Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17870
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Kurtis Owen Guthrie
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / FIRST COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kurtis Owen Guthrie, Great Britain
Represented by Greg Griffin
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Churchill Brothers FC Goa, India
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
SECOND COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Jersey Bulls FC, Great Britain
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17870
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 September 2024, the British player, Kurtis Owen Guthrie (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant / First Counter-Respondent), and the Indian club, Churchill Brothers FC Goa
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant) entered into an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from 1 September 2024 until 30 April 2025
2.
Art. 3 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“3. REMUNERATION: NET USD 6500 (Six Thousand Five hundred US Dollars) per
month. 1 USD will be calculated at a fixed rate of INR. 82/- per dollar.”
3.
Art. 4 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“4. Bonus: (For 1-League)
Per Win: USD 150 (One Hundred Fifty US Dollars only).
Per Goal: USD 150 (One Hundred Fifty US Dollars only).
Per Assist: USD 150 (One Hundred Fifty US Dollars only).
I League Winners: USD 5000 (Five Thousand US Dollars only).
Top Scorer: USD 3000 (Three thousand US Dollars only) - If the player
becomes top scorer of I- League season 2024-2025.”
4.
Art. 5 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“5. PAYMENT SCHEDULE: The monthly Professional Fee for such Term as specified
above will be paid on the 17th day of the following month during the said Term.
The Professional fee shall be subject to income tax deduction at source as
applicable under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended).”
5.
Art. 6 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, together with attached Standard Terms
(which are incorporated by reference herein), contains the entire understanding
between the Parties and cancels and supersedes any previous agreements or
arrangements, whether by way of letters of appointment, agreements or
arrangements, whether written, oral or implied, relating to the Player's
engagement with CBFC, which shall be deemed to have been terminated by mutual
consent as from the date of this Agreement. In the event of any discrepancy
between the terms set out in this Agreement and any offer letter or previous
agreement or document entered into in contemplation of this Agreement, the
terms set out in this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement or any provisions of
this Agreement may be amended, modified, waived only by a written agreement
duly signed by all the 'Parties.”
6.
Art. 3 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Contract (hereinafter: the Standard
Terms and Conditions) provided, quoted verbatim:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17870
“3. CBFC'S OBLIGATIONS
CBFC shall during the Term:
a. Observe the Regulations and the Club Rules in so far as the same relate to CBFC;
b. provide the terms and conditions of any policy of insurance relating to the Player
with which the Player is expected to comply;
c. promptly arrange appropriate medical examinations and treatments for the
Player at CBFC's expense in respect of any Player Injury;
d. take out and maintain medical insurance in relation to Player Injuries which
shall cover the expenses of any medical treatment required by the Player in India
as a result of such Player Injuries (together with any travel and accommodation
expenses incurred by the Player in connection therewith);
e. comply with all relevant statutory provisions relating to its relationship with the
Player whether in relation to health and safety or otherwise;
f. release the Player as required for the purposes of fulfilling any obligations in
respect of any International Duty for his National Association pursuant to any of
the Regulations;
g. provide the Player (at no cost to the Player) with such quantity of official Team
Clothing as shall enable the Player to comply with his obligations in clause 6 hereto;
h. cover any expenditure related to Player's travel to and from any Match; and
i. In addition to the remuneration, you will be provided 1BHK accommodation in
Goa by the Club during the subsistence of the Player Contract. You will be liable to
pay for all incidental expenses of the accommodation e.g. gas, electricity,
maintenance, and other charges as may be applicable.
j. Upon the acceptance of this offer, the Club will provide you one round-trip
economy class air ticket from your country of origin to Goa ( England - Goa, Goa England).
Family Ticket: Wife will be provided one round-trip economy class air ticket from
your country of origin to Goa (England - Goa, Goa - England).
k. If there is a delay in salary the player will be paid up to 4 Months of his contract
and the contract will be automatically terminated”.
7.
Art. 11 of the Standard Terms and Conditions provided, quoted verbatim:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17870
“11. TERMINATION
11.1 Subject to the Regulations, which may be amended from time to time, CBFC
shall be entitled by written notice to terminate this Agreement with immediate
effect if at any time the Player:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
is guilty of Gross Misconduct;
Does not comply with the Duties and Obligations of the Player mentioned
in Clause2 of this Agreement.
is convicted of any criminal offence anywhere in the world;
suffers any Permanent Incapacity; or
has indulged in abusive conduct with the aim of forcing the Club to
terminate or change the terms of the Agreement.
11.2 The termination or expiry of this Agreement for any reason shall not affect
those of its provisions which are either expressed to survive or are capable of
surviving such termination and references to the termination of this Agreement
shall include its termination or expiration.
