Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17798
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ibrahim
Chenihi
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahim Chenihi, Algeria
Represented by Ludovic Deléchat
RESPONDENT:
Al Ain FC, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17798
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 August 2022, the Algerian player Ibrahim Chenihi (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Saudi club Al Ain FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from 30 August 2022 until 30
August 2023.
2.
Under the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as follows:
“Article 5: Financial Terms
5.1 Fixed Monthly Salary:
• Amount: $20,833 per month (net of taxes and bank charges)
• Total Annual Salary: $250,000
• Payment due on the last day of each month.
5.2 Signing Bonus:
• Amount: $50,000
• Due Date: 05/09/2022
5.3 Conditional Payments:
• The club shall pay additional amounts upon meeting specific conditions.
[…]
5.5 Non-Financial Benefits:
• Housing, transportation, and travel tickets are provided during the contract period.
5.6 Annual Leave:
• 28 paid calendar days annually, with at least 14 consecutive days during breaks in the
football season.”
3.
In addition, the Contract established the following:
“Article 8: Disciplinary Actions
1. The Club may impose disciplinary measures if the player breaches the contract.
2. Penalties may include:
o Written warnings
o Fines
o Community service related to football”
4.
On 7 September 2022, the Club provided the Player with a car. Under a document named
“Vehicle Receipt Acknowledgement” (hereinafter: the Car Receipt), the Player declared the
following, quoted verbatim:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17798
“I, whose data are enclosed above, hereby acknowledge the receipt of the abovementioned
car to be used for work purposes and I undertake to take care of it and its components in a
good state and to use it for work purposes, and to take care of its periodical maintenances.
In case of any problems, I have to inform the administration immediately, and I acknowledge
my responsibility for any damages that happen to the car as a result of misusage or uncaring,
and that I may not handover the car to anyone else or to allow him to use it, and to return
the car in the same state I received it upon the administration's request, and to keep in mind
the applicable laws and regulations in Saudi Arabia while using it, and I acknowledge my
acceptance to deduct my traffic violations which get recorded on the vehicle from my
salaries.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 15 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
6.
The Player argued that, despite fulfilling the Contract until its natural term, the Club failed
to pay the last four monthly salaries (i.e., for May, June, July and August 2023), amounting
to an outstanding debt of USD 83,322. He further argued that the Club should be held liable
to pay 5% interest p.a. over the outstanding amount pursuant to art. 104, par. 1 of the Swiss
Code of Obligations (SCO).
7.
In light of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“17. view of all of the above, the Player respectfully submits this claim before FIFA, seeking the
payment of the total outstanding amount of EUR 83,322, plus interest at a rate of 5% per
annum as follows:
a. EUR 20,833 plus 5% interest per annum from 1 June 2023 until effective payment;
b. EUR 20,833 plus 5% interest per annum from 1 July 2023 until effective payment;
c. EUR 20,833 plus 5% interest per annum from 1 August 2023 until effective payment;
d. EUR 20,833 plus 5% interest per annum from 1 September 2023 until effective payment.
18. Consequently, the Club must pay to the Player the outstanding remuneration based on
the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda of EUR 83,332 as well as interest at a rate of 5%
p.a. on the said amount shall apply (cf. art. 104, par. 1, of the Swiss Code of Obligations), in
line with the FIFA jurisprudence. The full amount will have to be paid on one of the Bank
Account Registration Form provided by the Claimant (exhibit 4).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17798
19. Finally, the Player respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA
Football Tribunal to impose a transfer ban of two entire and consecutive registration periods
to the Defendant in accordance with art. 24, para. 2, of the RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Club
8.
On 9 February 2025, the Club provided its reply to the claim.
9.
The Club contended that, during the period between 18 September 2022 and 17 February
2023, the Player committed multiple traffic violations while operating a vehicle provided by
the Club. These violations resulted in fines totaling SAR 3,600, of which SAR 2,400 had been
deducted from the Player’s salary for the months of October and November 2022.
10. The Club further alleged that the Player was absent from training sessions between 18 to
27 August 2023, conduct which, according to the Club, constituted a breach of its internal
regulations and entitled the Club to deduct the Player’s salary accordingly.
11. In this sense, the Club argued having sent to the Player notices regarding the absence
sanctions, which are summarized as follows:
•
Notice 1 (absence on 18 August 2023; email purportedly sent on 24 August 2023).
The Club referred to a letter dated 20 August 2023 reporting the Player’s
unauthorized absence from training on 18 August 2023. It decided to apply “Penalty
No. 1”, namely a 5% deduction of one monthly wage. The notice informed the Player
of a right to appeal within one week before the Club President or Vice‑President.
•
Notice 2 (absence on 19 August 2023; email purportedly sent on 24 August 2023).
