Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17714
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mikkel
Rygaard Jensen
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mikkel Rygaard Jensen, Denmark
Represented by William Louis Louis Kallestrup
RESPONDENT:
LKS Lodz, Poland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17714
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 January 2021, the Danish player Mikkel Rygaard Jensen (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Polish club LKS Lodz (hereinafter: Respondent or club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2024.
2.
Clause 5 “Remuneration” of the contract reads inter alia as follows:
"In season 2021/2022 - EUR 9,300 net per month in Polish First League (1 Liga)
"PLN [ Polish Zloty] 3,000 net for each Clubs win in official league match (does not apply to
friendly matches or cups) in which the Player will play the minimum of 45 minutes of regular
time (based on the official match report in EXTRANET) in Polish First League (1 Liga). "
"Payment of individual remuneration shall be made in arrears to the 10th day of the next month,
by transfer to a bank account indicated in writing by the Player. "
"Provided that the Parties sign herby Contract, the Player shall be paid an individual additional
prize in amount of:
(...)
b) EUR 20,000 netto payable by 15.09.2021 c) EUR 20,000 netto payable by 15.09.2022
d) EUR 20,000 netto payable by 15.09.2023"
3.
On 2 November 2021, the Claimant terminated his contract unilaterally.
4.
On 4 November 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim before the Dispute Resolution Chamber
under case FPSD-4202 regarding an employment related dispute between the player and
the club regarding the termination of the contract. In his claim, the Claimant requested
inter alia:
"1. For the NET sum of EUR 32,674 owed from 1 September 2021 until 30 October 2021 plus 5%
interest rate as from the relevant due dates as follows:
- EUR 20,000 as the lump sum payment, plus 5% interest as from 16 September 2021
- EUR 9,300 for the salary of September plus 5% interest as from 11 October 2021
- EUR 655 (Zloty 3,000) for the win against Skra Czesto on 8 August 2021 plus 5% interest
as from 9 August 2021
- EUR 655 (Zloty 3,000) for the win against Sandecja on 26 September 2021 plus 5%
interest as from 27 September 2021
- EUR 688 for the Foundation payments of July 2021 plus 5% interest as from 1 August
2021
- EUR 688 for the Foundation payment of August 2021 plus 5% interest as from 1
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17714
September 2021
- EUR 688 for the Foundation payment of September 2021 pus 5% interest as from 1
October 2021
(…)
3. Therefore, the total amount for which the DRC should award the Player salary, bonusses,
individual additional prize and 'Foundation' plus compensation for the remaining contract
period amounts to a total NET amount of EUR 392,290 (EUR 32,674 plus EUR 359,616) plus
interest
5.
On 16 February 2022, the Dispute Resolution Chamber notified the decision to the parties
(hereinafter: the FIFA Decision) in which it awarded the Claimant inter alia:
- EUR 32,674 as outstanding remuneration, plus interest;
- EUR 145,051 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest.
6.
On 16 August 2023, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on the appeal
of the Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber under case FPSD-4202 regarding an
employment related dispute between the player and the club regarding the termination of
the contract (hereinafter: the FIFA Decision). CAS partially upheld the Decision and amended
the compensation awarded to the Claimant to EUR 145,051. (hereinafter: the CAS Award).
7.
On 19 September 2023, the Claimant received a tax invoice from the Swedish tax
authorities in the amount of SEK 48,987, which was to be paid by no later than 3 October
2023. Said invoice indicated that it was based on a request by the Polish tax authorities and
transferred to the Claimant’s new tax domicile (Sweden) based on EU (European Union)
Directive 2010/24/EU (hereinafter: the EU Directive).
8.
On 2 October 2023, the Claimant made a payment of SEK 48,987 to the Swedish tax
authorities.
9.
On 22 November 2024, the Claimant received a second tax invoice from the Swedish tax
authorities in the amount of SEK 234,435, which was payable by no later than 6 December
2024. Said invoice indicated that it was based on a similar request as indicated above, by
the Polish tax authorities and transferred to the Claimant’s new tax domicile (Sweden)
based on EU Directive 2010/24/EU.
10. On 27 November 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent a default notice, requesting a
payment of the sum of the two invoices of SEK 48,987 and SEK 234,435 respectively, within
10 calendar days.
11. On 6 December 2024, the Claimant paid to the Swedish tax authorities SEK 234,435.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17714
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 8 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
13. The Claimant requested overdue payables, in particular, related to the reimbursement of
taxes incurred as a result of a FIFA Decision, subsequently confirmed by CAS (i.e., CAS
Award)
14. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent had agreed to pay him all his
remuneration in “net” – i.e., in his reasoning, without any tax deductions or otherwise.
Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the FIFA Decision and CAS Award confirmed his
entitlement to receive these amounts.
15. The Claimant argued that he paid the tax invoices in good faith in order to avoid penalties,
and is now requesting these amounts to be reimbursed based on the Contract, the FIFA
Decision and the CAS Award respectively.
16. Equally, the Claimant emphasised that the tax liability in Sweden arose as a result of an EU
Directive assisting with the enforcement of tax-related claims by public authorities across
EU territories.
