000 EUR net as a
signing bonus under the [Contract]; 9,500 EUR net as remuneration owed for November 2024;
and 2,500 RON as attorney’s fees.”
7.
On 20 December 2024, the Player notified the Club of the Contract termination, citing art.
14bis of the Regulations in the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
This letter also stated that “the termination takes effect from the moment of communication
of this notice.”
8.
On 24 December 2024, the Club paid the Player RON 50,000 (approx. EUR 10,000) with the
reference “PRIMA PARTIALA INSTALARE”.
9.
On 29 December 2024, the Club informed the Player that it had paid him RON 50,000,
representing half of the signing fee under the Contract and reflecting the Club’s
“commitment to fulfilling the financial obligations undertaken”. The Club requested that the
Player withdraw the termination notice, as well as prompting him to report for duty on 6
January 2025.
10. On 17 February 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Swiss club FC
Rapperswill-Jona 1928 AG, valid from 17 February 2025 and 31 May 2025. The Player was
entitled to an allowance of CHF 2,000 (approx. EUR 2,118.70) for the contractual period.
11. On 6 August 2025, the Romanian national courts granted the Club’s request to initiate
insolvency proceedings. The Club notified the Player of this ruling the following day, after
the FIFA case had already been initiated.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17677
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. In parallel, on 4 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
13. According to the Player, the Club failed to pay the signing bonus within the agreed
timeframe and only made two partial payments of EUR 10,000 each – on 27 November and
24 December 2024 – leaving EUR 10,000 unpaid. Additionally, the Club did not pay the
November salary and only partially fulfilled its obligations for December 2024.
14. The Player recalled that, following these breaches, he issued a formal notice of default on
4 December 2024, granting the Club a 15-day period to comply. When the Club failed to
meet its obligations by 19 December 2024, the Player terminated the Contract on 20
December 2024, citing just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations. The Player further
argued that the conditions for just cause were met regardless of the Club’s partial payment
a posteriori, as the outstanding amounts exceeded the threshold defined by FIFA
regulations.
15. The Player requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to confirm the termination
with just cause and to order the Club to pay the outstanding amounts:
•
•
•
EUR 10,000 net as the balance of the signing bonus,
EUR 9,500 net for November 2024 salary, and
EUR 6,016 net for the prorated December 2024 salary up to the termination date.
16. He also sought EUR 60,484 in compensation for the breach of contract, calculated as the
residual value of the Contract, and requested 5% annual interest on all amounts.
17. Additionally, the Player asked the DRC to compel the Club to pay the related taxes and
contributions to the Romanian state and to provide a tax certificate confirming the net
nature of the payments.
18. Finally, the Player requested that a sporting sanction be imposed on the Club, specifically
a ban on registering new players for one or two consecutive registration periods, due to
delayed payments exceeding 30 days without justification.
19. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“By which we request the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal to decide
as follows:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17677
(a) To order ASOCIATIA CLUB SPORTIV MUNICIPAL POLITEHNICA IAAI to pay FLORIAN
KAMBERI the total amount of 10.000 EUR net representing the outstanding bonus for
signing the Sports Activity Contract concluded on 10th of July of 2024 plus 5% annual
interest until the date of effective payment;
(b) To order ASOCIATIA CLUB SPORTIV MUNICIPAL POLITEHNICA IASI to pay to FLORIAN
KAMBERI (i) the amount of 9.500 EUR net representing remuneration for the month of
November 2024; and (ii) 6.016 EUR net representing remuneration for the month of
December 2024 both amounts being in accordance with Sports Activity Contract
concluded on 10th of July of 2024;
(c) To confirm that the termination of the Sports Activity Contract was effected with just
cause due to the non-payment of the outstanding salaries, in accordance with Article 14
of FIFA RSTP;
(d) To order ASOCIATIA CLUB SPORTIV MUNICIPAL POLITEHNICA IAAI to pay compensation
for the premature termination of the contract in amount of 60.484 EUR net;
(e) To order ASOCIATIA CLUB SPORTIV MUNICIPAL POLITEHNICA IASI to pay the taxes and
contributions related to remuneration referred to in points (a), (b) and (d) to the Public
Budget of the Romanian State;
(f) Pursuant to art. 12bis, paragraph 4, letter (d) of FIFA RSTP, to impose a ban on
registering any new player, either nationally or internationally for one or two entire and
consecutive registration periods.”
