Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18310
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Konrad
Hubert Michalak
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Konrad Hubert Michalak, Poland
Represented by Marcin Ungier
RESPONDENT:
El Zamalek, Egypt
Represented by Sport Makers
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18310
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 September 2024, the Polish player Konrad Hubert Michalak (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Egyptian club El Zamalek (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 July 2025.
2.
It must be noted that at the time the parties signed the Contract, the Player was on loan
with the Club from the Saudi club Ohod.
3.
Furthermore, according to Clause 2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
a total net remuneration of USD 770,000 net, payable as follows:
-
4.
USD 77,000 net by no later than 30 September 2024;
USD 93,000 net by no later than 31 October 2024;
USD 100,000 net by no later than 31 December 2024;
USD 100,000 net by no later than 28 February 2025;
USD 100,000 net by no later than 30 April 2025;
USD 100,000 net by no later than 30 June 2025;
USD 100,000 net by no later than 15 July 2025; and
USD 100,000 net by no later than 31 July 2025.
Clause 5 of the Contract provided the following:
“Fifth: Termination of the contract:
1. The employment contract maybe terminated by mutual agreement.
2. The Player or Club cannot unilaterally terminate the contract unless the right to
terminate the contract is stipulated in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (FIFA RSTP). Particular reference is made to art. 13, art 14, and art 14bis and 17
of the FIFA RSTP, which state that a party may terminate a contract where there is just
cause. If there is just cause, the contract may be terminated at any time, even during the
course of a season.
3. If the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract for a just cause reason the
other party will be liable to pay compensation, in accordance with the FIFA RSTP and the
jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC. Likewise if the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the
contract without just cause the party in breach will be liable to pay compensation, in
accordance with the FIFA RSTP and the jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC. In the event of a
dispute.”
5.
Clause 6 par. 3-6 of the Contract stipulated as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18310
“3. The Club will provide the player with a good house in compound that suit him and
fully equipped.
4. The Club will provide the player a car with driver during the duration of the contract
full time.
5. The player gets 2 Business-Class Airline round trip tickets per season to Warsaw within
the schedule presented by the player to the club in periods in which the club does not
have matches scheduled.
6. All due amounts according to this contract were calculated in NET amounts after
estimating and deducting all fees and taxes arising from it due to the player. For the
avoidance of doubt the parties agree that this clause supersedes all other clauses in the
contract in which a ‘gross amount’ is indicated. Therefore, the player will always receive
net amounts indicated in the ‘value of the contract’ part of the contract to his bank
account meaning that the player will receive a total of USD 770,000 net for the duration
of the contract and all tax obligations and any fees according with the law connected to
said amounts will be borne by the club (not the player in full.”
6.
On 22 January 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD
193,000, corresponding to the second and third instalment under the Clause 2 of the
Contract, granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy the default. The Player further
emphasised that the Club was obligated to reimburse the Player for accommodation and
car expenses of EGP 100,000 for the previous two months.
7.
Allegedly, as from 31 January 2025, the Club began to “limit the Player’s contact with the first
team”, excluding him from the next official match squad and making him train with an
isolated group of 4 players that were either recovering from injury or newly hired.
8.
On 9 February 2025, the Player proceeded to unilaterally terminate the Contract with
immediate effect, invoking just cause on the grounds of: (i) outstanding remuneration
corresponding to the amounts contractually due on 31 October 2024 and 31 December
2024; and (ii) the Club’s failure to comply with its contractual obligations to provide the
Player with a car, a driver, and housing.
9.
On the same day, the Player notified his parent club, Ohod, of the termination of the
Contract and requested reinstatement into the squad, citing the Club’s breach of
contractual obligations. Under the employment contract concluded with Ohod (the Player’s
“new contract” for the purposes of this dispute), the Player was employed from 12
September 2023 until 30 June 2026 and entitled to a monthly remuneration of USD 100,000
net.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18310
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 20 February 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
11. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club breached the Contract by failing to pay him
two instalments which, on average, amounted to more than two monthly salaries. The
Player emphasised that the salary was not paid on a monthly basis, but rather, every two
months, and yet, the Club defaulted on two entire instalments.
