Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18123
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Edarlyn
Reyes Ureña
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER- RESPONDENT:
Alittihad Tripoli SC, Libya
RESPONDENT / COUNTER - RESPONDENT:
Edarlyn Reyes Ureña, Dominican Republic
Represented by Ariel Reck
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18123
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 September 2023, the Libyan club, Alittihad Tripoli (hereinafter: the Claimant/ CounterRespondent or the Club) and the Dominican player, Edarlyn Reyes Ureña (hereinafter: the
Player or the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 July 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player USD 470,000 as a total
remuneration throughout the Contract, payable in monthly instalments of USD 11,000,
plus additional lump sum payments at various stages of the Contract, the payment of which
is not in dispute in the present case.
3.
On 25 May 2024, the Player and the Club concluded a mutual termination agreement
(hereinafter: the Agreement) by means of which the Contract was amicably terminated.
4.
In accordance with the Agreement, the parties established as follows:
“Preamble:
Whereas the player expressed his desire, pursuant to an official written request from him sent
from his email to the club’s email, expressing his desire and insistence to terminate the contract
with Al-Ittihad Clubb due to the circumstances and reasons he mentioned in the aforementioned
written request.
(…)
Article (2)
Financial compensation
The two parties agreed that the second party [the player] would be committed to paying
compensation to Al-Ittihad Club in the amount of USD 30,000. Compensation is binding on the
second party, to be paid no later than 10 July 2024, as compensation to Al-Ittihad Club for the
termination of the contract by the player.
The second party, the player, waives the value of two months’ salary due to him for his period
of work for Al-Ittihad Club for the period from 15 March 2024 to 15 May 2024.
(…)
Article (3)
The player acknowledges that he has received all of his financial dues stipulated in the contract
from the date of entry into force of the contract until the date of termination of the contract and
that he has no other financial claims at all.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18123
5.
On 24 May 2024, the player sent an email to the club, stating as follows:
“By this means I want to inform the AL Ittihad SC club that I have decided to terminate by
contract with the club, due to family problems as well as personal problems, which are due to
not feeling comfortable in the country. There are reasons that lead me to make this decision,
firstly not feeling comfortable in the way the tournament is organised, and secondly, the internal
problems that harm the performance of the athletes. And thirdly, my wife is in the week of giving
birth to my first baby. Without further ado, I just have to thank the club and the leadership for
giving me the opportunity to be part of this great club. [praying hands emoji]”
6.
On 5 July 2024, the player signed a new employment contract with the Kazakh club Yelimai,
valid until 30 November 2024 and with a monthly salary of KZT 6,039,000 net / approx. USD
11,000.
7.
On 11 July 2024, the Player sent the Club an email, stating that he requested time until
“January” to pay the agreed amount of USD 30,000, as he would have a new contract by
then and cover his other expenses in the meantime.
8.
On 24 October 2024, the Club put the Player in default and requested payment of USD
30,000 setting a time limit of 15 days in order to remedy the default
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 6 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. In its claim, the Claimant requested overdue payables.
11. In its claim, the Club argued that the Player failed to comply with the terms of the
Agreement by not paying the outstanding amount of USD 30,000 which was agreed therein.
12. The Club specified that the Player had unilaterally requested to terminate the Contract
prematurely, and that as a result, the amount agreed upon therein was justified and
bilaterally agreed upon.
13. Moreover, the Club argued that it had complied with its financial obligations – paying the
Player all salaries, allowances and conditional bonuses until the end of the Contract, with
the exception of the salaries between 15 March 2024 and 15 May 2024 – which he allegedly
waived voluntarily.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18123
14. As a result, the Club requested USD 30,000 as overdue payables, as well as a compensation
for damages it incurred due to the Player’s failure to settle the financial dues owed to the
club on time.
15. Furthermore, the Club requested that any procedural costs, if applicable, be borne by the
Player.
b. Reply of the Respondent and Counterclaim
16. On 10 April 2025, the Player lodged a counterclaim against the Club, equally for overdue
payables.