b. Reply of the Club
20. On 10 February 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s claim.
21. First, the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction to decide on this case based on art. 26, par. 1
of the Regulations issued by the Romanian Football Federation (FRF) in combination with
the wording of the Contract, seemingly art. 3, XVI.
22. The Club stated that the dispute falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) within the Romanian Professional League
(hereinafter: the Romanian NDRC). The Club emphasized that the Romanian NDRC fulfills
the FIFA criteria and standard regulations, as well as it highlighted that the dispute was of
a domestic nature.
23. As to the substance, the Club contested the validity of the Contract termination and denied
that the conditions for just cause under FIFA regulations had been met. The Club argued
that it had made substantial efforts to fulfill its financial obligations, including two
payments of EUR 10,000 each towards the signing bonus – one on 27 November and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17677
another on 24 December 2024 – totaling EUR 20,000. It maintained that these payments
demonstrated their intent to comply and that the remaining EUR 10,000 did not constitute
a breach sufficient to justify unilateral termination.
24. The Club further contended that the Player’s termination notice, issued on 20 December
2024, was premature and unjustified. It argued that the Player failed to consider the Club’s
partial compliance and did not engage in good faith efforts to resolve the matter amicably.
In its response dated 29 December 2024, the Club requested the Player to withdraw the
termination notice and resume training on 6 January 2025, again based on the FRF
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the FRF Regulations).
25. The Club emphasized that the conditions under art. 14bis of the Regulations were not met,
as the Club had not failed to pay two full months of salary and had made payments toward
the signing bonus.
26. The Club also rejected the claim for EUR 60,484 in compensation for premature
termination, asserting that the Player had not suffered damages equivalent to the residual
value of the Contract. It argued that any compensation should be mitigated by the Player’s
duty to seek alternative employment and that no evidence had been provided of
unsuccessful attempts to secure a new contract. Furthermore, the Club opposed the
imposition of a registration ban under art. 12bis of the Regulations, stating that the
payments were not delayed beyond 30 days without justification and that the Club had
acted in good faith.
27. In conclusion, the Club requested the DRC to dismiss the Player’s claims for outstanding
payments, compensation, and sporting sanctions, and to recognize that the termination
was effected without just cause. The Club emphasized its partial compliance, willingness to
resolve the dispute, and the absence of egregious conduct warranting disciplinary
measures.
28. The Club’s relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“I. The inadmissibility of the Player’s claim for lack of jurisdiction of the FIFA jurisdictional
bodies to settle this dispute on the merits, based on art. 26 pct. 2.1 of the Romanian
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which provides exclusive jurisdiction to
the Romanian jurisdiction committees.
II. Alternatively, we request the suspension of the present proceedings until the final
resolution of the litigation before the jurisdictional committees in Romania, where the
club has requested a ruling against the Player on the:
a. The determination that the termination of the contract by the player, communicated
to the club on 20.12.2024, was irregular, as the conditions for just cause were not
met.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17677
b. The determination of the termination of Sports Activity Contract No. 614/10.07.2024
due to the fault of the player Florian Kamberi, considering his unexcused absences
and unjustified refusal to attend the activities organized by the club.
III. If FIFA Tribunal considers itself competent to settle this dispute and rejects the
suspension of the trial proceedings, we request the dismissal of the player's claim as
unfounded.
