Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17993
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Richard
Steven Sila
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Richard Steven Sila, France
Represented by Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
SAMMAURESE, Italy
Represented by Stella Frasca
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17993
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
the French player Richard Steven Sila (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent); and
•
the Italian club SAMMAURESE (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant), affiliated to the Italian Football Federation (FIGC).
2.
On 12 December 2024, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
3.
Pursuant to articles 6-8 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a gross
compensation of EUR 13,500 for the duration of the Contract. Article 8 also established that
this compensation “will be paid by the Company (sic) in monthly installments of equal amounts,
deferred to the tenth day of the following month”.
4.
Article 16 of the Contract provided:
“Article 16) Arbitration clause and applicable law
The parties agree to refer without exception to the Arbitration Board, referred to in Art.
11 of the Collective Agreement, which will decide with an informal constitutive award, all
disputes concerning the interpretation and/or execution and/or termination of the
Contract and/or in any case attributable to events arising from the contract.
This contract, unless expressly provided for, is governed by Legislative Decree 36/2021,
by the provisions of the Italian legal system applicable to the case of self-employed work
contracts in the coordinated and continuous form, by the regulations issued by CONI and
FIGC and by the collective agreements stipulated with the associations representing the
category of footballers/footballers as sports workers.
The Parties undertake to observe all FIGC rules, as well as to accept the full and definitive
effectiveness of all general provisions and all particular decisions adopted by the FIGC,
its Bodies, and delegated subjects, by the Arbitration Board, as well as by sports justice
bodies of every order and degree, in matters about sports activity and the related
disputes of a technical, disciplinary and economic nature. The Parties declare themselves
aware that any violation or action tending to evade the aforementioned obligation
determines the disciplinary sanctions provided for by the federal rules.”
5.
According to the information retrieved from FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
Player was registered as an amateur (Transfer ID no. 954981).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17993
6.
According to the Player, on 3 January 2025, he sustained an injury during training.
7.
According to the Player, on 10 January 2025, the Club provided him with a draft termination
agreement (hereinafter: the Draft Termination Agreement), which he declined to sign.
8.
On 11 January 2025, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, by means of which he
acknowledged that the Club had informed him of its intention to terminate the Contract
and challenged the grounds for the termination. The Player asked that the Club ceased the
abusive behaviour immediately and/or engaged in amicable negotiations concerning his
exit.
9.
On 15 January 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter as follows, quoted verbatim:
“I have been instructed by Sammaurese ssd arl to respond to your 11/1/2025 (Notice
from the Player Richard-Steven Sila) sent by you on behalf of the footballer RichardSteven Sila, with whom the company I assisted has terminated the contract, given his
inability to carry out the activity for which he was contracted, due to previous physical
conditions fraudulently concealed during the negotiations.
In any case, since the dispute in question falls under Italian jurisdiction where the use of
the Italian language and not English is foreseen, I invite you to resend the abovementioned letter thus translated.
Pending receipt of the above and in any case expressing to you from now on my client's
firm determination to consider irrevocable the contractual termination made with Mr
Richard-Steven Sila for the reasons indicated above, against whom I will shortly be taking
legal action to have him removed from the apartment he illegally occupied, I send you
my best regards.”
10. On 15 January 2025, the Player rebutted the Club’s position. The Player acknowledged that
the Club had terminated the Contract as of that date, due to his injury. He also denied
having any preceding medical condition. Furthermore, the Player insisted that there was
no pre-established language for communication, and the use of English did not undermine
the validity of the correspondence exchanged between the parties.
11. On 16 January 2025, the Club again disputed the language used by the Player’s
representatives and urged to stop sending letters in English.
12. The Player informed that he remained unemployed for the overlapping period following
the termination with the Club.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17993
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 29 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
14. The Player contended that the Club unlawfully terminated the Contract without just cause.
He claimed that he sustained a minor injury during training, later diagnosed as
hyperextended quadriceps. While the hospital’s doctor estimated a one-week recovery
period, the Club’s doctor claimed it would take two months. The following day, the Club’s
executive director informed the Player’s agent of the Club’s intention to terminate the
Contract.
