Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18083
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Taylon
Nicolas Correa Marcolino
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Taylon Nicolas Correa Marcolino, Brazil
Represented by Helio Henrique de Camargo
RESPONDENT:
Al Shoulla, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18083
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 September 2024, the Brazilian player Taylon Nicolas Correa Marcolino (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Saudi club Al Shoulla (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract)
valid as from 1 September 2024 until 15 April 2025.
2.
Pursuant to clause 5 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as
follows (quoted verbatim):
“Article 5. Remuneration
5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any taxes,
bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Monthly Salary
Currency
DOLLAR
Amount
8,000
-PROVIDING HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
-THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE CONTRACT IS (60,000) SIXTY THOUSAND RIALS ONLY.
-THE CLUB PROVIDES ONE ROUND TICKET FOR THE PLAYER, HIS WIFE AND HIS SON ON THE
(BRAZIL / RIYADH / BRAZIL)
[…]
5.3. Fixed financial payments
The Club shall pay the following fixed financial payments to the Player (net of any taxes,
bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Currency
SEPTEMBER SALARY DOLLAR
IN ADVANCE
Amount
8,000
Payment deadline
01/09/2024
[…]”
3.
Additionally, clause 6 of the Employment Contract provided, inter allia, as follows:
“Article 6. Club Obligations
The Club shall:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18083
[…]
8. promptly provide the Player with all necessary assistance required to obtain the Iqama (I.e.
residence permit issued by the Saudi Arabian national authorities) as well as any other travel
visas which the Player may reasonably require from time to time in order to exercise his
freedom of movement;
9. take out insurance to cover the Player against any accident, injury, and medical treatment
that he may require during the Term. The Club shall further ensure that such insurance
coverage shall include insured events whose effects extend after the end of the Term;
[…]
16. cover all costs of the Player’s medical treatment and rehabilitation for the duration of the
Term, provided that such costs result from illness or injury and were incurred pursuant to a
referral by the Club doctor;
[…]
18. cover all costs of the Player’s medical treatment and rehabilitation for at least 12 months
after the expiry of Term, provided that such costs result from illness or injury and were
incurred pursuant to a referral by the Club doctor;”
4.
As to the conditions pertaining to termination, clause 12 of the Employment Contract
established, inter alia, as follows:
“Article 12. Termination
1. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this Contract,
provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least
15 days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause, the following amount will have to
be paid: (……………). If there is no agreement on the amount, compensation for breach of
contract is payable in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations.
3. The Club shall not terminate the contract due to the Player sustaining an injury during play
or training.
4. The validity of the Contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination
and/or grant of a work permit.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18083
5. The Club shall not suspend, interrupt or delay the Player’s remuneration due to sustaining
an injury during play or training. The Contract may not be terminated by either party during
sporting season in any circumstances, with exception of cases where:
(a) there is just cause; and/or
(b) Parties have agreed to terminate before date of its expiry by mutual consent.
6. The Player shall not, under any circumstances, waive salaries for work already performed
unless it is of greater benefit to player.
7. The Club shall notify the Committee in writing of any termination without delay and within
three (3) working days at latest. The Club shall also notify the League Organiser wherever so
required under relevant League Organiser regulations.”
5.
On 2 December 2024, the Player issued a formal default notice (hereinafter: the First Notice),
granting the Club a 48-hour deadline to settle the outstanding amount of USD 28,000,
corresponding to alleged overdue payables under the Employment Contract (i.e., USD
24,000 as overdue salaries and USD 4,000 as the remaining balance of a purported signing
fee). In addition to the 48-hour deadline, the Player also stated in the same letter that the
Employment Contract would be considered terminated if the outstanding payment was not
made within 15 days.
6.
On 29 January 2025, the Player issued a final notice to the Club (hereinafter: the Final
Notice), in which he stated that he considered the Employment Contract to be terminated
due to the Club’s failure to pay the overdue amounts within the time limit previously
granted. In the same notice, the Player requested the Club to pay compensation, broken
down in several components, including, inter alia, overdue payables and the residual value
of the contract.
7.
On 13 March 2025, upon request from the FIFA general secretariat, the Player confirmed
that he remained unemployed to date, citing an ongoing medical condition as the reason.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 4 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
Firstly, the Player emphasized that the Employment Contract, originally valid from 1
September 2024 to 15 April 2025, stipulated a monthly salary of USD 8,000 and a purported
signing bonus of USD 8,000 payable by 1 September 2024.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18083
10. According to the Player, as of 1 September 2024, the Club had only paid USD 4,000
corresponding to the purported signing bonus, leaving an outstanding debt of USD 4,000.
