Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17869
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Alan
Calbergue Leite Rodrigues
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Alan Calbergue Leite Rodrigues, Brazil
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT:
AL-julan Sport Club, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17869
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the present case are:
-
the Brazilian player, Alan Calbergue Leite Rodrigues (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
-
the Iraqi club, Al-julan Sport Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
On 12 July 2024, a person named “director Golan” (hereinafter: the Club’s Director) sent an
employment contract to the Player for signature and fingerprint (hereinafter: the Player’s
Contract). On the same day, the Player returned the Player’s Contract signed.
3.
The Player’s Contract was concluded between the Player and the Club and was valid as
from 1 September 2024 to 1 June 2025.
4.
Pursuant to the Player’s Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,500.
5.
Clause 25 of the Player’s Contract:
“The club undertakes to book a round-trip ticket twice, the first when it reaches the Iraq and the
second during the league stop between the two stages
The club also provides housing and adequate food for the player, as well as receives financial
rewards while winning matches and qualifying for the league Professionals and the introduction
of the contract of $3500”.
6.
The Player’s Contract contained the Player’s signature; however it did not bear the Club’s
signature.
7.
In accordance with the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System
(hereinafter: TMS), there is a contract allegedly concluded between the Player and the Club
(hereinafter: the TMS Contract). The terms are similar to the Player’s Contract. However, as
to the salary it only foresees the following:
“Schedule (1) of the Football Player’s Contract
1.- The total value of the contract is $35,000 (thirty-five thousand US dollars)
2.- In relation to the 2024/2025 season, the player received from the Club the total amount as
follows:
B- The monthly salary is paid:
$3500, three thousand five hundred US dollars are paid at the end of each Gregorian month for
the period from 20/9/2024 to 20/6/2025.”
8.
The TMS Contract contained the Cub’s signature and a letter “C” as signature.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17869
9.
On 7 October 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 1,750 as September 2024 salary.
10. On 10 November 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 3,500 as October 2024 salary.
11. On 1 January 2025, the Player issued a default notice to the Club requesting payment of
USD 12,250 within 15 days, corresponding to the salaries for September (USD 1,750),
November (USD 3,500) and December (USD 3,500), the sign-on fee (USD 3,500). Moreover,
the Player mentioned that the Club induced him to terminate the Contract on 11 October
2024 and failed to provide a signed copy of the Contract.
12. The Player sent the above default notice by email to the Iraqi Football Association
(hereinafter: IFA) and by WhatsApp to the alleged Club’s and to alleged Club’s president,
Jassim Al-Asal (hereinafter: the Club’s President).
13. On 2 January 2025, the Player and Club’s Director had a meeting discussing terms for the
termination of the employment contract.
14. Between 3 and 4 January 2025, the Player’s legal representative requested Mr. Ibrahim
Alnasser, an alleged agent, to avoid any direct contract with the Player, however, Mr.
Alnasser rejected the accusations, and mentioned that he was an agent and had a meeting
with the player he represented and was not representing the Club.
15. On 6 January 2025, the Player issued the Club a “notice of additional breach”. The Player
mentioned that “Mr. Al-Asal, along with a club director, unlawfully entered the Claimant’s
private quarters without his prior consent and instructed him to vacate his accommodation,
thereby coercing him to relocate to a substandard shared living arrangement, purportedly
occupied by four other players. Furthermore, you advised the Claimant that he is prohibited
from continuing to take his meals in the club’s designated food court, where he has consistently
dined pursuant to the terms of the employment agreement.” Therefore, the Player reiterated
the payment of USD 12,250 as outstanding remuneration and “[p]roceeding with a mutual
termination of the contract by paying the sum of USD 20,000, as previously proposed by the
Claimant during the in-person meeting”.
16. The Player sent the above notice by email to IFA and by WhatsApp to the Club’s Director
and the Club’s President.
17. On 14 January 2025, Mr. Ibrahim Raad Hamadi Shihab, an agent reportedly acting on behalf
of the Club, offered him a settlement of USD 10,000 to terminate the employment contract.