12. The Player further argued that the Club had excluded him from training unlawfully,
attempting to ostracise him from the greater squad and thereby drive him towards a
premature termination of the Contract.
13. Equally, the Player argued that the Club verbally acknowledged its default and even
affirmed after the termination of the Contract that he had a just cause.
14. All in all, the Claimant invoked art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) to claim both the outstanding amounts under the
Contract and compensation.
15. The Player requested the following relief:
“Acting on behalf of the Player (the power of attorney was uploaded to FIFA’s legal portal),
the Player kindly requests DRC to:
a.
order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 619.964,00 net,
increased by applicable taxes and fees in accordance with the law, plus 5%
interest per annum on all the demanded amounts as from the relevant due dates,
which includes the amounts resulting from the obligation of the Club to pay the
Player for the:
i. outstanding salaries resulting from the employment contract for professional
football player concluded between the Player and the Club on 11.09.2024
(hereinafter: the Contract) in the total amount of USD 308.000,00 net,
increased by applicable taxes and fees in accordance with the law, on the day
of termination of the Contract, i.e. February 9th, 2025, including:
•
USD 93.000,00 net, increased by applicable taxes and fees in
accordance with the law, plus 5% interest p.a. for delay counted from
November 1st, 2024, until the date of effective payment,
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18310
•
USD 100.000,00 net, increased by applicable taxes and fees in
accordance with the law, plus 5% interest p.a for the delay counted
from January 1st, 2025, until the date of effective payment,
•
USD 115.000,00 net, increased by applicable taxes and fees in
accordance with the law, plus 5% interest p.a. for delay counted from
the date of terminating of the Contract, i.e. February 9th, 2025, until the
date of effective payment;
ii. compensation for the termination of the Contract by the Player with just cause
for outstanding salaries, amounting to USD 308.000,00 net, increased by
applicable taxes and fees in accordance with the law, corresponding to four
monthly salaries as an additional compensation due to the fact that the early
termination of the Contract was caused by overdue payables and that in the
case there are additional egregious circumstances. Alternatively, if the Player
will still not be registered with his former Club on the day of DRC’s decision:
compensation for the termination of the Contract by the Player with just cause
for outstanding salaries, amounting to USD 385.000,00 net, increased by
applicable taxes and fees in accordance with the law, corresponding to five
monthly salaries as an additional compensation (such modification will also
alter the total amount requested by the Player from the Respondent in this
Claim to the total amount of USD 696.649,00 net, increased by applicable
taxes and fees in accordance with the law);
iii. equivalent for a car, driver for said car and the fully equipped house in the
total amount of USD 3.964,00 net, increased by applicable taxes and fees in
accordance with the law;
b.
impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent in accordance with Article 17 sec. 4
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations);
c.
order the Respondent to provide the Player with the relevant certificate attesting
the payment of taxes to the competent authorities in reference to the amounts of
outstanding salaries indicated in section a. point i. above, awarded in the DRC’s
decision, once their payment has been made;
d.
order the Respondent to fully cover costs of this proceeding (if any arise).”
b. Reply of the Club
16. On 6 April 2025, the Club provided its response to the Player’s claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18310
17. The Club argued that the Player miscalculated the outstanding amounts in dispute, in
particular, that the salaries under the Contract were not paid monthly, and that the amount
outstanding at the time of termination was not more than two monthly salaries.
18. Furthermore, the Club denied the allegation that it excluded the Player from training and
rather insisted that the isolated incidents where the Player was sent to train with a smaller
group of players was purely for technical reasons.
19. The Club further argued that the Player mitigated his damages fully as a result of returning
to his parent club, rendering his request for compensation purely punitive and lacking any
regulatory basis.
20. Lastly, the Club denied that it committed to paying the Player monthly accommodation and
car expenses, stating that the Contract contains no such provision. On the contrary, the
Club argued that the Player had received a luxury accommodation and car, with a driver.