15. The Player also recalled the exchanges between the parties, emphasizing that the Contract
could not be terminated on such grounds and that the Club had been prompted to cease
its conduct, but to no avail.
16. The Player argued that the Club’s actions violated art. 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), which permits termination only
with just cause. The Player maintained that no such cause existed. Additionally, art. 18 par.
4 of the Regulations prohibits making the validity of a contract conditional upon a
successful medical examination.
17. The Player further cited relevant jurisprudence from the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC), which established that a player’s physical condition – particularly when not
concealed – does not constitute just cause for termination. The Club’s failure to provide
any medical documentation or evidence to support its claim of fraudulent concealment
further undermined its position. The Player asserted that the Club’s actions amounted to a
unilateral and unjustified breach of contract.
18. The Player claimed:
•
The outstanding salary of EUR 1,928.57 for December 2024, which had been due
on 10 January 2025, along with 5% annual interest from 11 January 2025.
•
Compensation for the remaining contractual period from January to June 2025,
totaling EUR 11,571.42, based on the monthly salary of EUR 1,928.57. Interest at
5% p.a. was also sought from the date of termination until full payment.
19. The Player submitted the following relief:
“48. On these grounds, the Claimant respectfully asks the Football Tribunal to:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17993
1. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant outstanding amount of EUR 1,928.57, plus
interest of 5% p.a. from January 11, 2025, until full payment.
2. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract of EUR
11,571.42, plus interest of 5% p.a. from January 15, 2025, until full payment.”
b. Reply of the Club
20. On 24 February 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the Player’s claim.
21. First, the Club challenged the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, asserting that the dispute
arose from an employment relationship governed by Italian law between an amateur club
and an amateur player. According to the Club, such disputes fall under the scope of art.
409 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, which regulates continuous and coordinated
work relationships.
22. The Club emphasized that the Contract included a valid arbitration clause referring all
disputes to the Arbitration Board established under art. 11 of the LND Collective
Agreement. According to the Club, this arbitration body, known as the Italian National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Italian NDRC), meets FIFA’s minimum
procedural standards, including equal representation in the appointment of arbitrators,
impartiality, the right to be heard, and fair treatment of both parties. Therefore, the Club
argued that the DRC had no authority to adjudicate the matter, and exclusive jurisdiction
rested with the Italian NDRC.
23. On the merits, the Club denied that it had ever unilaterally terminated the Contract. It
acknowledged that it had proposed a mutual termination following the Player’s injury but
insisted that this proposal was never formalized into an actual termination. The Club
pointed to the fact that the Player remained officially registered with the Club, and under
Italian football regulations (specifically article 117-bis of the Norme organizzative interne
della FIGC; hereinafter: the NOIF), a contract is only considered terminated when officially
acknowledged by the relevant federal bodies. Since no such acknowledgment had
occurred, the Club maintained that the Contract remained in force.
24. Furthermore, the Club argued that it had fulfilled all its contractual obligations, including
payment of the Player’s salary for the period during which he trained. It contended that the
Player’s claim for unpaid wages and compensation for breach of contract was therefore
baseless.
25. In fact, the Club asserted that it was the Player who had breached the contract. According
to the Club, the Player had left Italy without notice and failed to confirm his availability to
return to training. This conduct, the Club argued, violated the principles of loyalty, good
faith, and fairness under the National Collective Labour Agreement (hereinafter: LND
Collective Agreement), as well as the Player’s express obligations under art. 4 of the Contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17993
As a result, the Club claimed that if the Contract was to be considered terminated, it was
due to the Player’s own breach.
26. In conclusion, the Club requested that the DRC dismiss the Player’s claim for lack of
jurisdiction or, alternatively, on the merits. It also asked the DRC to declare that the
Contract was terminated due to the Player’s breach and to award the Club a contribution
toward its legal costs.
27. The Club submitted the following relief:
“Based on the foregoing developments, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA
Tribunal to:
(a) dismiss Mr Richard-Steven Sila’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Alternatively,
(b) dismiss Mr Richard-Steven Sila’s claim;
(c) declare the termination of the Contract due to Mr Richard-Steven Sila's breach.