IV. If FIFA deems the claim well-founded, pursuant to Article 26 of the Procedural Rules
Governing the Football Tribunal, we request the mediation procedure, which is deemed
appropriate in this matter.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
29. On 18 February 2025, the Player requested provisional measures: “To assess on a prima
facie basis that the [Contract] concluded between the [the Player] and [the Club] was terminated
with just cause due to the non-payment of the outstanding salaries, in accordance with Article
14bis of FIFA RSTP, and therefore establish that the Player is free of his contract and can sign a
contract with a new club outside the registration period.”
30. Also on 18 February 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Player’s
unsolicited correspondence and formally invited him to submit his replica on 25 February
2025.
31. On 20 February 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
32. The Player first addressed the Club’s challenge to FIFA DRC’s jurisdiction. He argued that
the Contract explicitly nominated FIFA as the competent body to resolve disputes, and that
both parties had agreed to this clause upon signing. He rejected the Club’s reliance on FRF
domestic regulations, stating that the FRF and its bodies were bound by FIFA statutes,
which permit such arbitration clauses. In support of his position, the Player cited both the
FRF Statute and the FRF Regulations, which allegedly require national bodies to apply FIFA
and UEFA regulations were not inconsistent.
33. The Player also opposed the Club’s request to suspend the FIFA proceedings pending
resolution by FRF jurisdictional bodies. He argued that such suspension was unnecessary
and irrelevant, especially since the Romanian NDRC had already rejected the Club’s claim
for lack of jurisdiction. He maintained that the Football Tribunal, particularly the DRC, was
the only competent authority to adjudicate the matter, and that national bodies were
obligated to follow FIFA’s decisions, not the other way around.
34. On the merits, in response to the Club’s interpretation of art. 14bis of the Regulations, the
Player asserted that the provision applied not only to monthly salaries but also to other
forms of remuneration, including signing bonuses. He cited FIFA’s Commentary on the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17677
Regulations and jurisprudence to support the view that delayed payments exceeding the
value of two monthly salaries – regardless of their nature – constituted just cause for
termination. He concluded that his termination of the Contract was lawful and in line with
Regulations.
35. The Player further addressed the Club’s claim that a settlement had been proposed. He
argued that the Club’s offer, which was tied to uncertain future TV broadcasting revenues
and lacked guarantees, was made in bad faith. The Club had admitted it had no current
broadcasting income and could not ensure payment unless it avoided relegation. The
Player formally rejected any settlement proposal from the Club, as unserious and
unenforceable.
36. Regarding the duty to mitigate damages, the Player explained that the Club had filed a case
before Romanian NDRC despite knowing it lacked jurisdiction, solely to obstruct his ability
to sign with other Romanian clubs. According to the Player, this tactic discouraged potential
suitors and left him with only one offer from an amateur Swiss third-league team, valued
at CHF 2,500, which he accepted that should be deducted from any compensation
awarded.
37. In conclusion, the Player requested the DRC to dismiss the Club’s defense entirely and to
uphold his claim for compensation due to breach of contract. He reiterated that the
termination was lawful, the jurisdiction was properly established, and the Club’s actions
had caused him financial and professional harm.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
38. On 3 March 2025, the Club submitted its duplica.
39. The Club reiterated its position that the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The
Club maintained that, according to FRF Regulations, disputes between players and clubs
were subject to mandatory resolution by domestic bodies, specifically the Romanian NDRC.
It argued that any arbitration clause in favor of DRC was invalid under Romanian law and
should be considered unwritten.
40. On the merits, the Club again challenged the Player’s reliance on art. 14bis of the
Regulations, asserting that the provision applied only to unpaid salaries and not to signing
bonuses. It claimed that the signing bonus was a one-time payment and not subject to the
same protection as monthly wages. Therefore, the Club argued that the Player’s
termination of the Contract lacked just cause and was premature, especially considering
that partial payments had been made.