11.3 On termination of this Agreement or expiry of the Term, the Player shall
return to CBFC in a reasonable and proper condition, any property which has been
provided or made available to him by CBFC or the Club in connection with this
Agreement.”
8.
Art. 14 of the Standard Terms and Conditions provided, quoted verbatim:
“14. LEAVE
The Parties agree that the Player shall be entitled to personal leave strictly in
accordance with the Club Rules, subject to the submission by the Player of a written
application at least 3 days prior to the proposed date of leave, as well as the
consent of CBFC. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by CBFC. The
Parties further agree that all such leave availed by the Player shall be treated And
calculated on pro rata basis.
In the event the Player does not return on the date stated in the written application,
CBFC shall be entitled to deduct an amount that represents 2 (Two) times the Fee
(prorated to the extent of the number of days the Player is on leave for) from the
Fee payable to the Player.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17870
9.
Art. 22 of the Standard Terms and Conditions provided, quoted verbatim:
“22. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
a) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Indian
law.
b) In the event a dispute arises between the Club and the Player, regarding any
issue other than termination, the Parties agree to seek to resolve the dispute in
good faith through a process of good faith negotiations and discussions.
c) If a dispute between the Club, and the Player is not resolved within ten (10) days
of the process contemplated in Article 22 (b) then the dispute will be referred for
resolution to the AIFF National Dispute Resolution Chamber or the AIFF Players
Status Committee if the AIFF NDRC is not yet functional.
d) All disputes relating to termination may be referred to the AIFF National Dispute
Resolution Chamber in accordance with the provisions of the NDRC Regulations for
adjudication directly without undergoing the process referred to in paragraph 22
(b) unless both the Player and the Club mutually decide otherwise in writing.
e) At any stage of the good faith negotiation process referred to in paragraph 22
(b) both the Player and Club can mutually agree to refer the matter to the AIFF
National Dispute Resolution Chamber for an urgent decision and, in such
circumstances the requirement for the ten (10) day window for good faith
negotiations under paragraph 22 (b) will not apply.
f) If the dispute is not within the jurisdiction or scope of the AIFF National Dispute
Resolution Chamber or the AIFF Players' Status Committee, then it shall be referred
to arbitration under a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent under the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any modification thereof
then in effect.
g) The arbitration shall be in English and the seat and venue of arbitration shall be
Goa. Subject to the above, the Courts at Goa shall have sole and exclusive
jurisdiction in respect of all matters addressed under this Article 22.”
10. On 18 October 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a communication
via email to the Club claiming that it had failed to pay him his salaries for August 2024 and
September 2024, for an outstanding amount of USD 13,000 net, and granted the Club a
time limit expiring on 3 November 2024.
11. The Player acknowledged that the Club paid him the aforementioned monthly salaries
following his notice of default.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17870
12. On 27 November 2024, the Club sent to the Player an email entitled “Final Notice –
Disciplinary Action and Potential Termination” detailing an incident that allegedly occurred
on 24 November 2024 during which 12 bottles of beer had been found in the Player’s hotel
room, that the Player missed the breakfast the following morning, and stating that the hotel
raised questions about his behavior. The communication also referred to another incident
that allegedly occurred on 26 November 2024, where the Player was purportedly seen in a
restaurant late at night and missed training on the following day. The communication
stated, quoted verbatim:
” We want to make it clear that while you are currently the highest-paid player at
the club, and your behavior is no longer acceptable. We have given you ample
opportunity to adhere to the team’s values and protocols, but we cannot and will
not tolerate further misconduct.
As a result, this serves as your final warning. You are hereby notified that failure
to provide a satisfactory written response within 24 hours of this notice (by
28th November 12 pm) will result in formal disciplinary action, which may include
suspension, fines, or termination of your contract due to gross misconduct.\
Your actions have not only breached club policies but have also damaged the
integrity and reputation of the team. We have made it clear that we expect
professionalism and dedication from all players, regardless of status or salary. This
final notice provides you with an opportunity to explain your actions, and if your
response is unsatisfactory or you fail to respond within the stipulated time frame,
we will have no choice but to take further action, which could include contract
termination.
We expect your written response via email within 24 hours with a full
explanation of your actions. Failure to comply with this request will be treated as
a serious violation and could result in immediate termination of your contract.”
13. On 28 November 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, answered the Club’s
email, denying the assertions of the Club, stating that the bottles of beer were consumed
by a group of players in his room, as part of a social gathering, and that the hotel’s staff
had allegedly exonerated the Player of causing any troubles at their establishment. The
Player mentioned that the Club’s reliance on these events as potential grounds for
terminating the Contract would violate art. 11 of the Contract and requested that the
disciplinary notice be withdrawn. The Player also raised that his salary for November was
outstanding, as he stated that he should have been paid on 17 November 2024.