17. The Player argued that, whilst acknowledging the amount of USD 30,000 as outstanding,
the Agreement contained an unlawful waiver of remuneration for work already performed
(i.e., the salary of March 2024 and April 2024, plus the pro-rated amount of 10 working days
between 16 May 2024 and 25 May 2024), totalling USD 25,600 (or 2 x USD 11,000 plus USD
3,600). The Player hereby invoked Swiss law and the jurisprudence of FIFA and CAS.
18. As a result of the above, the Player argued that, in reality, the amount to which he should
be held liable to pay is “less than USD 3,000”, and that his debt under the Agreement and
the debt of the Club under the Contract must be set off against each other.
c. Reply of the Club to the Counterclaim
19. In its reply to the counterclaim, the Club argued that the waiver of the Player’s salaries was
not unlawful, as it was the result of the Player’s own request to prematurely terminate the
Contract.
20. The Club emphasised that the reduced amount of USD 30,000 as an early termination
compensation was already sufficient consideration for the player, given that the residual
value of the Contract already amounted to more than USD 250,000.
21. The Club further stressed that art. 341 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which the Player
purports to invoke at present, must be interpreted restrictively so as not to undermine the
contractual freedom of the parties.
22. As a result, the Club reiterated its initial request for relief.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18123
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. 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 6 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 30 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.
24. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Libyan club and a Dominican player.
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18123
28. The Chamber firstly noted that this is a claim for overdue payable that arose from both the
Agreement and Contract.
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that in
the claim at stake, the parties appear to agree that the central aspect of the dispute is
whether or not the player validly waived the final two months of his salary as a result of
signing the Agreement. The fact that the principal amount of USD 30,000 due at the time
of the Agreement’s signature remained unpaid is undisputed between the parties.
30. The Chamber observed that, as such, whereas the Club argues that the total amount of
USD 30,000 is due under the Agreement, the Player asserted that only USD 4,400 remains
outstanding – i.e., the principal amount agreed thereunder, set off against the unlawfully
waived salaries.
31. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, remuneration for work already
performed may not be validly waived, pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal and CAS, which apply the substance of art. 341 SCO to this extent.
32. The Chamber, however, underscored that the jurisprudence of the CAS equally lays down
that there are limited circumstances in which a waiver of remuneration for work already
performed may be considered as valid. In particular, the DRC referred to the award with
reference TAS 2018/A/5896 Yves Diba Ilunga c. Al Shoullah Club, which lays down:
“ En droit suisse, le droit au paiement du salaire pour l’activité déjà effectuée par le travailleur
revêt un caractère impératif et est protégé par l’art. 341 al. 1 du Code des Obligations (CO). Il en
va de même pour les bonus dont le versement n’est pas discrétionnaire, lesquels doivent être
considérés comme des éléments du salaire. Le but de l’art. 341 al. 1 CO, auquel il ne peut être
dérogé en défaveur de l’employé, est de protéger le travailleur, pendant la durée du contrat et
durant le mois qui suit la fin de celui-ci, contre d’éventuelles renonciations à certains droits
découlant de dispositions impératives en matière de contrat de travail. Une renonciation
contraire à l’article 341, sentence du 15 avril 2019 al. 1 CO est nulle et ne produit aucun effet.