21. As a result, the Club requested only for the outstanding remuneration of USD 193,000 to
be awarded, with the remaining claims of the Player to be rejected, in verbis:
“In view of all the above, we request this honorable chamber:
1. To accept this Response against the Player, and
2. To rule that the Player is only entitled to USD 193,000 as outstanding dues; and
3. To rule that the Player is not entitled to any additional compensation; or
4. Alternatively. if the Player must receive any additional compensation, it shall be limited
to USD 192,498; or
5. Alternatively, if the Player must receive any additional compensation exceeding three
monthly salaries, it shall be limited to USD 256,664.”
c. Replica of the Player
22. On 18 April 2025, the Player filed his replica on this matter and effectively reiterated his
previous arguments, stating firstly that even when calculated pro-rata, the outstanding
amounts exceed two monthly salaries.
23. The Player noted especially that the Club did not challenge the non-payments in its reply
to the claim.
24. As for the compensation, the Player argued that the mitigation of his damages would be
detrimental to him and only beneficial to the Club. Particularly as the remuneration the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18310
Club undertook to pay the Player was due at the end of the Contract, the Player argued
that the awarding of only the outstanding remuneration (as a result of mitigating the
Contract) would be “against any rules of fairness and illogical”.
25. In particular, the Player argued that the amount of USD 100,000 which fell due on 28
February 2025 should be included in the outstanding remuneration awarded by the
Football Tribunal, as half of the period which he had worked already elapsed.
Consequently, the inclusion thereof in the compensation for breach of contract would
result in an injustice.
26. The Player also once again insisted that the Club, by excluding him from the greater team
training, tried to coerce him to terminate the Contract. Hereby the Player argued that the
short-termed or isolated nature of these incidents did not detract from the fact that they
were in bad faith.
27. The Player wished to highlight that the exclusion from training was allegedly documented
by Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and Polish media. Therefore, the fact that the Club had
breached the Contract in such a way is, according to the Player, beyond dispute.
28. Lastly, as to the accommodation and car costs, the Player argued that the Club’s allegation
that it had provided him with both of those things is untrue. The Player referred to invoices
for accommodation and car costs, which he argued that he would not have had to incur
had it not been for the Club’s breach. Furthermore, the Player emphasised that the Club
had verbally agreed with him that it would reimburse the costs the Player would incur, as
a result of the fact that the latter preferred to find the accommodation himself.
29. In conclusion, the Player reiterated his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Club
30. On 20 May 2025, the Club submitted its duplica and reiterated the arguments previously
advanced.
31. The Club maintained that instalments not yet due cannot be considered as outstanding
remuneration.
32. Furthermore, the Club denied having ever undertaken to provide the Player with a monthly
allowance or having issued any cheque in his favour. It asserted that the Player was
afforded “excellent accommodation and a car with a driver” and requested that all claims in
this respect be dismissed.
33. The Club further contended that the Player was never segregated from the team and
insisted that he was not excluded. Even assuming that the Player was requested to train
individually, the Club alleged that such arrangement lasted no more than four days.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18310
34. Finally, the Club opposed the Player’s claim for additional compensation, arguing that the
Player’s average monthly salary should be calculated as USD 64,166 (i.e., USD 770,000
divided by twelve months), rather than USD 77,000 as incorrectly claimed by the Player.
Consequently, the Club submitted that any additional compensation should be capped at
USD 256,664 (equivalent to four monthly salaries).
35. The Club reaffirmed its requests for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. 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 20 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 13 November 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.
37. 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 Polish player and an Egyptian club.
38. 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
39. 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).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18310
c. Merits of the dispute
40. 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
41. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for breach of contract.
42. The Chamber initially noted that according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with
just cause due to overdue payables and the alleged exclusion from the team by the Club.
43. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club effectively restricted its
arguments to mitigating the compensation to be awarded for the premature termination
of the Contract with just cause, rejecting the accommodation and car bonus, and
challenging the notion that it had abused the Player by excluding him from training (quod
non).
44. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that the art. 14bis par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations
stipulate the following:
“14bis. Terminating a contract with just cause for outstanding salaries
1.
In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly
salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to
terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in
writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully
comply with its financial obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts
existing at the time of this provision coming into force may be considered.
2.
For any salaries of a player which are not due on a monthly basis, the pro-rata
value corresponding to two months shall be considered. Delayed payment of an
amount which is equal to at least two months shall also be deemed a just cause
for the player to terminate his contract, subject to him complying with the notice
of termination as per paragraph 1 above.”