14. On 6 December 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, informed the Club via
email that he would need to travel to England from 9 December 2024 until 23 December
2024 to visit his ailing Grandmother.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17870
15. On the same day, the Club answered the Player’s email stating that the Player had verbally
agreed with the Club’s general manager to the termination of the Contract, and noted the
following elements:
“1. The player has already been paid for September, October, and November. A receipt
for november will be sent within 48 hrs as we are waiting for the swift copy.
2. Kurtis’ December salary will be processed and paid by January 12th, 2025, because
will basically be shut during the second half of december and first week of january.
3. The player will also be reimbursed for his flight ticket from Goa to England.
4. We will attach the mutual termination agreement for your reference.”
16. In attachment to the Club’s email was the following termination agreement (hereinafter:
the Termination Agreement), quoted verbatim:
“TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
This is to confirm that the football player's agreement made on 1 st day of
September 2024 and valid till season 2024-2025 with reference no.
CBSC/Agreement/PA/107/258/2024 between CHURCHILL BROTHERS
SPORTS CLUB PVT LTD of Margao, Goa, India herein known as the "Club"
and KURTIS OWEN GUTHRIE (BRITISH; Passport no: 628103835), football
player (herein known as the "Player") has on this day been mutually
terminated by both the parties.
"The Club would like to express that it was not the intention to release Kurtis
Owen Guthrie from his contract. However, in light of the extenuating
circumstances surrounding the severe illness of his grandmother, and in a
gesture of good faith and understanding, the Club has agreed to mutually
terminate the contract. This decision has been made with empathy for
Kurtis's personal situation and in the hope that he can attend to his family
during this challenging time."
The Club confirms that the Salary for the month of September 2024 and
October 2024 has been paid to the player by 21st October 2024
Salary for the month of November 2024 is being paid on 6th December 2024
Salary for the month of December 2024 will be paid by 12th January 2025.
His Flight ticket from Goa to England will be reimbursed by 12th January
2025.
Signed on this 06th December 2024 at Margao, Goa, India.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17870
17. On 9 December 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, answered the Club’s
email denouncing and rejecting the Termination Agreement, confirmed that he would take
a 14-day leave period, and reiterated that he did not wish to terminate the Contract.
18. On 18 December 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, sent an email to Club
denouncing the late payment of his salaries for the past four months, and stating that he
is terminating the Contract effectively, and set a time-limit of 48 hours for the Club to
proceed with payment. The email reads as follows, quoted verbatim:
‘’ We are instructed that for the fourth month in a row his payments are late. Our
client is no longer willing to tolerate the late payment of his salary and pursuant
to cl.3 (I) of the Contract hereby terminates his playing contract effective
immediately.
Pursuant to the terms of the contract our client is entitled to be paid 4 months
salary upon termination for unpaid/ late payment of wages.
Our client requires that the termination payment be made within 48 hours of this
Notice otherwise he will commence proceedings in the FIFA RSTP for an award of
damages and costs.’’
19. On 21 December 2024, the Club, through its legal representative, sent an email to the
Player stating that the Club had complied with all the payments due to the Player, and that
his salary for December 2024 would be due on 17 January 2025. The email mentioned that
the Club would pay the Player’s return ticket from Goa to England on 12 January 2025. In
conclusion, the Club requested, quoted verbatim:
“Mr. Kurtis Owen Guthrie to comply with the mutual termination agreement
reached in the time limit of 10 days, and therefore, to sign such document,
otherwise, any leave will of the club facilities in circumstances not previewed
in the employment contract will be considered as a termination of the
employment contract without just cause pursuant to article 14bis of FIFA
RSTP.”
20. On 22 December 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, sent an email to the
Club’s legal representative, restating his position that he considered having terminated the
Contract for outstanding remuneration on 18 December 2024, and that he never agreed
to the Termination Agreement sent by the Club on 6 December 2024. The Player also raised
that his initial request sent on 6 December 2024 was not to terminate his Contract, but
rather to request a leave from the Club as per the terms of art. 14 of the Contract.
21. On 25 December 2024, the Club, through its legal representative, sent an email to the legal
representative of the Player requesting confirmation that the letter of 18 December 2024
constituted a notice of termination.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17870
22. On 28 December 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, sent an email to the
legal representative of the Club confirming that the 18 December 2024 email constituted a
notice of termination following the Club’s failure to pay him the claimed amounts in a 48hour delay before 21 December 2024.