11. As to the monthly salaries, the Player further asserted that he had received only the full
salary for September 2024 (i.e., USD 8,000), with no subsequent payments made by the
Club despite the notices sent by the Player, which gave him just cause for the termination
of the Employment Contract.
12. Additionally, the Player alleged that, on 11 December 2024, he sustained a knee injury
during a training session for the Club. He further contended that, on 14 December 2024,
he underwent examinations conducted by the Club’s doctor.
13. The Player stated that he was advised by a doctor named Mr. Mohammed Anas, whose
affiliation with the Club remained unclear, to undergo surgery, estimated to cost SAR
16,818, as indicated in a cost slip issued by a medical institution named Mouwasat Medical
Services Co Riyadh. According to the Player, upon requesting the Club’s assistance to
facilitate the procedure, the Club purportedly responded on 23 December 2024, stating
that it lacked the financial means to cover the costs of the surgery and related medical
expenses.
14. The Player contended that the Club’s refusal to enable the performance of the
aforementioned medical procedure was in breach of the Employment Contract, specifically
referencing paragraphs 9, 16, 17, and 18 of clause 6.
15. Citing clause 12 para. 3 of the Employment Contract, the Player further contended that, in
the event of a work-related accident or injury, the Club’s obligation to pay wages and fulfil
other contractual duties remained fully binding throughout the recovery period, for up to
twelve months or longer. According to the Player, during this time, early termination by the
Club was expressly prohibited under any circumstances.
16. The Player also argued that the Club breached the contract by failing to provide him with
the insurance and the residence permit, as required by clause 6 of the Employment
Contract. According to the Player, the lack of residence permit prevented him from
accessing the public medical service in Saudi Arabia.
17. In light of the above, the Player contended that he must be compensated under art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). In
addition, he also claimed to be entitled to several additional compensations, summarized
as follows:
•
USD 80,000 (10-month salary) as “sporting damage” based on the “specificity of
sport”, and “in light of the seriousness of the behavior of the Club which destroyed the
image of the player”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18083
•
USD 80,000 (10-month salary) as “moral compensation”, citing article 328 (1) of the
Swiss Civil Code (SCC).
•
USD 80,000 (10-month salary) as “inmdenization” for the purported failure to
provide the Player with an insurance.
•
USD 8,000 (1-month salary) as “compensation […] due to the failure to provide the
IQAMA”, which is the Saudi Arabian work permit.
•
USD 8,000 (1-month salary) as “compensation […] due to the failure to provide the
insurance.
18. Accordingly, the Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“IX
– Request of player claimant :-
In this way, the player is asked to be condemned by the club :a)
Recognition of just cause for termination of contract on January 29, 2025, when
departure from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Brazil, because due to the failure to perform the
surgery that the complaining player should have undergone, or the due payment so that he
could perform it, as well as the outstanding salaries since September of 2024, October 2024,
November 2024, December 2024 and January 2025;
b)
Payment of the amount required to perform surgery on his left knee, according to
costs amount estimated SAR 16,818 (sixtheen thousands, eight hunder eighteen saudi arabia
rial) equivalence US$D 4,484,26 (four thousands, four eighty four dollars and Twenty six
american cents), fixed Mouwasat Hospital Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, notification
delivery to team about cost;
c)
Payment of the amount required to recuperation of surgery/cirurgie on his left knee,
according to costs amount estimated SAR 16,818 (sixtheen thousands, eight hunder eighteen
saudi arabia rial) equivalence US$D 4,484,26 (four thousands, four eighty four dollars and
Twenty six american cents), notification delivery to team about cost;
d)
Payment of the amount of inmdenization required because no contrac INSURANCE to
12 months of garanted of contract and recuperation after surgery on his left knee, according
to costs amount estimated US$ 80,000.00 (eigthy thousands american dolars), because
garanted salaries and recuperation of player, notification delivery to team about cost;
e)
Payment of salaries of September/2024, US$D 8,000.00, more 5% increase due to
delay, affecting until the obligation is fulfilled day by day;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18083
f)
Payment of salaries of October/2024, US$D 8,000.00, more 5% increase due to delay,
affecting until the obligation is fulfilled day by day;
g)
Payment of salaries of November/2024, US$D 8,000.00, more 5% increase due to
delay, affecting until the obligation is fulfilled day by day;
h)
Payment of salaries of December/2024, US$D 8,000.00, more 5% increase due to