41. In response to the Player’s claim of bad faith regarding the Club’s settlement proposal, the
Club defended its offer to assign receivables from future TV broadcasting rights. It
acknowledged that the offer was conditional on the Club’s league performance and
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17677
financial situation but insisted that it was made in good faith and represented a viable
solution under the circumstances. The Club rejected the Player’s characterization of the
proposal as unserious and emphasized that it had sought to resolve the matter amicably.
42. The Club also denied obstructing the Player’s ability to sign with other Romanian clubs. It
argued that its actions before Romanian NDRC were legitimate and not intended to block
the Player’s career opportunities. It further claimed that the Player had not sufficiently
mitigated his damage and that his failure to secure a new professional contract was not
solely attributable to the Club’s conduct.
43. Finally, the Club requested the DRC to dismiss the Player’s claims in their entirety, to reject
the assertion of just cause for termination, and to deny any compensation or sanctions. It
maintained that it had acted within its rights and that the dispute should be resolved under
Romanian jurisdiction.
e. Additional comments by the parties
44. On 25 March 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s duplica
and, inter alia, invited the Player to confirm his current employment situation.
45. On 26 March 2025, the Player confirmed the terms of his contract with FC Rapperswill-Jona
1928 AG.
46. On 7 August 2025, the Club submitted additional comments concerning the opening of
disciplinary proceedings in Romania. The Club alleged that on 6 August 2025, the national
courts formally admitted the Club’s request for opening of insolvency proceedings in
accordance with the corresponding Romanian Law.
47. The Club also informed that the Player had been officially notified of the above facts. It also
emphasized that any payment orders were suspended. As a result, the Club requested that
“FIFA proceedings be immediately and unconditionally suspended, in compliance with the legal
effects arising from the opening of insolvency proceedings under Romanian law, duly notified to
the parties as of 07 August 2025.”
48. On 5 September 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
additional comments regarding the opening of insolvency proceedings and denied the
Club’s request for suspension of the FIFA proceedings. For the sake of good procedural
order, the FIFA General Secretariat also invited the Player to comment on this issue, if he
wished to do so.
49. On 8 September 2025, at the request of the FIFA General Secretariat, the FRF confirmed
that the Respondent is still affiliated with the FRF and participates in competitions
organized under its auspices.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17677
50. On 9 September 2025, the Player requested that this case be submitted to a decision by
the DRC as soon as possible.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
51. 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 4 January 2025 and submitted for decision on
23 October 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.
52. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Swiss player and a Romanian club.
53. At this point, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties disagreed fundamentally on the
jurisdiction of the FIFA Football Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute.
54. The Player argued that the jurisdiction clause in the employment contract clearly
designated FIFA as the competent authority to resolve disputes. He maintained that this
clause was valid and binding, having been mutually agreed upon by both parties.
55. In contrast, the Club contended that the dispute should be resolved by domestic
jurisdictional bodies in Romania, specifically the Romanian NDRC, as mandated by the FRF
Regulations. The Club argued that the jurisdiction clause in favor of FIFA was invalid under
Romanian law, which it claimed provided for exclusive and mandatory jurisdiction of
national bodies. It maintained that any arbitration clause derogating from this framework
should be considered null and void. The Club also requested the suspension of FIFA
proceedings, citing the risk of conflicting decisions between national and international
bodies.
(i)
The choice of forum by the parties
56. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the applicable legal framework, the Chamber
first recalled that in January 2024, FIFA introduced a new regulatory framework for national
disputes resolution chambers to provide clarity and the necessary legal certainty with
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17677
regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible formal and
permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
57. Most importantly, the aforementioned rules have been incorporated into art. 22, par. 1, lit.
b and c) of the Regulations and is applicable to cases brought before FIFA as from 1 January
2025 (cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
58. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 4 January 2025, the jurisdiction of the
Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the following provision:
“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:
[…]
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.”