In any case:
(c) award the Respondent a contribution for its legal costs in these proceedings.”
28. On 6 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s response
and invited it to inter alia confirm whether it intended to lodge a counterclaim against the
Player and, in the affirmative, to confirm the amount in dispute.
29. On 10 March 2025, the Club confirmed that it intended to lodge a counterclaim against the
Club but with no financial request.
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the Player
30. On 13 March 2025, the Player submitted his rejoinder.
31. The Player began by addressing the Club’s jurisdictional objection. He argued that although
parties may exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction by referring disputes to a national dispute resolution
chamber (NDRC), such an NDRC must be officially recognized by FIFA. In this case, the
Italian NDRC had not been granted such recognition. Therefore, the Player asserted that
the DRC retained jurisdiction over the matter.
32. Turning to the applicable law, the Player emphasized that Regulations take precedence
over any national law, even if chosen by the parties. He cited prior DRC jurisprudence to
support the principle that disputes of this nature must be resolved under the Regulations
and general principles of contract law, not under Italian domestic legislation.
33. On the substance of the dispute, the Player rejected the Club’s claim that it had not formally
terminated the Contract. He pointed to a letter dated 15 January 2025, in which the Club’s
legal counsel explicitly stated that the Contract had been terminated and that the Club
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17993
considered the termination “irrevocable”. The Player argued that this language constituted
a clear and unequivocal termination.
34. Regarding the financial claims, the Player noted that the Club had not specifically contested
the amounts claimed in the statement of claim. He argued that under established legal
principles, a party that fails to substantiate its objections is deemed to have accepted the
opposing party’s factual assertions. Therefore, the Player asked the DRC to treat his
calculations as uncontested and to award the full amount claimed.
35. Finally, the Player addressed the Club’s request for declaratory relief, which sought a
finding that the Contract had been terminated due to the Player’s breach. He argued that
this was not a valid counterclaim, as it was not accompanied by any monetary demand.
According to the Player, FIFA had already confirmed that no counterclaim had been filed.
The Player further contended that the Club had no legal or practical interest in such a
declaration, and that the request was inadmissible and moot, since the DRC would
necessarily assess the validity of the termination in ruling on the Player’s claim.
36. In conclusion, the Player requested that the DRC accept jurisdiction, dismiss the Club’s
request for declaratory relief, and uphold the Player’s original claims for outstanding salary
and compensation for breach of contract.
d. Final comments of the Club
37. On 28 March 2025, the Club submitted its final comments.
38. The Club reiterated its objection to the jurisdiction of the FIFA DRC. It argued that under
Italian law, labor disputes – especially those involving amateur players – must be resolved
through mechanisms explicitly provided by law, contracts, or collective agreements. The
Club emphasized that the parties had agreed in article 16 of the Contract to refer all
disputes to the Arbitration Board established under the LND Collective Agreement. This,
the Club argued, was consistent with articles 806 and 409 of the Italian Code of Civil
Procedure and supported by constitutional protections of due process and judicial access.
The Club also cited European Court of Justice jurisprudence, including the Bosman and
Super League cases, to reinforce the primacy of national and European Law over sports
regulations.
39. Regarding applicable law, the Club maintained that Italian law governed the dispute. It
rejected the Player’s reliance on Chapter IV of the Regulations, arguing that those
provisions apply only to professional players. Since the Player was registered as a nonprofessional and had never contested this status, the Club asserted that the Regulations
provisions cited by the Player were inapplicable. The Club further noted that the Contract
explicitly referred to Italian law and Legislative Decree 36/2021, and that FIFA’s own
Procedural Rules require consideration of national laws and collective agreements.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17993
40. On the merits, the Club again denied that it had terminated the Contract. The Club insisted
that the Player had unilaterally abandoned the contract by leaving Italy without notice and
failing to confirm his availability for training. It contended that the Player’s conduct – not
any action by the Club – had effectively caused the termination.