The Club referred to a letter dated 20 August 2023 reporting the Player’s
unauthorized absence from training on 19 August 2023. It decided to apply “Penalty
No. 1”, namely a 5% deduction of one monthly wage. The notice informed the Player
of a right to appeal within one week before the Club President or Vice‑President.
•
Notice 3 (absence on 20 August 2023; email purportedly sent on 24 August 2023).
The Club referred to a letter dated 20 August 2023 reporting the Player’s
unauthorized absence from training on 20 August 2023. It decided to apply “Penalty
No. 1”, namely a 5% deduction of one monthly wage. The notice informed the Player
of a right to appeal within one week before the Club President or Vice‑President.
•
Notice 4 (absence on 21-24 August 2023; email purportedly sent 28 August 2023).
The Club referred to a letter dated 27 August 2023 reporting the Player’s
unauthorized absence from training between 21 and 24 August 2023. It decided to
apply “Penalty No. 1”, namely a 20% deduction of one monthly wage. The notice
informed the Player of a right to appeal within one week before the Club President
or Vice‑President.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17798
•
Notice 5 (absence on 25-27 August 2023; email purportedly sent 28 August 2023).
The Club referred to a letter dated 27 August 2023 reporting the Player’s
unauthorized absence from training between 25 and 27 August 2023. It decided to
apply “Penalty No. 1”, namely a 15% deduction of one monthly wage. The notice
informed the Player of a right to appeal within one week before the Club President
or Vice‑President.
12. The Club further acknowledged that it had fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the
Player, with the exception of the payment of the salaries for the months of May, June, July,
and August 2023, which remained outstanding at the time the claim was lodged. In this
context, the Club pointed out that on 22 January 2025 it transferred an amount of USD
72,602 to the Player, which, according to the Club, corresponded to the outstanding
remuneration after allegedly lawful deductions related to absences sanctioned under the
Club’s internal regulations and to the traffic violation fines which were ultimately paid by
the Club to the Saudi authorities.
13. In light of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In the light of all the above and also under consideration of the factual and legal aspects as
outlined in our present position we respectfully request the FIFA:
− To reject the Player’s Claim as the Club already paid the entitled amounts to the Player on
22 January 2025.”
c. Replica of the Player
14. On 24 October 2025, the Player filed its replica.
15. The Player firmly contested that the Club paid USD 72,602 on 22 January 2025. He argued
that no such payment was ever received, supported by his own bank statement dated 21
October 2025. He also added that the account allegedly credited was inactive and incapable
of receiving funds, and that the alleged payment was purportedly directed to a bank
account other than the Bank Account Registration Form (BARF) provided to FIFA, despite
being allegedly made after these proceedings had already been initiated.
16. As to the alleged traffic violations, the Player denied having committed any such infractions.
He argued that the supporting documents submitted by the Club were entirely in Arabic
and, therefore, inadmissible. The Player added that, under well-established jurisprudence
of both the FIFA Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), clubs are not
entitled to unilaterally deduct alleged fines from a player’s salary without a lawful and
transparent disciplinary process, which was not the case.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17798
17. With respect to the alleged unauthorized absences between 18 and 27 August 2023, the
Player denied having missed any training sessions and asserted that he continued to attend
training until the expiry of the Contract. He challenged the authenticity of the internal
reports and notifications relied upon by the Club, describing them as self-serving. In any
event, he concluded that the Club failed to establish that the Player was duly notified of
sanctions, granted a right to be heard, or fined in a proportionate and lawful manner.
18. In light of the above, the Player reiterated his requests for relief previously made.
d. Duplica of the Club
19. Despite being afforded the opportunity to do so, the Club failed to provide its duplica.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 15 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 22 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
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.
21. 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
an Algerian player and a Saudi club.
22. 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.
b. Burden of proof
23. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17798
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
24. 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
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim from a player against a club for overdue payables.
26. On the one hand, the Player requested payment of a total outstanding amount of EUR
83,322 (sic), corresponding to allegedly unpaid salaries for the months of May, June, July,
and August 2023, together with interest at a rate of 5% p.a. accruing from the respective
due dates.
27. On the other hand, the Club submitted that it had already settled its financial obligations
towards the Player by means of a payment in the amount of USD 72,602, allegedly made
on 22 January 2025. According to the Club, this sum corresponded to the outstanding
remuneration after the application of purportedly lawful deductions relating to disciplinary
sanctions for unauthorized absences and fines for traffic violations allegedly committed by
the Player while using a vehicle provided by the Club.
28. In his replica, the Player challenged both the authenticity and probative value of the alleged
proof of payment submitted by the Club, as well as the lawfulness of the deductions
invoked. The Club, for its part, failed to submit a duplica.
29. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the Player
was entitled to the claimed outstanding remuneration and, if so, to determine the legal
consequences thereof.