59. As this dispute has an international dimension (i.e., Swiss player vs. Romanian club) and is
employment-related (i.e., claim for breach of an employment contract), the Chamber
considered that it falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction in principle, would only be prevented in the
hypothesis of (1) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Contract in favour of the
civil courts; OR (2) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause included in the Contract or in an
applicable CBA in favour of a NDRC “that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance
with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
60. It follows that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested
party challenging the Football Tribunal’s must demonstrate that the parties have validly
agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such body
is recognised by FIFA. The Chamber highlighted that these conditions are cumulative and
must all be met at the time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
61. In the light of the foregoing, we first turned to the analysis of the Contract and recalled that
it contained the following provisions, cited by the parties in their submissions:
“Article 3: Player’s obligations
The Player undertakes:
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17677
[…]
xvi. to observe and be subject to the articles of association, protocols, procedures, rules,
and regulations of the Romanian Football Federation and the statutes, regulations, rules,
decisions etc. of UEFA and FIFA, as well as to the Internal Regulations of the Club.
[…]
14. Choice of forum
i.The Club and the Player shall take all measures to settle the disputes and differences
which may arise out of the present Agreement by means of negotiations. In case the
Player and the Club fail to solve the dispute, it shall be submitted exclusively to the
competent FIFA bodies, and, on appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne
Switzerland.”
62. Contrary to the Club’s assertion, the Chamber accepted the Player’s position that Article 14
of the Contract constituted the operative jurisdiction clause. While Article 3 of the Contract
referred to the obligation to observe and comply with the FRF Regulations, the Chamber
found that this reference does not amount to a jurisdictional clause, nor does it override
the express “choice of forum” stipulated in Article 14.
63. The Chamber further concluded that there was no valid reason to depart from the express
terms of Article 14 of the Contract, and the dispute must be resolved under the jurisdiction
of FIFA, as contractually agreed by the parties.
64. In addition, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC also noted that Romanian NDRC is
not recognized by FIFA. Thus, neither of the requirements under art. 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulation were met.
65. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction over
this case. Similarly, although the Chamber noted that the parties referred to a claim lodged
by the Club in front of the Romanian NDRC, both parties have acknowledged that the
proceedings before the Romanian NDRC have been closed. As a result, the Chamber found
no need to address any issue of lis pendens or res judicata that could prevent the DRC from
proceeding with its decision.
(ii) The insolvency proceedings
66. The Chamber further noted that the Club had requested a suspension of the present
proceedings, citing the existence of ongoing insolvency proceedings in its local jurisdiction.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17677
67. While the Chamber recognized that the initiation of insolvency proceedings may have
implications for the enforcement of financial decisions, the Chamber also established that
these proceedings do not, in and of themselves, preclude FIFA’s jurisdiction to adjudicate
the matter or the admissibility of the claim. In this regard, the Chamber found it particularly
relevant that the Club remains affiliated with its national association, the FRF, and
continued to actively participate in competitions organized under its auspices.
68. Accordingly, the Chamber ruled that the Club’s request to pause the proceedings based on
insolvency lacked regulatory basis and must be rejected. According to the Chamber, the
matter shall proceed in accordance with FIFA’s regulatory framework, without prejudice to
any future considerations regarding enforcement.
69. In addition to the above, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29
of the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
70. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
71. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
72. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
breach of contract claim brought by the Player against the Club.
73. The Chamber noted that the Player claimed that the Club had breached its contractual
obligations by failing to pay the financial entitlements stipulated in the Contract. These
entitlements included unpaid salaries and signing fees. As a result, the Player sought
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17677
payment of the outstanding amounts, along with any applicable interest and procedural
costs, and requested compensation for breach of contract in accordance with arts. 14bis
and 17 of the Regulations.
74. In contrast, the DRC also observed that the Club argued that the Player had terminated the
Contract without just cause. It maintained that the Player’s unilateral decision to end the
employment relationship was not legally justified. According to the Club, the financial
difficulties it faced – while unfortunate – did not meet the requirements under art. 14bis of
the Regulations or amount to a fundamental breach that would entitle the Player to
terminate the Contract prematurely. The Club contended that it had not abandoned its
obligations entirely and that the Player had alternatives to termination, such as finding an
amicable solution.