delay, affecting until the obligation is fulfilled day by day;
i)
Payment of salaries of January/2025, US$D 8,000.00, more 5% increase due to delay,
affecting until the obligation is fulfilled day by day;
j)
Payment of salaries of February/2025, March/2025 and 15 days of April 2025, amount
of US$D 20,000.00, more 5% increase due to delay, affecting until the obligation is fulfilled
day by day, because contract of player fixed this amount and continued vigence, or convertion
in inmdenization because injury confirmed;
k)
Payment difference of sign fee, fixed to payment in september/2024, US$D 4,000.00,
more 5% increase due to delay, affecting until the obligation is fulfilled day by day;
l)
Payment of compensation for moral damages, as with the absence from regular
activities, and with a contract in force, the player cannot exercise his profession, greatly
damaging his life, amount USD$ 80,000.00 – eighty thousands American dollars) because he
understands that the ten months he spent just training at the club and then being sent home
and without being able to act professionally, his image was completely damaged, leading to
invasiveness, as demonstrated by reports such as Soccerway, transfermarket among others;
m)
The payment of sporting damage, as in addition to moral damage, we have that
relating to sports, as his deprivation harmed and ended his career early, and can be done in
accordance with Swiss Law, amount of amount USD$ 80,000.00 – eighty thousands American
dollars).
n)
Compensation of a monthly salary US$D 8,000.00, due to the failure to provide the
IQAMA, as established in the employment contract ARTICLE 6, CLAUSULA 8;
o)
Compensation of a monthly salary US$D 8,000.00, due to the failure to provide the
INSURANCE, as established in the employment contract ARTICLE 6, CLAUSULA 9;
p)
Imposing severe penalties to club because commits the same irregularities with other
players and coaches of the team, with a transfer ban punishment, but no other more severe
punishment, causing damage and more damage to the professionals who represent the club,
and thus, in addition to the transfer ban, financial and administrative punishment must be
imposed, including taking this process as relevant, suspending its activities and removing
points won in the competitions currently in operation, as they are more severe and objective.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18083
It violates the contractual condition of respect for human rights, which are not respected by
the club and its administration, who have never taken care to comply with the contractual
obligations of this claimant, as he is without salary and has not undergone surgery for his
recovery.
q)
The amount shall be deposited in the ACCOUNT OF :
[…]
r)
Totally reclaim in Dollar USD$ 328,968.52 (three hundrer twenty eight thousand, nine
hundrer sixty eight American dollars, fifity two cents American dollars), more 5% incidence
over amount salaries and anothers inmdenizations.”
b. Position of the Respondent
19. Despite having been invited to respond, the Club has failed to submit any reply to the
Player’s claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 18 September 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.
21. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Brazilian player and a Saudi club.
22. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that prior to lodging his claim before the
Football Tribunal, the Player initially sought the jurisdiction of the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF). However, as
communicated by his legal representative on 11 February 2025, he ultimately chose not to
pursue the matter before said NDRC. In this context, considering that there was no
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18083
evidence of bad faith conduct employed by the Player, the Chamber found no obstacle to
the admissibility of the claim before the Football Tribunal.
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim from a player against a club for breach of contract.
27. The Chamber observed that the Player asserts that the Employment Contract was
terminated due to breaches attributable to the Club, including, inter alia, the failure to pay
outstanding salaries and the failure to secure a visa or provide adequate medical
assistance.
28. In contrast, the Chamber pointed out that, since the Club did not provide its position on
the claim, the decision shall be taken solely based on the documentation on file (i.e., the
statements and documents presented by the Player) (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
29. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was prematurely terminated through the Club’s fault and, if so, what the resulting
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18083
legal consequences are. In parallel, the Chamber must also assess whether any financial
obligations remain outstanding.
30. As a starting point for the analysis, the Chamber outlined that, per art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, it was for the Player (as the party claiming compensation for breach of
contract) to demonstrate that the Employment Contract was terminated – by one of the
parties – through the fault of the Club.
