Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18267
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Saad Rherbaoui
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), Member
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Saad Rherbaoui, Morocco
Represented by Mr Aymen Larguet
RESPONDENT:
Abel Ashher Club, Libya
Represented by Mr Mohamed Ikbel Chebbi
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18267
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 December 2023, the Moroccan player Saad Rherbaoui (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Libyan club Abel Ashher Club (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until the
end of the 2023/2024 season (cf. TMS: 1 July 2024).
2.
Pursuant to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total value of
USD 13,000 as remuneration, divided into the following payments:
-
3.
USD 5,000 as signature bonus
USD 4,000 at the end of the first leg of the season
USD 4,000 at the end of the second leg of the season
Furthermore, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant performance based bonuses
as follows:
-
USD 2,000 for promotion to a higher division
USD 1,500 for participating in at least 70% of all official matches
4.
On 23 January 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of LYD 28,500.
5.
On 4 February 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of LYD 11,000.
6.
On 6 February 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of USD 1,500.
7.
On 3 April 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of USD 4,500.
8.
On 6 April 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of USD 2,000.
9.
On 25 May 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of USD 2,000.
10. On 6 August 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of LYD 2,400.
11. On 27 August 2024, the Respondent allegedly paid the Claimant an amount of LYD 28,500.
12. On 7 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of USD 16,500, corresponding to the entire value of the Contract, as well as the two
conditional bonuses of USD 2,000 for promotion and USD 1,500 for participation in a higher
division. A 10-day deadline was granted.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18267
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 18 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
14. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to comply with the financial terms
of the Contract. In particular, the Claimant argued that the entire amount under the
Contract, including conditional bonuses, totalling USD 16,500, had remained unpaid.
15. The Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda and pointed out that, despite
having sent a formal warning letter, the amounts in dispute remained unpaid.
16. In conclusion, the Claimant lodged the following request for relief:
-
USD 16,500 net as outstanding remuneration
Interest as from the respective due dates
Imposition of sanctions in case of failure to comply with the decision
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. On 25 March 2025, the Respondent attempted to lodge a counterclaim for overdue
payables against the Claimant, arguing that it had paid the latter in excess of the
contractually owed amounts, and that it was due to receive a reimbursement.
18. Upon receipt of its submission by the FIFA General Secretariat, the Respondent was invited
by the FIFA Administration to provide a valid Bank Account Registration Form, in
accordance with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(January 2025 edition).
19. Having failed to do so, the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent was deemed withdrawn,
and the submission on file was thereinafter considered as a statement of defence.
20. In its reply, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not only received all the amounts
in dispute, but more so, that he had received in excess of what he was contractually entitled
to.
21. In particular, the Respondent submitted proofs of payment in the amount of USD 22,600
(or USD 14,000 plus LYD 41,900 / the equivalent of USD 8,600).
22. The Respondent emphasised that the additional sums were allegedly paid as a result of the
Claimant’s commitment that he would renew the term of the Contract for another season.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18267
23. Notwithstanding, it should be mentioned that the Respondent is not claiming breach of
contract or invoking a premature termination by the Claimant, rather, it is merely stating
that the latter accepted a supplementary payment without intending to continue staying
at the club.
24. As a result, the Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant was indeed entitled to an
amount of USD 16,500, instead received an amount of USD 22,600, and that, as a result, it
had paid USD 9,500 in excess (sic).
25. The Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant had sent a default notice in February
2025, following the expiration of the Contract and provided no comments in this regard.
c. Comments of the Claimant regarding the alleged payments
26. In his replica, the Claimant challenged the validity of several of the payment proofs
provided by the Respondent.
27. In particular, the Claimant addressed each payment as follows:
“(…)
1. Payment dated 23 January 2024 – LYD 28,500
The payment slip is forged. The player has never signed, nor seen the receipt, nor has
he left his fingerprint. The document was unilaterally created by the club and bears no
probative value.