30. For the sake of completeness and prior to examining the alleged payment purportedly
made by the Club on 22 January 2025, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to first address
the issue of the deductions raised by the Club, as they were central to the Club’s calculation
and justification of the amount allegedly paid.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17798
The deductions raised by the Club
31. As to the deductions allegedly arising from the Player’s purported absences from training,
the Chamber noted that, while clause 8 of the Contract provided that the Club “may impose
disciplinary measures”, including the possibility of “fines”, the Contract did not contain any
provision authorizing the Club to unilaterally deduct such amounts directly from the
Player’s salary, let alone in a retroactive manner.
32. Furthermore, the DRC observed that the disciplinary sanctions invoked by the Club were
reportedly based on the Club’s internal regulations, which were provided exclusively in
Arabic and without any translation to English, French or Spanish. In accordance with art. 13
par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, documents submitted in a language other than one of FIFA’s
official languages must be disregarded. Consequently, the internal regulations relied upon
by the Club could not be taken into consideration.
33. In light of the foregoing, and irrespective of any substantive assessment as to whether the
Player was effectively absent from training or whether the relevant disciplinary
notifications were duly delivered to him (or proportionate), the Chamber concluded that
the salary deductions invoked by the Club in relation to the alleged absences could not be
enforced in the present case.
34. As to the alleged traffic violations, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player had, in
principle, assumed responsibility for the proper use of the vehicle made available by the
Club, as reflected in the Car Receipt. However, the Chamber stated that the documents
submitted by the Club to substantiate the payment of traffic fines on the Player’s behalf
were likewise produced solely in Arabic, without proper translation, contrary to the
requirements of article 13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
35. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the deductions related to the alleged traffic fines
relied upon by the Club should be equally disregarded.
36. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to his full salaries for May,
June, July and August 2023, i.e., USD 83,332, without any deductions.
The alleged payment made dated 22 January 2025
37. Having established the above, the DRC, in turn, proceeded to examine whether the alleged
payment dated 22 January 2025 was proved by the Club.
38. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the proof of payment submitted by the Club
indicated that an amount of USD 72,607 was purportedly transferred to a bank account
held in the Player’s name with BNP Paribas El Djazair, under account no. 0100805053,
which prima facie appeared to correspond to an account previously used by the Club to pay
the Player under the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17798
39. In his replica, the Player disputed the authenticity and probative value of this document
and, in support of his position, submitted a bank statement relating to an account held in
his name with the same bank, albeit under account no. 200387-053-44. This statement
showed that, during the period from 1 January 2025 until 21 October 2025, the only credit
recorded amounted to USD 434.30, described as “Intérêts servis”, without any reference to
a payment originating from the Club.
40. The Chamber noted that the Contract did not specify a particular bank account for the
payment of salaries. Accordingly, and considering that the bank statement submitted by
the Player does not relate to the same account number indicated in the alleged proof of
payment, the DRC concluded that said bank statement could not, in itself, be considered
conclusive evidence that the alleged payment was not made.
41. Nevertheless, the DRC recalled that, pursuant to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the
burden of proof regarding the effective payment of remuneration still lied primarily with
the Club.
42. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the proof of payment submitted by the Club
referenced a “Transfer / Draft Cheque / Sold Cheque” and appeared to constitute a request
or instruction for a transfer issued by the Club’s bank. According to the Chamber, an order
of payment does not establish with certainty that the relevant amount was actually credited
to an account held by the Player.
43. Furthermore, following the Player’s explicit contestation of the alleged payment in his
replica, the Club failed to rebut these arguments by refraining from submitting a duplica,
despite having been granted the opportunity to do so. As a result, the Player’s challenge to
the validity of the alleged payment remained uncontested within the case file.
44. In light of the foregoing, and based on the evidence available in the case file, the Chamber
concluded that the Club could not discharge its burden of proof to establish that the alleged
payment was effectively and validly made to the Player.
Conclusions
45. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Player remained entitled to the
full amount corresponding to the salaries for May, June, July and August 2023. However,
for the sake of good order, the Chamber observed that although the Contract stipulated
that the amounts due were fixed in USD, and the Player consistently referred to such
currency throughout his submissions, the request for relief was erroneously expressed in
EUR. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the award should still be established in
USD.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17798
46. Furthermore, in accordance with the Player’s request and the consistent practice of the
Football Tribunal, the Chamber decided to award interest at a rate of 5% p.a., accruing as
from each respective due date until the date of effective payment.
47. Finally, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC noted that the case file contained no
evidence of a prior default notice having been served upon the Club. As a result, the
Chamber determined that the conditions set out in art. 12bis of the Regulations were not
fulfilled, and no sporting sanctions should be imposed on the Club on this basis.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the BARF, which is attached to the present decision.
52. 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
53. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17798
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17798
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahim Chenihi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ain FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 20,833 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 June 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 20,833 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 July 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- USD 20,833 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 August 2023 until
the date of effective payment; and
- USD 20,833 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 September 2023
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17798
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