31. In this context, after assessing the case file, the Chamber initially established that the Player
unilaterally terminated the Employment Contract on 29 January 2025, by means of the Final
Notice, whereby he: (i) asserted that “the club gives just cause for termination of the
employment contract, allowing it to receive the amounts already due and the amounts to be
due until the end of the contract” and (ii) requested the residual value of the Employment
Contract “because juste cause of club” (sic).
32. Accordingly, the Chamber considered it necessary to assess whether the Player had just
cause for said termination, in accordance with either art. 14 or 14bis of the Regulations.
33. In this vein, the Chamber recalled that art. 14bis of the Regulations establishes that a player
shall be deemed to have just cause to terminate an employment contract in cases of
outstanding remuneration, provided that two cumulative conditions are met: (i) the club
has failed to pay the player at least two monthly salaries by their respective due dates; and
(ii) the player has placed the club in default in writing, granting it a deadline of no less than
15 days to fully comply with its financial obligations. According to the Chamber, this
rationale is also consistent with clause 12 par. 1 of the Employment Contract.
34. In the present case, the Chamber noted that, on 2 December 2024, the Player sent the First
Notice, in which he simultaneously requested payment within a 48-hour period and, in
parallel, indicated that the Employment Contract would be considered early terminated
should the Club fail to remedy its breach within 15 days. Although the Chamber found this
wording to be somehow contradictory, it considered that the First Notice ultimately fulfilled
the formal requirement set forth under art. 14bis (i.e., granting the debtor a 15-day
deadline to pay the outstanding amounts prior to the early termination).
35. In the First Notice, the Player asserted that, as of 2 December 2024: (i) he had received USD
4,000 out of the total USD 8,000 purportedly stipulated as a “signing bonus” on 1 September
2024, thereby indicating that a remaining balance of USD 4,000 was still outstanding; and
(ii) he had not yet received the full salaries corresponding to the months of September,
October, and November 2024, amounting to a total of USD 24,000.
36. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the amount of USD 8,000 referenced under clause
5.3 of the Employment Contract—repeatedly referred to by the Player as a “signing bonus”—
is expressly defined in the Employment Contract as an advance payment of the September
2024 salary. Consequently, the DRC found that this amount is not an additional signing
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18083
bonus, but rather represents the Player’s salary for September 2024, scheduled to be paid
in advance on the date of signature of the Employment Contract (i.e., 1 September 2024).
37. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Employment Contract does not specify due
dates for the monthly salaries beyond September 2024. Hence, in line with established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and for the purposes of the present case, the
Chamber considered that each monthly salary became due at the end of the respective
calendar month (e.g., the salary for October 2024 shall be deemed due by 31 October 2024,
and so forth).
38. Taking the above into consideration and noting that the Player expressly acknowledged
receipt of USD 4,000 on 1 September 2024, the Chamber concluded that, as of the date the
First Notice was issued, at least USD 20,000 remained outstanding. This amount
corresponds to half of the September 2024 advanced salary (i.e., USD 4,000) and the full
salaries for October and November 2024 (i.e., USD 8,000 each, respectively payable by 31
October 2024 and 30 November 2024). Consequently, the Chamber considered that the
threshold established under art. 14bis of the Regulations —requiring at least two monthly
salaries to be overdue—was also met.
39. In continuation, the Chamber observed that although the Player acknowledged in his Final
Notice that he received a further payment of USD 8,000 after the First Notice had been
issued, there is no indication that the Club fully remedied the financial breach within the
prescribed deadline.
40. Given that the Club failed to dispute the claim or provide further proof of payment, the
Chamber then concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the Employment
Contract under art. 14bis of the Regulations, thereby triggering the legal consequences
associated with such termination.
ii. Consequences
41. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such termination with just cause.
a)
Outstanding remuneration
42. The Chamber began with the assessment of the outstanding remuneration owed by the
Club to the Player at the time of the termination, if any.
43. Considering the payments acknowledged by the Player within his submissions and the fact
that the Employment Contract was terminated on 29 January 2025, the DRC decided that
the Player shall be entitled to outstanding remuneration as per the calculation below:
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18083
Description
September 2024 Salary
October 2024 Salary
Due date
1 September 2024
31 October 2024
November 2024 Salary
December 2024 Salary
January 2025 Salary
30 November 2024
31 December 2024
31 January 2025
Status
Paid
Partially Paid
(USD 4,000)
Unpaid
Unpaid
Unpaid
TOTAL
Award
0
USD 4,000
USD 8,000
USD 8,000
USD 8,000
USD 28,000
44. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber clarified that, in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, since the Employment Contract was terminated on
29 January 2025 (i.e., after the Player had already rendered services for almost the entire
month) the full salary for January 2025 is to be considered as outstanding remuneration.