2. Payment dated 4 February 2024 – LYD 11,000
The payment slip has been altered by the Respondent in terms of the date received
and the amount concerned. Two different kinds of ink have been used:
-
The player’s name is written in dark, fine ink;
-
The amount is written in lighter, thicker ink. These differences, along with visible
erasures, establish that the document has been altered. The player, faced with
these irregularities, declares having received 1,500 Libyan dinars (approximately
275 USD), and not the 11,000 dinars indicated. The receipt bears the player’s
fingerprint, which shows his good faith while denouncing the club’s fraudulent
modification of the content.
3. Payment dated 6 February 2024 – USD 1,500
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18267
The amount was modified, as shown by the obvious ink difference between the first
zero of the amount and the other digits. The varying ink intensity confirms the forgery.
Moreover, this receipt does not include the player’s fingerprint, which is highly
suspicious. The player states that he never signed this document, especially since the
previous receipt (dated 04/02/2024) contradicts the timeline. The falsification is
therefore evident.
4. Payment dated 3 April 2024 – USD 4,500
This document is clearly counterfeit. The player’s name is written in a different ink from
that used for the passport number and the amount. The player states that he never
signed this receipt.
5. Payment dated 6 April 2024 – USD 2,000
The receipt was clearly modified by the club. The pen color differs from that used in
other entries, with visible erasures and alterations to the date. The actual amount
received was 2,000 Libyan dinars (approximately 365 USD according to the exchange
rate on May 12, 2025). Nonetheless, the receipt bears the player’s fingerprint.
6. Payment dated 25 May 2024 (Claimant indicates 26 June 2024 – presumably a clerical
error) – USD 2,000
The receipt is counterfeit. The player never signed or even saw it. It does not bear the
player’s fingerprint, making it dubious. The player, who has unreservedly
acknowledged all receipts he actually signed (and that bear his fingerprint), thus
demonstrates his good faith. This document was unilaterally produced by the club,
which cannot rely on it. Irrefutable proof: on this date, the player was in Morocco
receiving treatment for an injury and was not present in Libya (supporting document:
the player’s passport).
7. Payment dated 6 August 2024 – LYD 2,400
This receipt mentions an amount of 2,400 Libyan dinars, or about 440 USD. The player
acknowledges receiving this sum after verification. It is worth noting that the receipt
bears the player’s fingerprint, confirming his good faith.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18267
8. Payment dated 27 August 2024 (Claimant indicates 21 August 2024 – assume clerical
error) – LYD 28,500
This receipt is also counterfeit. The player never signed or saw it, and it does not bear his
fingerprint. As in previous cases, the player has always acknowledged the receipts he signed
— a sign of his transparency — while clearly opposing the club’s obvious forgeries.”
28. The Claimant wished to emphasise that the Respondent manifestly forged several of the
payment slips, using techniques such as amending existing payment slips with higher
amounts, using different kinds of ink, and even fabricating new proofs of payment entirely.
He asserted that the difference between the respective proofs of payment is clear.
29. Having set out the above, the Claimant argued that the alleged payment of USD 11,000, in
relation to the alleged commitment to extend the Contract, should be disregarded.
30. In particular, the Claimant argued that there was no proof of any formal contractual
extension on file, nor that the Claimant indeed committed to extending the Contract at all.
The Claimant considered that it would be highly uncommon for a club to pre-emptively pay
two thirds of the value of a contract without any written agreement that the parties would
be legally bound to each other.
31. Furthermore, the Claimant noted that the Respondent had never made its alleged rights in
terms of the contractual extension known to the Claimant, even after being put in default
of the amount at stake, and only invoked this at the time when the former had lodged the
present claim for overdue payables.
32. In conclusion, the Claimant considered that the Respondent is fabricating this line of
argument for the sake of misleading the DRC in respect of the overdue payables at stake.
33. With the above in mind, the Claimant acknowledged that merely a sum of LYD 5,900
(around USD 1,078) had been paid by the Respondent, which was previously not
acknowledged.
34. As a result of the acknowledged sums, the Claimant amended his request for relief and
instead sought an amount of USD 15,422 net, with interest as follows:
-
On the amount of USD 4,360, as from 31 December 2023
On the amount of USD 4,000, as from 3 March 2024
On the amount of USD 3,562, as from 1 September 2024
On the amount of USD 1,500, as from 1 September 2024
On the amount of USD 2,000, as from 1 September 2024
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18267
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. 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 18 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 4 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.