17. As a result of the above, the Claimant requested to be reimbursed EUR 24,624.75 or
alternatively, SEK 48,987 plus SEK 234,435, with interest as from the respective dates of the
tax invoices.
b. Position of the Respondent
18. In its reply, the Respondent challenged both FIFA’s jurisdiction to deal with the claim, as
well as its admissibility.
19. In terms of admissibility, the Respondent argued that the principle of res iudicata applied
to the present case. In particular, a final and binding decision had been rendered by the
Football Tribunal (i.e., the FIFA Decision), as well as a binding award by the CAS Award.
20. In both of those proceedings, the Claimant’s claims arose from the non-execution of certain
obligations arising from the Contract. Both outstanding remuneration and compensation
had been awarded by the DRC and CAS, whereto the taxes allegedly arising in the present
dispute are related.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17714
21. Following the issuance of the CAS Award, the Respondent highlighted that it had fully
complied with its payment obligations, thus exhausting the player’s claims in relation to
those contractual concepts.
22. The Respondent emphasised that the disputes before the DRC and CAS (the FIFA Decision
and the CAS Award respectively) shared an identity of subject and object with the present
claim – i.e., the same parties were involved, with the same amounts being in dispute.
23. As a result, the Respondent argued that the claim should be held as inadmissible, in view
of the principle of res iudicata.
24. As to the jurisdiction, the Respondent argued that the Claimant has not adduced sufficient
evidence to corroborate that the taxes which he was obligated to pay were related to the
amounts awarded by FIFA and CAS respectively. Though the claiming tax authority, by
virtue of EU Directives, was the local tax authority in Lodz, the Respondent stated that it
could not be excluded that these amounts were related to other entitlements of the
Claimant – either under the Contract itself or the FIFA Decision / CAS Award. Therefore, in
absence of a concrete link to the Contract, the claim at stake could not be considered an
employment-related dispute.
25. As to the merits, the Respondent argued that the claim should be rejected. In particular,
the Respondent outlined once again that the Claimant failed to meet the burden of proving
that the taxes which arose in Sweden were related to the Contract. The Respondent hereby
adduced confirmations in writing by the Lodz tax authority indicating that it had no
outstanding liability towards the latter between 2021 and 2024.
26. In any event, the Respondent argued that after the FIFA Decision was rendered, during the
proceedings at CAS, the Claimant did not raise any objections as to the amounts awarded,
in particular, whether they specified that taxes were due and payable. Hereby, the
Respondent reiterated that it merely complied with the CAS Award, paid the ordered
amounts, and therefore absolved its debts towards the Claimant with regard to the
Contract in full.
27. In short, the Respondent requested for the claim to be rejected.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17714
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. 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 8 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.
29. 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 Danish player and a Polish club.
30. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the
Football Tribunal.
31. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber first of all wished to stress that FIFA’s deciding bodies
are in principle not competent to deal with purely tax relate disputes, as they fall outside
the scope of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and Procedural Rules
unless the claim in relation to the taxes appears to be contractually grounded.
32. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the player is requesting the reimbursement of
the taxes on the basis of the Contract. The Chamber also observed that although referring
to taxation, is in fact an employment-related contractual dispute, insofar the legal matter
to be analysed is to establish whether the player should have received his remuneration
net.
33. The reimbursement of the tax claimed by the player is based on the Contract between the
parties and of its interpretation. On account of the above, the Chamber established that
the claim is employment-related in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players. As such, it dismissed the position of the club in this respect.
34. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-17714
b. Admissibility
35. The Chamber recalled that the Respondent challenged the admissibility of the claim, and
the Respondent has argued that a final and binding decision / arbitral award in respect of
the amounts sought has been passed and that the FIFA Decision / CAS Award have been
enforced successfully, as payments were made by the Respondent in this regard, and that
therefore, the principle of res iudicata applied. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant
limited his claim to the reimbursement of taxes only, and not the principal amount under
the FIFA Decision / CAS Award respectively.
36. At this stage, the Chamber recalled that, according to the legal principle of res judicata, a
decision-making body is not in a position to decide on the substance of a case in the even
that another –competent– deciding body has already dealt with the same matter by passing
a final and binding decision. In this regard, the principle of res judicata ensures that
whenever a dispute has been defined and decided upon, it becomes irrevocable,
confirmed, and deemed to be just – res judicata pro veritate habetur.
37. In this regard, it is firstly undisputed that the same parties are involved in the present case
– i.e., the Claimant and the Respondent. Therefore, the admissibility of the claim must be
assessed based on whether the same object is at stake.
38. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the dispute based on which the FIFA Decision and
the CAS Award were rendered concerned 1) the payment of outstanding salaries, and 2)
the Respondent’s liability to pay the Claimant compensation as a result of an unlawful
breach of contract. Accordingly, the Claimant was awarded, based thereupon, the following
amounts:
- EUR 32,674 as outstanding remuneration, plus interest;
- EUR 145,051 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest.