45. Regarding the application of interest, the Chamber observed that the Player made a
generic request for relief, without specifying the relevant dates from which the requested
interest would accrue from. Consequently, in line with established jurisprudence and in
order to uphold the principle of ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided to award interest over
the entire credit (i.e., USD 28,000) as from the date of the claim.
b)
Compensation for breach of contract
46. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
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.
47. 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.
48. In this regard, the Chamber observed that clause 12.2 of the Employment Contract
established the following (quoted verbatim):
“2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause, the following amount will have to
be paid: (………….). If there is no agreement on the amount, compensation for breach of
contract is payable in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations.”
49. Since the blank space in the wording of the clause suggests that the parties could not reach
an agreement on the amount of compensation payable, the Chamber determined that the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18083
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).
50. In light of the foregoing, and given that, according to the Player, no new employment
contract was signed following the termination of the Employment Contract, the Chamber
determined that the amount of compensation shall be set at USD 20,000, broken down as
follows:
Description
February 2025 salary
March 2025 salary
April 2025 salary (prorated until the 15th day of the month
due to the original term of the Employment Contract)
TOTAL
Amount
USD 8,000
USD 8,000
USD 4,000
USD 20,000
51. The Chamber again recalled that the Player made a generic request for interest.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to award interest on the compensation as from the
date of the claim.
c)
Other requests for compensation
52. The Chamber then noticed that, in addition to the request for compensation for breach of
contract, the Player also submitted requests seeking compensation on alternative grounds,
namely: “compensation for moral damages”, “sporting damage, as in addition to moral
damage”, “compensation […] due to the failure to provide the IQAMA”, “compensation […] due
to the failure to provide the INSURANCE”, and, “inmdenization required because no contrac
INSURANCE” (sic).
53. With respect to the claims for moral and sporting damages, the Chamber observed that
the Player has neither substantiated these claims nor provided any legal or contractual
basis to support and quantify such requests. Consequently, the Chamber decided to
dismiss the Player’s request in their entirety.
54. With regard to the claims concerning the alleged failure to provide the work permit and
insurance, the Chamber noted that, in principle, clause 6 of the Employment Contract
establishes the Club’s obligation to secure a visa. However, the Chamber found no legal
grounds to award additional compensation under these grounds. Ultimately, the Chamber
recalled that the Player has already been granted compensation for breach of contract, as
detailed in the preceding section. Therefore, the Chamber also dismissed said claims in
their entirety.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18083
d)
Medical-related requests
55. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed further sums related to
medical interventions. More specifically, the Player requested the following, quoted
verbatim:
“b)
Payment of the amount required to perform surgery on his left knee, according to
costs amount estimated SAR 16,818 (sixtheen thousands, eight hunder eighteen saudi arabia
rial) equivalence US$D 4,484,26 (four thousands, four eighty four dollars and Twenty six
american cents, fixed Mouwasat Hospital Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, notification
delivery to team about cost;
c)
Payment of the amount required to recuperation of surgery/cirurgie on his left knee,
according to costs amount estimated SAR 16,818 (sixtheen thousands, eight hunder eighteen
saudi arabia rial) equivalence US$D 4,484,26 (four thousands, four eighty four dollars and
Twenty six american cents, notification delivery to team about cost;”
56. In this regard, while the Chamber acknowledged the Player’s submissions and the nature
of the requests, the Chamber outlined that the Player failed to provide any substantiating
documentation demonstrating that these alleged expenses were actually incurred (cf., art.
13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). As such, the DRC pointed out that the only evidence
presented by the Player consisted of mere cost estimates and budgets rather than proof
of payment or actual expenditure.
57. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the surgery and related treatment may not have
been performed at all. As such, in the absence of documents confirming that the procedure
took place and that the associated costs were borne by the Player, the Chamber concluded
that he is not eligible for reimbursement.
58. Therefore, the Chamber decided to dismiss the said claims in their entirety.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18083
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
61. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
62. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
63. 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
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18083
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Taylon Nicolas Correa Marcolino, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Shoulla, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 28,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 February 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4
February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18083
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. 18