18. On 17 January 2025, the Player sent to the IFA the termination of the employment contract.
19. On 18 January 2025, the Player left the Club’s premises and Iraq.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17869
20. On 20 January 2025, the Player and the Brazilian club, Sociedade Esportiva Caeté concluded
an employment contract valid as from “02/01/2025 a 02/04/2025” (cited verbatim), with a
monthly salary of BRL 1,518.
21. On 10 April 2025, the Player and the Brazilian club, Northesporte Clube concluded an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 3 August 2025, with a
monthly salary of BRL 1,518.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 21 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
23. The Claimant argued that the parties concluded the Player’s Contract. He also mentioned
that the Club tried to make him sign another contract alleging that it contained the same
provisions, however, the Claimant did not sign it as it did not contain the same provisions.
24. The Claimant argued that since the beginning of the employment contract, the Respondent
failed to pay his salaries, and upon his default notice, on 2 January 2025, the Respondent's
directors convened a meeting with the Claimant, during which they sought to coerce him
into accepting an inadequate settlement offer 7,000, however he rejected the offer and
asked USD 15,000. He also mentioned that following this meeting the Respondent
instructed the Claimant to cease participating in training sessions with the team, however,
he did participate in trainings. Moreover, the Respondent started an abusive behaviour
towards him by restricting his access to food services and attempting to relocate him to
another accommodation, by attempting to enter to his house without authorisation.
25. The Claimant mentioned that upon request to TMS of a copy of his employment contract,
the contract stored (TMS Contract) therein contained a falsified signature and an irregular
fingerprint. He mentioned that the Player’s Contract is the only contract valid to the parties.
26. The Claimant argued that as of the date of termination, the Club failed to pay his salaries
for September (USD 1,750), November (USD 3,500), December (USD 3,500), 17 days of
January (USD 1,919), and the sign-on fee (USD 3,500).
27. The Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate his contract due to the “egregious
and substantive” beaches committed by the Club such as the failure of payment of his
salaries, the Club’s behaviour coercing him to sign a termination agreement, and denying
him to basic needs, which had an impact on his professional and financial stability.
Moreover, the Club failed to remit him with the Player’s Contract (which included the signon fee).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17869
28. The Claimant requested the following relief:
-
Monetary judgement: USS 31,449 as salaries and compensation.
-
“To further redress the financial harm caused by the Respondent’s protracted non
compliance, the Claimant respectfully petitions for the imposition of statutory interest at
an annual rate of 5% on all outstanding amounts, commencing from September 1,
2024”.To apply disciplinary sanctions.
-
Disciplinary sanctions.
-
To publish a private copy.
29. Moreover, it requested the following prayers:
“a. Declaration of Breach:
The Claimant respectfully requests this Tribunal to formally declare that the Respondent has
materially breached the employment contract. This breach is evidenced by the Respondent's
failure to discharge its obli- gation to pay the agreed salary, resulting in arrears totaling USD
14,169 up to the date of the contract termination. The Claimant faithfully fulfilled his
professional obligations under the agreement until its lawful termination on January 17, 2024,
and the Respondent's conduct has caused significant financial and reputational harm.
b. Award of Compensatory Damages:
The Claimant seeks an award of USD 31,449 in compensatory damages, encompassing :
• USD 15,580 for the remaining 4 months and 14 days of the contract, calculated as the
total remaining balance under the employment agreement .
• Outstanding salary up to the date of termination: USD 14,169.
• Air ticket reimbursement: USD 1,700 Exhibit 15 - Air Ticket.
This claim is made in strict adherence to Articles 12bis, 14, 14bis, and 17 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Swiss law, particularly Articles 328,328a.1, 324,
and 337 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which govern remedies for contractual breaches. The
compensation requested is indispensable for adequately redressing the financial and
professional harm inflicted upon the Claimant due to the Respondent's blatant contractual
violations.
