Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18342
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alexandru
Cristian Albu
BY:
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Alexandru Cristian Albu, Romania
Represented by Renato Abaza
RESPONDENT:
Alsafa Club, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Islam Hisham
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18342
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 September 2024, the Romanian player, Alexandru Cristian Albu (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), the Saudi Arabian club, Alsafa Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
and the Saudi Arabian club Al- Hazem (hereinafter: Al- Hazem) entered into a loan transfer
agreement (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 September 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the parties agreed on the following remuneration:
“3.1. The first party (Al-Hazem) will cover the player’s dues from July 1 to August 30, 2024, as
follows:
Salary for July 2024:
USD 29,167
Salary for August
2024: USD 29,167
Fixed payment: USD
70,000
Total Dues: USD
128,334
Both parties (Al- Hazem and the player) have agreed that these amounts will be paid on
October 30, 2024.
3.2. The first and second parties are committed to paying the player’s monthly salaries from
01-09-2024 as follows:
Contract Duration (in months):
Monthly Salary:
Total Monthly Salary Paid by
the First and Second Parties:
3.
10 Months
Payments by the First party
Payments by the Second
(Al Hazem)
Party (Al Safa)
USD 9,167
USD 20,000
USD 29,167
On 3 December 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting the
following (quoted verbatim):
“The fulfillment of all outstanding financial obligations on the date of issuance of this
notification, respectively the payment of the amount of 48.000 USD net related to the rest of
my salary for the months of September and October and November 2024 according to art.
3.2. from the loan agreement concluded between Al-Hazem Club, the undersigned and AlSafa Club.
I hereby request the execution of the aforementioned obligations by 18.12.2024.
If the payment obligation is not fulfilled on the aforementioned date, I will take the necessary
measures in order to settle the dispute by the competent jurisdictional bodies”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18342
4.
On 19 December 2024, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA requesting the outstanding
amount of USD 48,000 net for the salaries of September to November 2024.
5.
On 26 February 2025, the Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that the amounts
claimed were duly paid by the Club and therefore on the same date, the case was
administratively closed.
6.
On 27 December 2024, the Player sent a termination letter to the Club stating the following
(quoted verbatim):
“Starting 27.12.2024, I hereby unilaterally terminate the Loan Agreement, based on the
following FIFA Regulations provisions:
-According to article 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, a contract
may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind where there is just cause.
-According to article 14bis paragraph 1of the RSTP, In 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 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).
2. Since at 03.12.2024 I have sent a notification regarding the non-fulfillment of the payment
obligations, granting a deadline of 15 days to fully comply with the financial obligations in
total value of 48.000 USD (more than 2 monthly salaries), I hereby consider this nonfulfillment, according to the previous invoked provisions, a just cause for me to terminate this
Agreement
In this regard, I am communicating that starting 27.12.2024, I unilaterally terminate the
agreements and I am no longer bound by the Loan Agreement”.
7.
On 4 January 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Romanian club
FC Botosani valid as from 4 January 2025 until 30 June 2026 and was mutually terminated
on 30 June 2025. The Player’s net monthly salary was EUR 9,000 per month
8.
On 16 July 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Romanian club AFC
Chindia Targoviste valid as from 16 July 2025 until 30 June 2027.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18342
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 24 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. The Player lodged the present claim for outstanding salaries and compensation for breach
of contract.
11. In particular, the Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“We kindly request that the Al Safa club be ordered to pay the amount of USD 20,000 net,
representing outstanding salaries for the month of December 2024, and the amount of USD
141,106.14 net, representing compensation according to Article 17(ii) of the RSTP. In this
regard, we offer the following information:
- The amount in dispute: 161,106.14 USD net.