36. 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 Moroccan player and a Libyan club.
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18267
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
40. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether or not the Respondent had complied with its financial
obligations under the Contract. In particular, whilst the Claimant argued that he was not
paid several amounts under the Contract, including:
-
USD 5,000 signature bonus
USD 4,000 first salary instalment due at the end of the season’s first leg
USD 4,000 second salary instalment due at the end of the season’s second leg
USD 2,000 promotion bonus
USD 1,500 appearance bonus
41. During the course of the proceedings, the Claimant acknowledged a payment of USD 1,078
/ LYD 5,900, wherefrom it is unclear which specific amounts such payment is related to or
which instalment shall be deducted as a result. Any proofs of payment that state otherwise,
in the Claimant’s contention, shall be disregarded on account of being fabricated entirely,
or tampered with.
42. As a result, the Chamber understood that the amount in dispute was USD 15,422.
43. Following from the above conclusion, the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that
a total sum of USD 22,600 was remitted, and that, as a result, it was due a reimbursement
of USD 9,500 (sic).
44. Based on the above arguments, the Chamber understood that the claim at stake revolved
around the authenticity of the respective proofs of payment / payment receipts submitted
by the Respondent.
45. As a result, the Chamber went on to analyse the respective proofs of payment which were
submitted to the file by the Respondent. At this stage, the Chamber wished to emphasise
as a preliminary remark that FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon
matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or documents, and
that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority, in
order to be able to solve such disputes in a satisfactory and timely manner, without the
need to wait for the initiation and conclusion of a potential criminal investigation, the
Football Tribunal adopts a practical procedure in such cases, namely to request the party
who claims the authenticity of the disputed document to provide its original version via
regular mail. If for a layman the document appears to be authentic and in line with the
further documentation on file, such document is considered as authentic for the purposes
of solving the dispute at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18267
46. With this established, the Chamber continued with its analysis and considered that the
proofs of payment contained various inconsistencies which rendered them difficult to be
credibly taken into consideration.
47. In particular, various of the proofs of payment on file – such as the receipts dated
23 January 2024, 6 February 2024, 3 April 2024, 25 May 2024 and 6 August 2024 – contained
inconsistencies with signatures on file which were not in dispute – such as on the power of
attorney and the employment of contract.
48. Moreover, and what the Chamber considered as a further factor detracting from their
credibility, several proofs of payment appeared to contain posterior amendments to
numbers indicated thereon – such as the payment figure on the receipt dated
4 February 2024, which appeared to have been overwritten; the receipt dated
6 February 2024, whereon the printed wording of the receipt had been overwritten in ink;
and finally, the receipt dated 6 April 2024, where once again the printed text on the receipt
had been overwritten in ink, and furthermore, the date of the receipt equally appeared to
contain ink overwriting the original contents of the document.
49. Finally, as an overarching remark, the Chamber highlighted that, in any event, and
particularly in light of the ambiguous proofs of payment on file, the Respondent could have
– and should have – adduced additional evidence of the payments having taken place, such
as bank extracts either from itself or transaction confirmations of any bank transfer of the
amounts at stake.
50. As a result of the above, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and
concluded that, only the receipts which the Claimant acknowledged himself – in the
amount of LYD 5,900 – could be taken into account.
51. Thus, the total outstanding amount with the relevant deductions applied, was held by the
Chamber as USD 15,422.
52. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of its expiration, i.e. USD 15,422.
53. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the following dates, until the
date of effective payment:
-
-
On the amount of USD 4,360, as from 31 December 2023
On the amount of USD 4,000, as from 3 March 2024
On the amount of USD 7,062, as from 1 September 2024
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18267
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
54. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
55. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
56. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
57. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
58. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
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
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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18267
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. 12
REF. FPSD-18267
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Saad Rherbaoui, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Abel Ashher Club, must pay to the Claimant USD 15,422 as outstanding
remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,360 as from 31 December 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 3 March 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,062 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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 in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18267
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18267
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. 15