23. On 18 February 2025, the Player was registered as an amateur player with English club
Jersey Bulls FC (hereinafter: the Second Counter-Respondent), and on 7 July 2025, he left said
club and was registered as a professional player with the Scottish club, Queen of the South
F.C.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17870
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 21 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 Claimant / First Counter-Respondent
25. The Player submitted that on 18 October 2024, he sent the Club a default notice claiming
that his salaries of September and October 2024 were outstanding.
26. The Player stated that on 27 November 2024, he received a disciplinary notice from the
Club and that in his answer of 28 November 2024, he mentioned to the Club that his salary
of November 2024 was also late.
27. The Player said that he received a Termination Agreement from the Club on 9 December
2024, but that he was not interested in terminating the Contract, at that time, as he only
sought a 14-day leave return to his home country for personal reasons.
28. The Player also argued that on 18 December 2024, he sent a termination notice as per
art. 3(l) of the Contract as he had not been paid his salary of December 2024 on time.
29. The Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him his salaries on time for a fourth
consecutive month on 18 December 2024, which he said allowed him to trigger art. 3 par. l)
of the Standard Terms and Conditions, which automatically terminated the Contract and
entitled the Player to 4 months of salary as compensation.
30. The Player therefore claimed that the Club owed him USD 6,500 as his monthly salary for
December 2024 and USD 26,000 as the agreed compensation under art. 3 par. l) of the
Standard Terms and Conditions.
31. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“As such, and by filing of this Petition in the FIFA Players’ Status Committee, the
Claimant claims:
1.Payment of the unpaid contract amount of $32,500.00 USD Net.
2.Interest to be calculated on the damages awarded at the maximum allowable
interest per annum under Swiss law; and
3.An order that the Respondent pay the Claimant's costs of these proceedings in
accordance with rule 18 of the Procedural Rules, up to the maximum amount of
CHF 25,000.00 referred to in the Procedural Rules”.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17870
b. Counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
32. On 21 February 2025, the Club filed its answer to the claim and also filed a counterclaim
against the Player and his new club.
33. In its reply, the Club disputed the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, citing art. 22 of the
Standard Terms and Conditions section of the Contract, which refers disputes to the All
India Football Federation (AIFF) National Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Indian NDRC). The Club argued that the AIFF NDRC meets FIFA’s standards for independent
arbitration as per Circular 1010 and the FIFA NDRC Recognition Principles. Therefore, it
requested that the Football Tribunal declared itself incompetent to hear the present claim
due to a lack of jurisdiction.
34. Notwithstanding the above, the Club submitted that the Contract was signed on
1 September 2024 and was valid until 30 April 2025, and that the salary was to be paid in
arrears on the 17th of the following month as per art. 5 of the Contract.
35. In that sense, the Club refuted the Player’s allegations that a salary was due for the month
of August 2024, as the Contract only began on 1 September 2024. In addition, the Club
submitted that the salaries of September and October 2024 were paid on time.
36. Indeed, the Club submitted that it paid the salary of September 2024 on 21 October 2024,
the salary of October 2024 on 20 November 2024 and the salary of November 2024 on 5
December 2024, having paid a total amount of USD 19,665.28.
37. The Club also alleged that the Player had multiple incidents of misconduct, that he missed
14 days of training in October 2024, that he received multiple disciplinary notices, and that
he failed to provide documents supporting his request for leave made on 6 December
2024. The Club further reinforced that as per art. 5 of the Contract, the salary of December
2024 was only due on 17 January 2025.
38. The Club also stated that, on 9 December 2024, the Player refused to sign the Termination
Agreement despite agreeing verbally to it on 6 December 2024, and that he left the Club’s
facilities without consent missing the matches of 14 and 18 December 2024.
39. The Club affirmed that the Player had not just cause to terminate the Contract, as there
were not two monthly salaries outstanding, and that there was no outstanding
remuneration at the time of termination.
40. Accordingly, the Club submitted that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause
on 18 December 2024 and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract against the Player,
seeking compensation corresponding to the residual value of the Contract totalling USD
32,500, and requested that the Second Counter-Respondent, be held jointly liable.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17870
41. The Club therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“V- REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
The Respondent hereby requests the following towards the FIFA DRC:
To reject the claim due to the lack of competence from the FIFA DRC;
To acknowledge the competence of AIFF NDRC in the present matter;
If not so,
To declare that the Claimant isn’t entitled to receive any kind of outstanding
remuneration namely 32.500 USD net
To declare that the Claimant terminated the employment contract without just
cause
To declare the Respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the Claimant
due to termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Claimant
pursuant to article 17 of FIFA RSTP in the amount of:
December 2024 remuneration 6.500 USD
January 2025 remuneration 6.500 USD
February 2025 remuneration 6.500 USD
March 2025 remuneration 6.500 USD
April 2025 remuneration 6.500 USD
Total = 32.500 USD minus the value of the overlapping contract of the Claimant with
Jersey Bulls
To declare that Jersey Bulls is jointly liable with the Claimant, in the payment of the
compensation towards the Respondent, in accordance with article 17 par. 2 of the
FIFA RSTP.”