Ancillary Relief as Deemed Just and Equitable :
The Claimant further requests this Tribunal to grant any additional relief it deems appropriate
and necessary to ad- dress the Respondent' S breaches fully. This may include ancillary measures
to safeguard the Claimant's rights and ensure the effective enforcement of the Tribunal's
decision in accordance with the principles of equity and justice.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17869
b. Reply of the Respondent
30. The Club replied to the following:
“We would like to inform your esteemed federation that our Brazilian club player (ALAN
CALBERGUE LEITE) whose passport number is [...] and who is contracted with our club has
received amounts from our club as shown below.
1_ Receive half a monthly salary in September 2024, amounting to ($1,750) one thousand seven
hundred and fifty US dollars, according to the attached receipt.
2. - received my October salary of $3,500 (three thousand five hundred US dollars) according to
the attached receipt.
3. - The player's technical level declined and he did not attend training sessions. The technical
staff informed the management of this and it became clear that the player had left the club
without the knowledge of the management and the training staff. This is considered a breach of
the terms of the contract concluded between the two parties.”
c. Additional comments of the Claimant
31. The Player acknowledged receipt of the payments (partial payment of September2024 and
full payment of October 2024), however, he mentioned that he already included this
information in his claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 21 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 5 November 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
33. 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 Brazilian player and an Iraqi club.
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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17869
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
35. 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
36. 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
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the employment
contract.
38. The Chamber then recalled that the Claimant stated that the Player’s Contract is the valid
and binding agreement between the parties and that he terminated the employment
contract with just cause considering that the Club failed to pay his outstanding
remuneration and had an abusive behaviour towards the Player. The Respondent on the
other hand, mentioned that it paid his salaries and that he failed to attend the training
sessions.
39. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (i) which is the
employment contract valid and binding for the parties and (ii) whether the Player had just
cause to terminate the employment contract.
Which is the employment contract valid and binding for the parties?
40. In this regard, the Chamber stressed that it remained undisputed that the parties entered
into a valid and binding employment contract. However, the Chamber noted that two
documents were on file concerning the employment relationship: the Player’s version of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17869
the contract, the Player’s Contract, and the contract uploaded to the TMS, the TMS
Contract.
41. It is further noted that the Player’s Contract bears only the Player’s signature, while the TMS
Contract is signed by the Club and had a “C” letter as signature on each of the pages, but
unclear to whom this signature belongs. It is also noted that the Player mentioned that he
did not sign the TMS Contract.
42. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Player received a copy of the Player’s Contract
from a person called “Director Golan” (the Club’s Director) and returned it duly signed. This
sequence of events remained uncontested by the Club. Therefore, the Chamber
understood the role of the “Director Golan” was the Director of the Club, and that the
communications between the Player and a Club’s representative took place, and the
Player’s Contract was sent to the Player by the Club.
43. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Club has not provided any evidence indicating
that the TMS Contract was the final document concluded between the parties. In this
respect, the Chamber highlighted that the completion of the TMS process is entirely under
the Club’s control, as the Player has no access or ability to upload documents to the system.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that in the absence of evidence or further
documentation by the Club, the TMS Contract cannot be considered as valid to the parties.
44. In light of the above, the Chamber determined that the Player’s Contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) constitutes the valid and binding agreement between the parties.
Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
45. In continuation, the Chamber analyzed whether the Contract was terminated with just
cause.
46. In this context, and as a preliminary remark the Chamber observed that all the
communications addressed by email were sent to the IFA and not the Club, therefore,
although the Club does not contest the reception of such correspondences, the Chamber
cannot conclude that the Club was duly notified solely on the basis of the emails sent.
However, the Chamber observed that the default notices were also sent by the application
WhatsApp to the Club’s Director and this remained uncontested by the Club. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the default notice letters were duly sent to the Club and the
Club was duly notified.
47. As to the termination letter, the Chamber observed that the correspondence was only
notified by email to IFA, and therefore, it remained unclear for the Chamber whether the
Club received this notification. Nonetheless, the Chamber also noted that the Player left
the country the next day, therefore, the Chamber concluded that on 18 January 2025 by
leaving the country the Player de facto terminated the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17869
48. Having stated the above, the Chamber then determined that until December 2024, the
Player was entitled to the salaries between September and December totalling USD 14,000
(USD 3,500 times 4).
