Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18322
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Joao Pedro
Reis Amaral
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Joao Pedro Reis Amaral, Portugal
Represented by Carlos Ferreira Vaz
RESPONDENT:
Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18322
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 July 2024, the Portuguese player, Joao Pedro Reis Amaral (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Saudi club, Al Batin (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 August 2024 until
31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a USD
30,600 monthly remuneration.
3.
On 23 December 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD
91,800 corresponding to three monthly salaries, setting a deadline of 15 days in order to
remedy the default. In addition, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he reserved
the right not to return to the Club due to: (i) the inability to afford the return tickets to Saudi
Arabia, (ii) psychological impediments, and (iii) the fact that doing so would allegedly be
contrary to the FIFA regulations.
4.
On 5 January 2025, the Club sent a letter to the Player requesting his attendance at a
disciplinary hearing scheduled for 6 January 2025 at
facilities, in order to assess
his absence.
5.
eiterating the content of his
correspondence of 23 December 2024 and expressing his willingness to attend the hearing,
while requesting that it be rescheduled to 8 January 2025.
6.
On 7 January 2025, the Respondent terminated the Contract, invoking
as just cause.
7.
On 8 January 2025, the Claimant sent the Respondent a termination notice, invoking the
outstanding salaries as just cause.
8.
On 17 March 2025, the Player and the Romanian club, Politehnica Iasi, concluded an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 17 June 2025. Pursuant to
this new contract, the Player received a monthly remuneration of RON 35,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 21 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18322
a. Position of the Claimant
10. According to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause, based on art. 14bis
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
11. The Claimant argued that, as of the date the notice of default was sent, the Respondent
failed to pay him USD 91,800, corresponding to three monthly salaries.
12. The Claimant further submitted that out of a total value of the Contract amounting to USD
350,000, he only received USD 135,800 from the Respondent, i.e.; USD 44,000 as advance
of payment and USD 91,800 corresponding to the three-monthly salaries finally paid on 24
January 2025.
13. Consequently, the Claimant alleged that USD 214,200 remains unpaid.
14.
(quoted verbatim):
should be upheld and, as a result, the Defendant should be condemned:
a. Declare and confirm that the Claimant has grounds to terminate the contract with just
cause, following the behavior described.
b. To pay the Claimant the sum of USD 214.200,00 (two hundred and fourteen thousand and
two hundred dollars), plus interest and fines until full and effective payment.
c. To pay the Claimant an amount for the non-pecuniary damage that is being caused to him,
given the difficulty of finding a new club
d. To order the Defendant to pay any legal expenses or costs faced by the Claimant In an
amount prudently estimated at EUR 10.000.
e. To order the Saudi Arabia Football Federation to issue the ITC (Internacional Transfer
Certificate) or, when a club requests it,
b. Position of the Respondent
15. In its reply, the Respondent argued that, at the time the default notice was sent, the only
outstanding amount corresponded to the salary of November 2024, i.e., USD 30.600.
16. The Respondent further submitted that the Player attempted to manipulate the Club and
unjustifiably sought to terminate the Contract. In support of this argument, the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18322
authorization, as well as his express declaration that he could not return for psychological
reasons.
17. According to the Respondent, the Claimant
the Contract.
18. In addition, the Respondent argued that no just cause for termination existed, as the Player
had acknowledged receipt of three-monthly salaries and an advance, while the salary of
December 2024 was not yet due when the default notice was sent.
19. Consequently, the Respondent maintained that it terminated the contract with just cause
on 7 January 2025, due to the Claimant
20.
were the following:
and December 2024 corresponding to 61,200$ only.
compensation shall be mitigated in the same amount of his new employment contract with
his new club in Romania.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18322
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 21 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 20 June 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.
22. 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 (January 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 Portuguese player and a Saudi club.
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 January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the
24. Before addressing the merits of the present dispute, the Chamber wished to assess ex
officio
claim.