- A detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute, indicating individually:
(i) Each of its components:
a) 20,000 USD net represents outstanding salary for the month of December 2024;
b) 81,106.14 USD net represents Mitigated Compensation according to art. 17 (ii) from RSTP,
for the months of January to June 2025. The amounts are calculated as follows: From 29,167
USD representing the monthly salary for the period January – June 2025, the amount of 9,000
EUROS (respectively 9,453.28 USD) is deducted, representing the salary according to the
contract concluded with AFC Botosani in Romania, resulting in a difference that constitutes
Mitigated Compensation of 19,713.72 USD/month. As a percentage, the Al Safa club has to
pay 68.57% of this value, respectively the value of 13,517.69 USD/month (see de facto
situation pt. 2).
c) 60,000 USD net represents Additional Compensation according to art. 17(ii) RSTP (three
monthly salaries).
(ii) The currency is USD;
(iii) The contractual basis: art. 3.2 from Loan Agreement (regarding the monthly salary); art.
2.A from Loan Agreement (regarding the duration of the Contract).
(iv) The period of time they correspond to: December 2024 for the outstanding salary and
January – June 2025 for the compensation according to art. 17(ii) from RSTP”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18342
12. The Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to having more than
2 monthly salaries outstanding at the moment of the termination.
13. Finally, the Player explained that he had lodged a claim with FIFA for the outstanding
salaries of September, October and November 2024 and requested its closure in February
2025 as the amounts requested were paid by the Respondent. He clarified however that at
the moment of the termination he did have just cause to terminate his Contract, as the
payment of the above salaries was only made in February 2025, i.e. after the termination
of the Contract in December 2024.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. The Respondent submitted its reply on 6 April 2025, outside of the deadline set by the FIFA
general secretariat, i.e. 1 April 2025.
15. Consequently, the Respondent’s submission was disregarded in accordance with art. 11
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18342
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 February 2025 and submitted
for decision on 20 August 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.
17. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Romanian player
and a Saudi club.
18. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
19. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
20. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18342
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract and overdue payables.
22. The Single Judge noted that the Club, did not respond to the claim, entailing that the
Chamber’s decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
23. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and establish the consequences thereof.
24. The Single Judge reminded that according to art. 14bis of the Regulations, if a club
unlawfully fails 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).
25. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the Player alleged not having received at the
moment of the termination salaries corresponding to the months of October and
November 2024 as well as the balance of the salary of September 2024 (i.e., 2,5 monthly
salaries) and provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 3
December 2024, i.e. 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 27 December
2024.
26. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate his
Contract in line with art. 14bis of the Regulations due to having at least 2 outstanding
salaries at the moment of the termination and having provided the Respondent with at
least 15 days’ notice to comply with their default.
27. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge clarified that the outstanding balance of the
September 2024 salary, as well as the salaries of October and November 2024, were only
settled after the termination of the Contract (in February 2025). This circumstance confirms
that, at the time of termination on 27 December 2024, these salaries remained unpaid,
thereby granting the Player just cause to terminate the Contract.
ii. Consequences
28. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18342
29. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the moment of the
termination is equivalent to USD 20,000, i.e. the month of December 2024.
30. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount
that was outstanding at the moment of the termination i.e. USD 20,000.
31. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 27 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
32. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
33. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
34. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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)).
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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 Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 120,000 (i.e. the residual value of the
Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
36. In continuation, the Single Judge 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18342
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
37. Indeed, the Player found employment with FC Botosani. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 9,000 net per month. Therefore, the
Single Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR
54,000, that is, EUR 9,000 times 6 (until 30 June 2025).
38. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
39. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the amount of additional compensation
of USD 60,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
40. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 116,808 to the Claimant (i.e. USD 120,000 minus USD 63,192 plus USD 60,000), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
41. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 27 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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.
43. In this regard, the Single Judge 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-18342
44. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where
the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
45. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Single Judge established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in
case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further
ban from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the
Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the
enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
46. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
47. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all appliable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which
is available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
d. Costs
48. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
49. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
50. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18342
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alexandru Cristian Albu, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alsafa Club, must pay the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 20,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 116,808 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
December 2024 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.
If the aforementioned sum, plus interest, is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the case will be referred, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for review and a formal decision.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18342
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