c. Reply of the Claimant / First Counter-Respondent
42. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player submitted that he was entitled to a salary for
August 2024, as per the terms of an Employment Offer (hereinafter: the Employment Offer)
sent by the Club to the Player on 16 August 2024, and that the employment contract
commenced on 17 September 2024.
43. The Player claimed that following his signature of the Employment Offer on 17 August 2024,
he was entitled to be paid for the period between 16 August 2024 and 17 September 2024,
thus that it was well founded to send a default notice for the outstanding salary of this
period on 18 October 2024.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17870
44. The Player also challenged the Club’s assertion that he misbehaved and claimed that they
should be disregarded as they are pleaded for an improper purpose.
45. The Player added that he requested the leave from the Club within the appropriate delay
as per the terms of the Contract, and that all assertions to the contrary are unsupported
by evidence.
46. As to the payment dates, the Player submitted that the schedule of payment presented by
the Club is erroneous and that the parties agreed to the following payment schedule:
“- From 17 September 2024 to 17 October 2024 on 17 October 2024
- From 17 October 2024 to 17 November 2024 on 17 November 2024
- From 17 November 2024 to 17 December 2024 on 17 December 2024”
47. The Player also affirmed that, as per a text message exchange between him and a
representative of the Club, on 16 August 2024, the Club confirmed that he would be paid
on 17 September 2024.
48. The Player alleged that, contrary to the Club’s submissions, he received a full month’s worth
of salary on 17 September 2024, for the period of 17 August 2024 until 17 September 2024.
d. Reply of the of the Second Counter-Respondent
49. Despite having been invited to do so, the Second Counter-Respondent has not answered
the counterclaim.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17870
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
50. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 4 December 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.
51. 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 in principle competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a British player, an Indian club, and a British club.
52. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the Club challenged the jurisdiction of the Football
Tribunal, arguing that the Contract included a clause in favour of the Indian NDRC.
53. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that, in January 2025, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for NDRCs in order to provide clarity and the necessary legal
certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible
formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
54. Most importantly, the Chamber noted that the aforementioned rules have been
incorporated into art. 22, par. 1, lit. b and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases
brought before FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
55. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 21 January 2025, the Chamber
concluded that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the
following provision: “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;”
56. The Chamber considered that this case, in principle, falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction, and
therefore would only be prevented in the hypothesis of (1) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17870
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 collective bargaining agreement in
favour of a NDRC “that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National
Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
57. In order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested party
challenging the Football Tribunal’s should demonstrate that the parties had validly agreed
to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such body is
recognised by FIFA. These conditions are cumulative and should all be met at the time a
party submitted a claim to FIFA.
58. light of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled that the relevant jurisdiction clause was as
follows:
‘’ d) All disputes relating to termination may be referred to the AIFF National Dispute
Resolution Chamber in accordance with the provisions of the NDRC Regulations for
adjudication directly without undergoing the process referred to in paragraph 22
(b) unless both the Player and the Club mutually decide otherwise in writing.
f) If the dispute is not within the jurisdiction or scope of the AIFF National Dispute
Resolution Chamber or the AIFF Players' Status Committee, then it shall be referred
to arbitration under a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent under the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any modification thereof
then in effect.
g) The arbitration shall be in English and the seat and venue of arbitration shall be
Goa. Subject to the above, the Courts at Goa shall have sole and exclusive
jurisdiction in respect of all matters addressed under this Article 22.”
59. In the Chamber`s opinion, this clause is not clear and exclusive, as it did not exclusively
designate a competent decision-making body. The Chamber specifically noted that the
parties stipulated that disputes regarding termination would be adjudicated by the Indian
NDRC, and alternatively such disputes could also be adjudicated by “the AIFF Players' Status
Committee”, or referred to arbitration, and that the clause also mentioned that “the Courts
at Goa shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters”. Considering the
plurality of decision-making bodies listed, the Chamber determined that the clause was not
exclusive.
60. In any event, the Chamber confirmed that there was no NDRC recognised by FIFA in India
at the time of the relevant events. Therefore, even if this clause were to be considered as
clear and exclusive, the Football Tribunal would still have jurisdiction.
61. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide on
the matter.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17870
62. 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
63. 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
64. 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
65. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute whether the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract on 18
December 2024.
66. On one hand, the Chamber noted that the Player rejected having agreed to the Termination
Agreed sent by the Club on 9 December 2024. Rather, he contended that that the Club
failed to pay on time him his remuneration for the following periods:
- 17 August 2024 to 17 September 2024;
- 17 September 2024 to 17 October 2024;
- 17 October 2024 to 17 November 2024; and
- 17 November 2024 to 17 December 2024
67. The Player argued that, according to the terms of the initial Employment Offer, submitted
only in support of his reply to the Club’s counterclaim, and the Contract, his salary was to
be paid on the 17th day of the following month for work performed in the previous month.
He further claimed that, based on a text message allegedly exchanged with a Club
representative on 16 August 2024, his remuneration began to accrue on 17 August 2024.
Therefore, the Player submitted that the Club failed to pay the first four months of salary
within the contractually agreed timelines, thereby triggering art. 3 para. 1 of the Standard
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17870
Terms and Conditions. As a result, the Contract was automatically terminated, and he
claimed entitlement to compensation equal to four months of salary.
68. Conversely, the Club argued that the only valid agreement is the Contract initially
submitted by the Player, namely the one signed on 1 September 2024, which expressly
provided that it would commence on 1 September 2024 and remain in force until 30 April
2025. On this basis, the Club rejected the Player’s reliance on art. 3 para. 1 of the Standard
Terms and Conditions to justify termination, asserting that at the time the Contract was
ended, only three-monthly salaries had become due, meaning the requirements of art. 3
para. 1 were not fulfilled. Accordingly, the Club lodged a counterclaim seeking
compensation corresponding to the residual value of the Contract for what it considers an
unjustified breach by the Player.
69. In this context, the DRC must first establish which document constituted the contractual
foundation of the dispute. It must then assess whether the Contract was terminated with
just cause and determine the consequences or lack thereof.
(i) Contractual basis:
70. The Player submitted that the parties first agreed to the Employment Offer which was
signed on 17 August 2024, and that it is from this date that the remuneration started
accruing as per the text message he allegedly received from a representative of the Club,
on 16 August 2024, and that the Contract was only a formality.
71. On the other hand, the Club affirmed that the Contract is the document that provided the
obligations of each party and that it contained the terms of the employment relationship,
namely its duration, the salary and the payment schedule.
72. First, the Chamber noted that the Player initially supported his claim on the Contract, and
that he only introduced the Employment Offer and the text message on 16 August 2024 in
support of his reliance on the Employment Offer, in response to the counterclaim.
73. After careful consideration of the submissions of both parties as well as the evidence on
file, the Chamber concluded that the Contract is the sole document on which it should rely
when assessing the parties’ respective obligations. This conclusion follows from the fact
that the Contract is the most recent agreement signed by the Player, dated 1 September
2024, whereas the Employment Offer was signed earlier, on 17 August 2024. The Chamber
further noted that the Payer initially submitted his claim on the basis of the Contract and
only introduced the Employment Offer in answer to the counterclaim.
74. In addition, art. 6 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, together with attached Standard Terms
(which are incorporated by reference herein), contains the entire understanding
between the Parties and cancels and supersedes any previous agreements or
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17870
arrangements, whether by way of letters of appointment, agreements or
arrangements, whether written, oral or implied, relating to the Player's
engagement with CBFC, which shall be deemed to have been terminated by mutual
consent as from the date of this Agreement. In the event of any discrepancy
between the terms set out in this Agreement and any offer letter or previous
agreement or document entered into in contemplation of this Agreement, the
terms set out in this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement or any provisions of
this Agreement may be amended, modified, waived only by a written agreement
duly signed by all the 'Parties.”
75. As per this provision, the parties expressly agreed that all previous arrangements between
the Player and Club were trumped by the Contract.
76. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the parties’ rights and
obligations must be determined solely on the basis of the Contract signed on 1 September
2024. The Employment Offer and the accompanying text message, while indicative of
preliminary negotiations, did not constitute a binding employment agreement and were
expressly superseded by the Contract pursuant to its entire agreement clause. The
Chamber therefore found that the employment relationship between the Parties
commenced only upon the signing of the Contract, which represented the definitive and
mutually accepted expression of their contractual intent.
(ii) Termination of the Contract:
77. In considering the above, the Chamber observed that on 18 December 2024, the Player
informed the Club that he was unilaterally terminating the Contract on the basis of art. 3
par. l of the Standard Terms and Conditions, alleging that the Club had failed to pay his
salaries on time for four consecutive months. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the
Player claimed compensation corresponding to four monthly salaries in the total amount
of USD 26,000 (i.e. USD 6,500 x 4), as well as the salary allegedly due for December 2024 in
the amount of USD 6,500, which he asserted had fallen due as of the date of termination.