41. Finally, the Club asserted that its request for a declaration that the Contract was terminated
due to the Player’s fault constituted a valid counterclaim. It argued that this was not merely
a defense but a new claim seeking a formal finding of breach by the Player. Although the
Club did not seek monetary damages, it maintained that the Player was not entitled to any
compensation because he had caused the termination through his own misconduct.
42. In conclusion, the Club asked the DRC to dismiss the Player’s claims in full and to uphold
its own requests for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Jurisdiction
43. 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 29 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 16 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
44. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an French player and an Italian club.
45. At this point, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club contested FIFA’s jurisdiction in this
matter, citing the jurisdiction clause in favour of the Italian NDRC.
46. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber first recalled that in January 2024, FIFA introduced a
new regulatory framework for national disputes resolution chambers 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.
47. Most importantly, 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 from 1
January 2025 (cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17993
48. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 29 January 2025, the jurisdiction of
the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the following provision:
“22. Competence of FIFA
1. Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
[…]
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international
dimension; the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such
disputes to be decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national
dispute resolution body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially
recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either
directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties.”
49. As this dispute has an international dimension (i.e., French player vs. Italian club) and is
employment-related (i.e., claim for breach of an employment contract), the Chamber
considered that it falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction in principle, and therefore would only be
prevented in the hypothesis of (1) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Contract
in favour of the civil courts; OR (2) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause included in the
Contract or in an applicable CBA in favour of a NDRC “that has been officially recognised by
FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
50. It follows that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested
party challenging the Football Tribunal’s must demonstrate that the parties have validly
agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such body
is recognized by FIFA. The Chamber highlighted that these conditions are cumulative and
must all be met at the time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
51. In the light of the foregoing, the DRC first turned to the analysis of the Contract and recalled
that its article 16 provided as follows:
“Article 16) Arbitration clause and applicable law
The parties agree to refer without exception to the Arbitration Board, referred to in Art.
11 of the Collective Agreement, which will decide with an informal constitutive award, all
disputes concerning the interpretation and/or execution and/or termination of the
Contract and/or in any case attributable to events arising from the contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17993
This contract, unless expressly provided for, is governed by Legislative Decree 36/2021,
by the provisions of the Italian legal system applicable to the case of self-employed work
contracts in the coordinated and continuous form, by the regulations issued by CONI and
FIGC and by the collective agreements stipulated with the associations representing the
category of footballers/footballers as sports workers.
The Parties undertake to observe all FIGC rules, as well as to accept the full and definitive
effectiveness of all general provisions and all particular decisions adopted by the FIGC,
its Bodies, and delegated subjects, by the Arbitration Board, as well as by sports justice
bodies of every order and degree, in matters about sports activity and the related
disputes of a technical, disciplinary and economic nature. The Parties declare themselves
aware that any violation or action tending to evade the aforementioned obligation
determines the disciplinary sanctions provided for by the federal rules.”
52. Accordingly, the Chamber established that this provision was indeed a clear and exclusive
clause in favour of the Italian NDRC. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the first prong of
the above analysis was satisfied.
53. The Chamber then turned to assessment of the Italian NDRC’s recognition vis-à-vis the FIFA
regulations. In doing so, the DRC noted that Italian NDRC was not included in the official list
of recognised NDRCs at the time of submission of the claim (or since then).
54. The Chamber therefore concluded that the second mandatory requirement was not met.
55. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the
present claim.
b. Applicable legal framework
56. The Chamber then 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.
57. Similarly, the Chamber outlined that the Regulations take precedence over national
legislation in matters involving international employment-related disputes between
players and clubs. According to the Chamber, this principle ensures the uniform application
of rules across the global football community, thereby safeguarding legal certainty and
contractual stability. While national laws and collective agreements may govern domestic
matters, they cannot override the regulatory framework established by FIFA when the
dispute involves parties of different nationalities. As such, even where a contract refers to
national law, the DRC considered that it remains bound to apply the Regulations and
general principles of law, as mandated by art. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17993
c. Burden of proof
58. 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 TMS.
d. Merits of the dispute
59. 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
60. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
dispute between the Player and the Club, centered on the alleged unilateral termination of
the Contract and the legal consequences arising from it.