L’art. 341 al. 1 CO ne s’oppose toutefois pas à une éventuelle transaction sur les modalités de la
fin des rapports de travail, à condition qu’il y ait une équivalence appropriée des concessions
réciproques, c’est-à dire que les prétentions auxquelles chaque partie renonce soient de valeur
comparable. La quittance pour solde de tout compte par laquelle un employé renonce
unilatéralement – soit sans concessions réciproques – à une créance protégée par l’art. 341 CO
est ainsi dépourvue de tout effet juridique. »
Freely translated into English as follows:
“Under Swiss law, the right to payment of salary for work already performed by the employee is
mandatory and protected by Article 341 paragraph 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO). The
same applies to bonuses that are not discretionary in nature; such bonuses must be considered
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18123
as part of the salary. The purpose of Article 341 paragraph 1 CO—which cannot be derogated
from to the detriment of the employee—is to protect the worker, both during the term of the
employment contract and for one month following its termination, from any potential waivers
of rights arising from mandatory provisions of employment law. Any waiver that contravenes
Article 341 paragraph 1 CO, as confirmed by the decision of April 15, 2019, is null and void and
has no legal effect. However, Article 341 paragraph 1 CO does not preclude a possible settlement
regarding the terms of the termination of the employment relationship, provided that there is
an appropriate equivalence of mutual concessions—meaning that the claims each party agrees
to waive are of comparable value. A final settlement agreement (quittance pour solde de tout
compte) in which an employee unilaterally—i.e., without reciprocal concessions—waives a claim
protected by Article 341 CO is therefore legally ineffective.”
33. The Chamber considered that the above reveals that, in restrictive circumstances – i.e.,
when both parties make equivalent concessions as part of a settlement agreement – art.
341 SCO does not provide protection to the player’s right to claim any unpaid / waived
salaries.
34. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that the context of the present case must be analysed in
order to establish whether or not the parties had indeed made equivalent concessions, to
the extent of circumventing art. 341 SCO.
35. At this stage, the DRC recalled that it is undisputed that:
•
The parties had concluded a Contract which, at the time of the mutual
termination, had a residual value of more than USD 250,000 (i.e., the amount
payable over the 2024/2025 season).
•
The Player unilaterally terminated the Contract due to “personal problems” (sic)
•
Following this termination of the Contract, the parties concluded a mutual
termination agreement (i.e., the Agreement), which expressly indicated in its
preamble that the Player had requested for the Contract to be terminated, and
whereby the parties stipulated that the Player freely agreed to waive two
monthly salaries as from 15 March 2024.
•
After the conclusion of the Agreement, the Player expressly acknowledged the
obligation to pay the principal amount of USD 30,000 to the Club, requesting an
extension of the time limit to do so as he had found new employment and faced
expenses due to the birth of his child.
36. Based on the above, the Chamber could establish not only that the Player had clearly been
expressed his will to unilaterally terminate the Contract prior to the conclusion of the
Agreement, acknowledging in his termination letter that he wished to leave because of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18123
personal matters which required his attention (and not invoking any other valid justification
or corroborating evidence to prematurely terminate the Contract), but further, he has
never challenged the validity of the Agreement, arguing duress or otherwise. On the
contrary, the Player acknowledged the payment of USD 30,000 more than a month after
the conclusion of the Agreement, never mentioning the waived salaries and that he was
allegedly still entitled to claim them.
37. The Chamber considered that the conduct in question not only reflects the legal principle
of venire contra factum proprium, but also demonstrates a significant concession by the
club. By its actions, the club effectively limited its ability to assert certain rights that would
ordinarily arise under the contractual framework.
38. In particular, the DRC noted that this concession relates to the Club’s right to claim
compensation for breach of contract by the Player. Given that the residual value of the
Contract represents the potential entitlement in the event of a unilateral breach by the
latter, the Club’s position underscores the substantial nature of this waiver in terms of its
financial and legal implications.
39. Considering the specific circumstances of the case at hand, the members of the Chamber
concluded that the player has validly waived his right to claim the final two salaries (as from
15 March 2024), and was liable to pay the Club the entire principal amount under the
Agreement without any deductions, as such amount remained undisputedly outstanding.
40. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Player shall be held to pay the Club an
outstanding amount of USD 30,000, in accordance with pacta sunt servanda.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18123
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become
immediately effective on the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par.
2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
44. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent in the Bank Account Registration
Form, which is attached to the present decision.
45. 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
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18123
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Alittihad Tripoli SC, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Edarlyn Reyes Ureña, must pay to the Claimant the
following amount(s):
- USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
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 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.
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. 11
REF. FPSD-18123
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. 12