25. With the above in mind, the Chamber observed the following:
-
On 3 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Club, inviting it
to provide its position by no later than 24 March 2025.
-
On 23 March 2025, the Club requested an extension of the deadline.
-
On 24 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat granted the Club an extension of the
deadline until 31 March 2025, in accordance with art. 11 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules.
-
On 2 April 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the claim via the FIFA Legal Portal,
alleging that 31 March and 1 April 2025 were official public holidays in Saudi Arabia.
-
On 15 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that it would be up
to the Chamber
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18322
26. The Chamber then referred to art. 11 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with
which,
-working
day in the place of domicile of the party required to comply, the time limit will expire at the end
27. The Chamber further noted
April 2025 were official holidays.
i.e. Saudi Arabia, 31 March and 1
28.
c. Burden of proof
29. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
30. 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
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute who terminated the Contract, whether the terminating party
had just cause to do so, and the consequences that follow.
32. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
documentation on file and observed that, by correspondence dated 7 January 2025, the
The
Chamber further noted that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of said correspondence by
8 January 2025.
33. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent was the party that
terminated the employment relationship on 7 January 2025.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18322
34. Having established the above, the Chamber moved to the analysis of whether the
Respondent had just cause to terminate the Contract. In doing so, the Chamber first wished
to recall its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning.
In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to
expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract
may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be
taken in order for an empl
such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio.
35. In light of the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent based its
termination of Contract on the Claimant
unjustified absences. In this regard, the
Chamber emphasized that, in line with its jurisprudence, a club is required to formally
request a player to return and set a reasonable deadline for compliance before terminating
the employment relationship.
36. With the above in mind, the Chamber turned its attention to the documentation on file and
observed the following:
-
On 5 January 2025, the Club requested the Player to attend a disciplinary hearing to be
held on 6 January 2025 at 13:00
;
On 6 January 2025, the Player replied and requested the hearing to be rescheduled to
8 January 2025 at 18:00;
On 7 January 2025, the Club terminated the Contract, alleging the hearing was
unnecessary as
37. Based on the above, the Chamber noted that there was no evidence of any correspondence
from the Respondent requesting the Respondent to return to the Club. On the contrary,
the first correspondence from the Club was dated 5 January 2025, inviting the Player to
attend a disciplinary hearing.
38. In this respect, the Chamber was of the opinion that, although the Player did not justify his
absence, the Respondent failed to demonstrate that it had taken all reasonable steps in
order to terminate the Contract with just cause. In particular: (i) the Club failed to apply less
stringent disciplinary measures first; and (ii) an absence of two days (i.e. from 5 to 7 January
2025) cannot, per se, be considered a breach severe enough to justify the termination of
the contract as an ultima ratio measure.
39. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Club terminated the Contract without
just cause and, consequently, shall be liable to the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18322
40. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
41. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, are equivalent to two salaries
under the Contract, amounting to USD 61,200.
42. 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 the termination, i.e. USD
61,200 (i.e. two times USD 30,600).
43.
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 day after each due date, i.e.,
the first day of the following month, until the date of effective payment.
44. 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
vidual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
45. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
46. As a consequence, the members of 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 the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
47. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18322
concluded that the amount of USD 153,000 (i.e. 5 times USD 30,600) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
48. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
eneral
obligation to mitigate his damages.
49. Indeed, the player found employment with the Romanian club Politehnica Iasi. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to RON 35,000
per month, equivalent to USD 7,644.70. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 15,289.40, that is, two times
USD 7,644.70, corresponding to the salaries of April and May 2025 under the new
employment contract.
50. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 137,710.60 to the Claimant (i.e. USD 153,000 minus USD 15,289.40), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
51. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 7 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
52. 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.
53. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18322
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
e. Costs
57. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
58. 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.
59. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18322
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joao Pedro Reis Amaral, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Batin, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 61,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 30,600 as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 30,600 as from 1 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
- USD 137,710.60 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
7 January 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. 12
REF. FPSD-18322
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. 13