61. The Player claimed that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause following a
minor injury, and he sought compensation for outstanding salary and breach of contract.
The Club, in turn, denied having terminated the Contract and argued that the Player had
abandoned his duties, thereby breaching the agreement himself.
62. The Chamber preliminarily observed that, although the Player’s transfer was recorded as
amateur, the evidence indicates that the parties did not dispute the existence of a signed
contract granting the Player remuneration exceeding mere reimbursement of expenses.
63. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player qualified as a professional
pursuant to art. 2 of the Regulations. Its mandate was therefore to assess the
circumstances surrounding the termination of the Contract and the resulting
consequences.
A. TERMINATION
64. As a departure point, the Chamber recalled that the Player asserted that the Club’s legal
representative had explicitly confirmed the termination in a letter dated 15 January 2025,
and that this constituted a clear and unequivocal act of unilateral termination.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17993
65. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club contended that no formal termination had
occurred, as no notice was sent to the Player or the FIGC, as required under art. 117-bis of
the NOIF. Instead, the Club claimed that the Player had unilaterally terminated the Contract
by leaving Italy without notice and failing to return to training.
66. In this context, and after carefully reviewing the case file, the Chamber considered that the
Club’s letter dated 15 January 2025, in which it expressed its “firm determination to consider
irrevocable the contractual termination”, constituted a clear and unequivocal act of
termination. Further to the clear wording of the letter, the DRC found it decisive that the
parties exchanged subsequent letters, and the Club not only maintained its course of
action but also refrained from engaging in any negotiation.
67. Similarly, the Chamber found that the Club’s argument that the termination was not
formalized because it was not communicated to the FIGC under art. 117-bis of the NOIF
was not persuasive in the context of FIFA proceedings. The DRC recalled that it has
consistently ruled that internal registration procedures do not override the legal effect of
a club’s unilateral declaration of termination. The decisive factor is whether the Player was
informed of the termination in a manner that left no doubt as to the Club’s intention to end
the employment relationship. In the Chamber’s view, this threshold was clearly met in this
case.
68. The Chamber was also of the opinion that the Club failed to demonstrate just cause for
termination. Under DRC jurisprudence, as rightly pointed out by the Player, a physical
condition or injury does not constitute just cause for termination. According to the DRC,
this was also not undermined by the Club’s argument that the Player was amateur. In this
respect, the Chamber reiterated that the existence of a formal written agreement and the
fixed salary structure – regardless of the Club’s classification within the Italian amateur
league system – satisfy the criteria for professional status under Regulations.
69. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the Club did not deny that this was in fact the
grounds for withdrawing from the Contract, as well as it did not provide any substantiation
to its claim that the Player had abandoned the Contract. No formal disciplinary action was
taken, no warnings were issued, and no evidence was provided to show that the Player
refused to train or breached his obligations.
70. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Club terminated the Contract on 15
January 2025 without just cause.
B. CONSEQUENCES
71. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17993
72. Initially, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination.
73. In particular, the DRC pointed out that the Player was entitled to his salary until the end of
January 2025. It further noted that the prorated calculations submitted by the Player were
not challenged by the Club and were seemingly reasonable.
74. Therefore, the Chamber accepted that the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR
1,928.57. The Chamber then awarded him the salary for December 2024 and January 2025,
plus default interest from the respective due dates, as follows:
•
EUR 1,928.57 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 January 2025; and
•
EUR 1,928.57 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 January 2025.
75. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
76. 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.
77. 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).
78. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 9,642.85 (i.e., the salaries from February to June 2025)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17993
79. 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.
80. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
81. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the Player the amount of
EUR 9,642.85, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
82. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
83. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the Player’s claim was partially accepted and the
Club’s counterclaim fully rejected.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17993
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
87. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
88. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
e. Costs
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17993
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Richard Steven Sila.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, SAMMAURESE, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 1,928.57 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,928.57 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 January
2025 until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 9,642.85 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15
January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counterclaimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17993
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17993
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. 19