45. The Chamber then observed that the remuneration payable by the Club to the Player was
not structured on a monthly basis. For this reason, it proceeded to assess whether the
requirements of art. 14bis, par. 2, of the Regulations were met.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18310
46. In doing so, the Chamber first considered that the Player had indeed been owed at least
two monthly salaries – in particular, the two instalments of USD 93,000 and USD 100,000
respectively, which pro-rata amount to nearly 3 monthly salaries (i.e., USD 770,000 / 11
months = USD 70,000 per month on average).
47. The Chamber further recalled that the Player put the Club in default of payment and
granted a deadline of 15 days for it to remedy the breach, which remained unanswered
and unchallenged by the Club.
48. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Player had a just cause to terminate the
Contract based on art. 14bis, par. 2 of the Regulations. In light of this finding, the Chamber
deemed it unnecessary to further assess the Player’s allegations regarding individual
training and exclusion from the first team.
ii. Consequences
49. 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.
a.
Outstanding remuneration
50. The Chamber first determined that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts outstanding under the
Contract at the time of termination, itemized as follows:
•
•
•
USD 93,000 net, due by no later than 31 October 2024;
USD 100,000 net, due by no later than 31 December 2024; and
USD 100,000 net, due by no later than 28 February 2025.
51. With respect to the last instalment, the Chamber noted that although it had not formally
fallen due at the date of termination, it must nonetheless be considered part of the
outstanding remuneration, given that – in this particular case – the agreed remuneration
was payable in lump sums and more than half of the relevant contractual period had been
effectively performed by the Player.
52. The Chamber further observed that the Player appeared to have calculated the
outstanding amounts as four times USD 77,000, allegedly representing a pro-rata monthly
salary. However, the Chamber found this calculation inaccurate and inappropriate,
considering that the parties had expressly agreed not to remunerate the Player on a
monthly basis.
53. In conclusion, the Chamber awarded the Player the total sum of USD 293,000 net, together
with default interest accruing as follows:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18310
•
On the amount of USD 93,000 net, as from 1 November 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
•
On the amount of USD 100,000 net, as from 1 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
On the amount of USD 100,000 net, as from 9 February 2025 (i.e., the date of
termination) until the date of effective payment.
b.
Accommodation and car expenses
54. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Player claimed EGP 100,000 to cover the
costs for accommodation and car.
55. In this regard, although the Chamber observed that the Player substantiated that he
incurred the relevant expenses, the Chamber found no evidence on file indicating that the
Club had agreed to reimburse such costs.
56. Likewise, the Chamber noted that the Contract expressly stipulated the Club’s obligation
to provide accommodation and a car; however, the Club asserted that the Player declined
the offered arrangements and opted to secure an apartment independently. The Player
did not contest this assertion and merely alleged – without corroboration – that the Club
had agreed to reimburse the expenses incurred. Furthermore, the Chamber deemed that
the WhatsApp messages submitted as evidence of such commitment were neither
sufficiently clear to establish any undertaking by the Club nor accompanied by proper
identification of the communicating party to confirm that the exchange involved an
individual linked to the Club.
57. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Player failed to discharge his
burden of proof and, consequently, dismissed this portion of his claim.
c.
Compensation for breach of contract
58. 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.
59. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18310
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. On the contrary, the Chamber noted that the Contract
established that any compensation should be calculated in accordance with the
Regulations and the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
60. 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).
61. 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 USD 400,000 net (i.e., the total contractual remuneration of
USD 770,000 minus USD 370,000 already paid or awarded as outstanding remuneration)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
62. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player 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.
63. Indeed, the Player resumed his employment with his parent club Ohod. In accordance with
the original employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately USD 100,000
net per month between March and July 2025. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Player fully mitigated his damages, earning the total amount of USD 500,000 for the
overlapping period.
64. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18310
65. In this respect, the DRC recalled its conclusion that the average remuneration of the Player
amounted to USD 70,000 net and, consequently, decided to award the amount of
additional compensation of USD 210,000 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration
of the Player.
66. 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 him interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 9 February 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
70. 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.
71. 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
72. 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,
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18310
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18310
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Konrad Hubert Michalak, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, El Zamalek, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
-
USD 93,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 100,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 100,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9
February 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 210,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 9 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18310
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-18310
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