78. Considering the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the terms of the Contract, and
recalled that art. 5 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“5. PAYMENT SCHEDULE: The monthly Professional Fee for such Term as specified
above will be paid on the 17th day of the following month during the said Term. The
Professional fee shall be subject to income tax deduction at source as applicable
under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended).”
79. In light of this provision, the Chamber highlighted that the payment schedule of the
Contract was as follows:
- September 2024 payable on 17 October 2024;
- October 2024 payable on 17 November 2024;
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17870
- November 2024 payable on 17 December 2024; and
- December 2024 payable on 17 January 2025.
80. The Chamber also observed that the Player confirmed in his submissions that the Club had
paid the outstanding salaries within the time limit provided in his notice of default of 18
October 2024, and that he only claimed the salary of December 2024 as outstanding in his
request for relief.
a. Termination Clause
81. Given the foregoing, the Chamber moved on to the termination clause invoked by the
Player, and recalled that art. 3 par. l of the Standard Terms and Conditions provided,
quoted verbatim:
“l. If there is a delay in salary the player will be paid up to 4 Months of his contract
and the contract will be automatically terminated”.
82. The Chamber noticed that this article allowed for the automatic termination of the
Contract, and for a compensation equivalent to 4 months of salary if there is a delay in
payment of the Player’s salary. However, the Chamber deemed this clause was not clear,
as it did not provide the threshold of late salary for this clause to be triggered nor for the
duration of the delay in payment for this clause to be triggered.
83. In this regard, the Chamber raised that while it is true that the football world is sui generis
in that it only allows for contracts for a definite term, and it has additional legal protections
against a premature termination, contractual stability is the backbone of the entire football
system. Following this, employers and employees in the football world are prevented from
simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship (even if with prior notice)
without a valid reason.
84. It follows from the above that the early termination of a contract without just cause has
consequences – both financial and sporting. The regulations allow the parties to modulate
the effects of such premature termination, but the jurisprudence also sets certain
boundaries in favour of the legal certainty and the legitimate expectation of contractual
stability.
85. Applying the above to the present case, the Chamber first considered the practical effect
of the parties’ agreement would be that the Employment Contract would be de facto
terminated if a single salary was paid late only by a single day. Needless to say, such an
arrangement would be contrary to the spirit of the regulations.
86. The previous conduct of the Player is indicative that he did neither rely on such clause nor
acted in line with the wording of the relevant clause, as on 18 October 2024, he sent a
notice of default to the Club claiming that salaries were outstanding and requested that
they be paid within a 15-day time limit.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17870
87. In following this reasoning, the Chamber decided to set aside the termination clause and
reverted to the regulations to analyze whether the termination occurred with just cause.
b. Termination under art. 14bis of the Regulations
88. In considering the submissions of the Player in which he alleged having terminated his
Contract for outstanding remuneration, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 14bis par.
1 of the Regulations which states, quoted verbatim:
“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”
89. Recalling the Player’s submissions, the Chamber noted that the Player confirmed that the
outstanding remuneration claimed in the notice of default he sent to the Club on 18
October 2024, i.e. the monthly salaries for August and September 2024, were paid before
the expiration of the 15-day time limit included in this notice.
90. In consideration of the schedule of payment of the Contract, the Chamber observed that
between 18 October and 18 December 2024, only two additional salaries accrued, i.e.,
October 2024, due on 17 November 2024, and November 2024, due on 17 December 2024.
91. In considering the above, and as the Player acknowledged that the amounts claimed in his
notice of default of 18 October 2024 were paid, the Chamber observed that at most two
months of salary could have been outstanding on 18 December 2024, namely October 2024
and November 2024.
92. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that this is insufficient to trigger art. 14bis of the
Regulations, as it also requires that a notice of default granting a 15-day time limit be sent
to the Club before terminating the Contract. As the notice of default sent on 18 October
2024 was not related to these two monthly salaries, and that no further notice of default
was sent to the Club by the Player, the Chamber determined that the Player could not have
terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations, as he never
met its formal requirements.
c. Termination under art. 14 of the Regulations
93. Having determined that the Player had not met the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations to terminate his Contract, the Chamber continued its analysis to determine
whether the Player might have had just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations. Indeed, the
Chamber referred to the 2023 Edition of the Commentary on the Regulations which states
at p. 152 “Where the preconditions are not met, article 14bis does not apply; in such
circumstances the DRC may nonetheless find that the termination was made with just cause
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17870
within the scope of article 14, or consider that there was no just cause for the termination of the
contract”.