49. Regarding the amount of USD 3,500 claimed by Player as an alleged signing bonus, the
Chamber recalled clause 25 of the Contract:
“The club undertakes to book a round-trip ticket twice, the first when it reaches the Iraq and 4
the second during the league stop between the two stages
The club also provides housing and adequate food for the player, as well as receives financial
rewards while winning matches and qualifying for the league Professionals and the
introduction of the contract of $3500” (emphasis added).
50. The Chamber stressed that the above provision provides that the Player is entitled to USD
3,500 for “the introduction of the contract”. The Chamber determined that it was clear that
the Player was entitled to that amount but the reason of payment was unclear. However,
the Chamber recalled that in his claim, the Player interpreted that such amount was the
signing bonus and this remained uncontested by the Club. Therefore, the Chamber
determined that the amount of USD 3,500 which corresponded to the introduction of the
Contract was actually a signing bonus, and therefore, was due on 12 July 2024.
51. Consequently, the Chamber determined that until December 2024 the amount due by the
Club was USD 17,500. The Chamber then mentioned that both parties agreed that the Club
paid to the Player USD 1,750 for September 2024 salary and USD 3,500 for October salary.
Therefore, as of 1 January 2025, the Club failed to pay the Player USD 3,500 as signing
bonus and USD 8,750 as salaries (balance of October salary, November salary and
December 2024 salary).
52. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails 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).
53. The Chamber noted that the Claimant did not receive his salaries amounting to USD 8,750
(balance of October salary, November salary and December 2024 salary). Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the
Respondent in default on 1 January 2025 i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating
the Contract on 18 January 2025.
54. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17869
55. The Chamber noted that the Payer argued that the Club had an abusive behaviour towards
the Player, and provided some video recordings with third persons, however, from the
videos, the Chamber stressed that it cannot conclude that the Club prevented him from
eating, forced him to leave his room, and that Ibrahim Raad Hamadi Shihab was acting on
behalf of the Club.
56. Finally and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber observed that the Player concluded
a contract with the Brazilian club, on 20 January 2025, its commencement allegedly
occurred prior to the signing of said contract. Nevertheless, the Chamber stated that such
starting date was an oversight in such employment contract, considering that the Player
was in Iraq until 18 January 2025 executing its obligations with the Club, and the signature
of such contract was on 20 January and therefore, the Player’s contract with the Brazilian
club effectively started on 20 January 2025.
ii. Consequences
57. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
58. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player amounts to USD 15,750
corresponding to the balance of the salary of October 2024, November 2024, December
2024 and January 2025 as well as the signing bonus.
59. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Claimant requested the reimbursement of flight
tickets. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that The Player is entitled to flight tickets in
accordance with clause 25 of the Contract. Moreover, the Player presented evidence for an
amount of USD 1,700 for the trip from Baghdad to Sao Paulo. Therefore, the Chamber
decided that the Player is also entitled to this amount.
60. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
15,750 as outstanding remuneration and USD 1,700 as reimbursement for flight tickets.
61. 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 21 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
62. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17869
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.
63. 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.
64. 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).
65. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 USD 14,000 (i.e.,4 times USD 3,500) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
66. 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.
67. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Brazilian clubs Sociedade Esportiva Caeté
and Northesporte Clube. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract with the
Club Sociedade Esportiva Caeté, the Player was entitled to total salary of BRL 3,675.85 /
USD 605.24 for the period between 20 January 2025 and 2 April 2025; and in accordance
with the pertinent employment contract with the Club Northesporte Clube the Player was
entitled to a total salary of BRL 2,530 / USD 423.05 for the period between 10 April 2025
and 1 June 2025. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player was able to mitigate
the amount of USD 1,028.29 (USD 605.24 plus USD 423.05).
68. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17869
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 Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
69. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
10,500, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
70. The Chamber reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of
the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
71. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 14,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
72. Lastly, 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
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 21 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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. 13
REF. FPSD-17869
76. 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.
77. 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
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17869
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alan Calbergue Leite Rodrigues, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, AL-julan Sport Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 15,750 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 January 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 1,700 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 14,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21
January 2025 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. 15
REF. FPSD-17869
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. 16