75. In light of the above, the DRC recognized that its task was to decide on:
• The circumstances of the termination, particularly whether the Player had just cause
to terminate the Contract; and
• The ensuing consequences, both concerning the financial ruling and the
enforcement of the decision.
76. The Chamber therefore proceeded to assess each issue in turn.
A. TERMINATION
77. As a starting point, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 14bis of the Regulations:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision
coming into force may be considered.” (emphasis added by the DRC)
78. In the Chamber’s view, it follows from the above that two requirements must be met so
that art. 14bis of the Regulations is successfully triggered: (1) at least two salaries must be
outstanding; and (2) the debtor must have been put in default and failed to fully remedy
the breach within 15 days.
79. In casu, the Chamber noted that, in his notice of 4 December 2024, the Player claimed
outstanding remuneration totalling EUR 29,500 net plus RON 2,500 within 15 days, broken
down as follows:
• EUR 20,000 net as the balance of the signing fee;
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17677
• EUR 9,500 net as the remuneration for November 2024; and
• RON 2,500 as attorney’s fees.
80. Although the Chamber accepted the Player’s position that the signing fee was outstanding
at the time of his default notice, it further noted that his salary should be paid “at the latest
on 15 of the month, for services provided on previous month” (cf., Article 4, par. ii of the
Contract). Similarly, the Chamber considered that there was no contractual or regulatory
basis for the payment of attorney’s fees.
81. In considering the above and given that no salary was outstanding at the time the Player
issued his notice of default, the Chamber found that the first requirement established in
art. 14bis of the Regulations was not met.
82. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, as detailed in the Commentary on the Regulations – Edition 2023 (hereinafter: the
Commentary), p. 123, establishes the following:
“Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this does not imply
that delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration
cannot amount to just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A
player invoking other outstanding remuneration to terminate their contract may still
have just cause. The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the
general definition of what constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of
article 14, along with the relevant general criteria set out in jurisprudence and
described above. Particular attention should be paid to factors such as whether
the outstanding amount is significant (i.e. that it is neither negligible nor totally
subordinated), the extent of the delay, the general attitude of the parties in the
specific case and other relevant factors.” (emphasis added by the DRC)
83. In this respect, the Chamber noted that:
• The outstanding remuneration (i.e., a total of EUR 20,000 net) equalled
approximately 2 times the Player’s basic salary (EUR 9,500 net) and therefore
constitutes a “significant” part of his entitlements.
• The signing fee fell due on 1 September 2024 and was already outstanding for more
than 3 months at the time of the default and termination notices. Similarly, as the
monthly salaries under the Contract were paid in arrears, at the time the Player
terminated the Contract, the Player had already rendered services for November
2024 and half of December 2024, without receiving any payment.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17677
• The Player granted a 15-days deadline to the Club to remedy the breach, but to no
avail.
• The Club merely referred to financial difficulties valid reason for the non-compliance
of its financial obligations. Similarly, at the time of the relevant events, the insolvency
proceedings had not yet been formally initiated.
• The Club only proposed an amicable solution / made a partial payment after the
Player had terminated the Contract. There is no evidence on file suggesting that the
Club had attempted to remedy the situation within the delay period and, even so,
the Player’s decision to reject less beneficial proposals should not undermine the
Club’s financial breaches.
84. Consequently, the Chamber decided that such a persistent and material breach of the
contractual obligations by the Club could reasonably justify the unilateral termination of
the Contract and, in accordance with the consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal,
the Club should be liable for breach of contract. The Chamber stressed that the Player
could not be reasonably expected to continue with the employment relationship with the
Club under those circumstances.
85. In conclusion, and based on the factual and contractual situation, the Chamber decided
that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract on 20 December 2024 in
accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations.