94. The Chamber then recalled the wording of art. 14 of the Regulations which provides "[a]
contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment
of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In general, just
cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be reasonably expected in good
faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship."
95. In other words, and in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal,
the Chamber recalled that the termination of a contract should always be an action of last
resort. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an
employee to assure the employer’s fulfilment of its contractual duties, such measures must
be taken before terminating an employment contract.
96. That is to say, as consistently recognized by the Football Tribunal, a premature termination
of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure.
97. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Player did not send any warning or
notification to the Club as to this matter. On the contrary, the Chamber noted that on 9
December 2024, the Player confirmed to the Club his intention to continue with the
Contract, when the Club sent him a termination agreement which he refused to sign, and
before terminating his Contract merely 9 days later. Thus, in light of these specific
circumstances, the Chamber found that the termination of the Contract could not be
considered ultima ratio, and that under the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, it could not come to the conclusion that the Player had terminated its contract
with just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations.
98. Indeed, after careful consideration of the submission and evidence on file, the Chamber
observed that while the Player initially rejected the termination agreement, he did
terminate his Contract, merely 12 days after the reception of the termination agreement.
99. In light of the present circumstances, the Chamber determined that both parties
demonstrated reciprocal interest in ending the employment relationship, and that their
individual actions can be constructed as a mutual departure from the Contract, entailing
no compensation for the Club.
100. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the claim for compensation of the Player.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17870
(iii) Outstanding remuneration
101. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took note of the Player’s claim for the
outstanding salary of December 2024.
102. The Chamber first noted that the Player requested his leave from the Club on time, when
he sent his request on 6 December 2024, as art. 14 of the Standard Terms and Conditions
required the Player to send a notice 3 days prior to the start date of his requested leave.
Bearing in mind that the Player terminated his Contract on 18 December 2024, the
Chamber determined that he was entitled to the pro-rated salary for the 18 days of
December 2024 he worked, which amounted to USD 3,774.20 (USD 6,500/31 days of
December 2024) x 18 days worked).
103. At the time of filing the present claim, on 21 January 2025, the Player alleged that the Club
did not pay the salary of December 2024, which was due on 17 January 2025.
104. The Chamber first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties.
105. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that no evidence of payment and no reasonable
justification was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of
the contract.
106. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the pro-rated salary for the 18 days
worked in December 2024, i.e USD 3,774.20.
107. In following the longstanding practice of the Football Tribunal coupled with the specific
request for relief of the Player, the Chamber decided to award interest at a rate of 5% p.a.
from 21 January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
(iv) Counterclaim of the Club
108. Given the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the counterclaim filed by the Club,
which claimed compensation equivalent to the residual value of the Contract, which it said
equaled, USD 32,500.
109. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled the circumstances under which the
termination of the Contract occurred, namely, that the employment relationship between
the Club and the Player was faltering, as complaints of delayed salary payment were made
by the Player to the Club, and were answered by accusations of misconduct.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17870
110. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Club appeared to have lost interest in the
Player’s services as it sent him a termination agreement in answer to his request for a 14day leave to visit his ailing grandmother, on 6 December 2024. The Chamber particularly
took exception to the following excerpt of the termination agreement which stated, quoted
verbatim:
“However, in light of the extenuating circumstances surrounding the severe illness of
his grandmother, and in a gesture of good faith and understanding, the Club has
agreed to mutually terminate the contract. This decision has been made with empathy
for Kurtis's personal situation and in the hope that he can attend to his family during
this challenging time”
111. As per the foregoing, while the Player initially rejected the Termination Agreement, the
Chamber found that his termination of the Contract merely 12 days later was indicative of
his intention to depart from the Contract, and that his actions thus met those of the Club,
in that both parties were no longer interested in pursuing their relationship.
112. Under specific the circumstances of the case at hand, the Chamber determined that as
both parties demonstrated reciprocal interest in ending the employment relationship in a
short timeframe, that their individual actions can be constructed as a mutual departure
from the Contract.
113. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the Club.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant 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
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17870
immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
117. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.
118. 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
119. 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.
120. 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.
121. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17870
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / First CounterRespondent, Kurtis Owen Guthrie.
2.
The claim of the Claimant/ First Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The Counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Churchill Brothers FC Goa, is
rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / First Counter-Respondent
the amount of:
USD 3,774.20 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 January 2025
until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / First Counter-Respondent 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 / Counter-Claimant 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 / First
Counter-Respondent 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. 26
REF. FPSD-17870
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. 27