39. The Chamber considered that neither the FIFA Decision, nor the CAS Award, discussed the
Respondent’s tax liability towards the Claimant in respect of the amounts at stake. In this
regard, the Chamber summarized the timeline of the relevant facts and parties’ reactions
as follows:
•
The Claimant did, indeed, request the amounts to be awarded as “net” in his initial
request for relief before the DRC. These amounts appeared to be equally stipulated
as “net” in the Contract at stake.
•
The DRC subsequently issued a decision awarding the Claimant outstanding
remuneration and compensation based on the Contract, without specifying either
“net” or “gross”. Hereby, it is important to mention that, whether or not a decision
by the Football Tribunal has fully been complied with shall be determined upon
application by the relevant creditor to the Disciplinary Committee.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17714
•
Following the issuance of the FIFA Decision, the Claimant appealed the FIFA Decision
before CAS. Pursuant to said Award, the Claimant’s appeal was exclusively based on
“the correct compensation to be awarded to the Player based on the net and gross
remuneration calculation (i.e., whether or not the value of the new contract at the
time was to be deducted as a “net” or “gross” amount when calculating the mitigated
compensation under art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations).
•
Eventually, the CAS issued the CAS Award, wherein the FIFA Decision was upheld,
save for the compensation awarded to the Claimant being amended to EUR 145,051
based on a conversion of the mitigated amount. The CAS Award hereby reads inter
alia:
“87. Consequently, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the overall compensation due to the
Player amounts to EUR 145,051 (EUR 117,151 + EUR 27,900), which does not exceed the
rest value of the prematurely terminated Employment Contract, i.e., EUR 369,604. 88.
Based on the foregoing, the Sole Arbitrator finds that:
i. The Club shall pay the amount of EUR 32,674 to the Player as outstanding
remuneration plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum as from the dates determined
by the FIFA DRC in the Appealed Decision until the date of effective payment.
ii. The Club shall pay The Club shall pay the amount of EUR 145,051 to the Player as
compensation for breach of contract plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum as from
4 November 2021 until the date of effective payment (the date of the claim before FIFA).
iii. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.”
40. Having set out the above, the Chamber underscored that the Claimant has, in the present
claim, confirmed that the tax liability which arose at his expense, was based on the
amounts previously awarded as a result of the Decision, and subsequently, the CAS Award
– which was, as mentioned above, as a result of the same FIFA Decision and Award, already
fully considered by the competent authorities.
41. In this context, the Chamber noted that the FIFA Decision and the CAS Award relate to
outstanding salaries and compensation for breach of contract, while the object of the
present claim was about reimbursement of taxes.
42. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the present claim does not share an identity of
object with the FIFA Decision / the CAS Award.
43. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the present claim is admissible.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17714
c. Burden of proof
44. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
45. 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
46. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the Player’s entitlement to be reimbursed for taxes liabilities
incurred as a result of the FIFA Decision and the CAS Award.
47. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
player was indeed entitled to the claimed amounts, i.e. EUR 24,624.75.
48. The Chamber noted the Claimant’s argumentthat the Respondent had agreed to pay him
all his remuneration in “net” – i.e., in his reasoning, without any tax deductions or
otherwise. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the FIFA Decision and the CAS Award
confirmed his entitlement to receive these amounts. Moreover, the Claimant argued that
he paid the tax invoices in good faith in order to avoid penalties and is now requesting
these amounts to be reimbursed based on the Contract, FIFA Decision and the CAS Award
respectively.
49. The Chamber was also observant that equally, the Claimant emphasised that the tax
liability in Sweden arose as a result of an EU Directive assisting with the enforcement of
tax-related claims by public authorities across EU territories.
50. The DRC noted that, in its reply, the Respondent argued that the claim should be rejected.
In particular, the Respondent outlined once again that the Claimant failed to meet the
burden of proving that the taxes which arose in Sweden were related to the Contract. The
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17714
Respondent hereby adduced confirmations in writing by the Lodz tax authority indicating
that it had no outstanding liability towards the latter between 2021 and 2024.
51. Having considered the evidence, the Chamber was able to corroborate that the player paid
the amounts of SEK 48,987 and SEK 234,435 to the Swedish authorities. Moreover, the
Chamber observed that the Respondent did not discharge its burden of proving that it paid
the taxes which arose from the amounts in dispute as they relate to the employment
contract agreed between the parties, nor did it provide further convincing explanations to
contradict the Player’s submissions. Therefore, the Chamber considered that, the Claimant
sufficiently proved his entitlement to the claimed amounts.
52. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall reimburse the Claimant for the
taxes he paid in connection with the contract.
53. Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant the amount of EUR 24,624.75
which corresponded to SEK 48,987 and SEK 234,435 respectively.
54. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date of the claim, i.e. 8
January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a 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. 11
REF. FPSD-17714
58. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
59. 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.
e. Costs
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17714
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Mikkel Rygaard
Jensen.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is admissible.
3.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
4.
The Respondent, LKS Lodz, must pay the Claimant EUR 24,624.75 as a reimbursement, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 8 January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17714
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. 14