B. CONSEQUENCES
86. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
87. First, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were outstanding
under the contract at the moment of the termination, plus default interest of 5% p.a. from
the relevant due date until the date of effective payment, as follows:
• EUR 10,000 net as the balance of the signing fee, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2
September 2024;
• EUR 9,500 net as the November 2024 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
December 2024; and
• EUR 9,500 net as the December 2024 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20
December 2024.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17677
88. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club 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.
89. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
90. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to 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).
91. 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. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 57,000 net (i.e., the salaries from January to June 2025
at EUR 9,500 net each) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
92. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
93. Indeed, the Player found employment with FC Rapperswil-Jona. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 2,118.70 for
the overlapping period. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his
damages in the total amount of EUR 2,118.70.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17677
94. For completeness’ sake, the Chamber acknowledged the Club’s argument that the Player
failed to mitigate his damage accordingly. However, the DRC considered that this allegation
should not succeed as the Player could not be held accountable for the Club’s breaches.
95. 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 the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
96. In this respect, the DRC decided that the Player would be entitled to the amount of EUR
28,500 net as additional compensation, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the
Player under the Contract. However, the Chamber further recalled that the overall
compensation should not exceed the residual value of the Contract, which is why the
Chamber decided to reduce this additional compensation to EUR 2,118.70.
97. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the Player the final
amount of EUR 57,000 net (i.e., EUR 57,000 minus EUR 2,118.70 plus EUR 2,118.70), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
98. Lastly, 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 the date of termination (i.e., 20 December 2024)
until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. The Chamber further recalled that art. 24 par. 3 lit b) of the Regulations establishes:
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17677
“Such consequences may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has:
[…]
b) been informed that the debtor club was subject to an insolvency-related event
pursuant to the relevant national law and is legally unable to comply with an order.”
102. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that two cumulative conditions should
be satisfied for a debtor club to benefit from the exemption provided under art. 24 par. 3
of the Regulations, namely: (i) the debtor club must be subject to an insolvency-related
event under the applicable national legislation; and (ii) it must be legally prevented from
complying with the relevant payment order.
103. In this context, the Chamber carefully examined the documentation submitted by the Club,
which includes: (i) a copy of the decision issued by the competent Romanian court initiating
insolvency proceedings against the Club; (ii) evidence of notification of said proceedings to
the Player; and (iii) references to the Romanian Law no. 85/2014, seemingly governing
insolvency matters.
104. The Chamber then noted that the Club had successfully demonstrated the initiation of
insolvency proceedings in Romania, thereby satisfying the first condition under art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations. However, the DRC considered that the second condition – i.e., the
legal impossibility to comply with the payment order – remained unfulfilled.
105. Specifically, the Chamber pointed out that the decision of the Romanian court confirmed
the opening of general insolvency proceedings and instructed the Club to undertake
further steps, including the convening of a creditors’ assembly. However, the DRC found
no indication that this decision contained any express provision prohibiting the Club from
making payments and the Chamber was also unconvinced that this interpretation was
unconditional vis-à-vis Romanian national law. In the absence of a clear legal impediment,
the Chamber found that it could not be concluded that the Club was legally barred from
fulfilling its financial obligations. On the contrary, the Chamber found it telling that, based
on the information available in the TMS, the Club was seemingly actively engaged in
football-related operations, which further undermines the assertion that it was unable to
make payments due to insolvency.
106. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the Club had failed to provide any evidence
indicating that either the judicial administrator or the competent court had issued an
enforceable order explicitly prohibiting payment of the debt in question. In the absence of
such evidence and considering the international employment-related nature of the credit,
the Chamber decided that the Club failed to demonstrate that it was legally incapable of
complying with the payment order as required under art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17677
107. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
108. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
109. 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
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17677
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Florian Kamberi.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, ACSM Politehnica Iasi, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 10,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 September
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 9,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 9,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 December
2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 57,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
20 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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 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.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17677
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17677
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. 25