Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18476
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Rafael
Enrique Villarreal Correa
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT /COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Rafael Enrique Villarreal Correa, Colombia
Represented by Matias Alejandro Cordero
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Iliria, Albania
Represented by Arsen Selmanaj
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18476
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Colombian player, Rafael Enrique Villarreal Correa (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Albanian club, Iliria (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) allegedly concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 15 September 2023 until 31 May 2025.
2.
According to clause IX of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR
300 payable by the 15th day of the subsequent month. Such clause also mentioned a
“reduction” in case of “inactivity in official matches up to 50% (fifty) of the required minutes”.
3.
Clause XVII of the Contract read as follows:
“Settlement of Disputes
i) The Parties agree that any dispute that may arise during the performance of the contract
shall endeavor to resolve them by mutual agreement, otherwise, competent for their
resolution shall be the National Conflict Resolution Chamber at AFF.”
4.
The copy of the Contract provided by the Player contained his signature; however, it did
not contain the Club’s signature.
5.
On 26 September 2024, the Club sent the Player the following correspondence:
“[The Club], invites the player with the data referred to above, to appear in Fushe-ruje,
Albania to be proven as Player.
All expenses for food, accommodation, creation of sports facilities etc, will be covered by the
Club.
This document is issued to the player and the border authorities where the player will travel.”
6.
On 27 September 2024, by WhatsApp, a Club’s representative shared with the Player a flight
ticket for the Player to travel on 28 September 2024 from Colombia to Albania and a copy
of the above correspondence.
7.
On 25 December of an unspecified year (appears to be 2024), the Player and the Club
allegedly held the following discussions in WhatsApp (cited verbatim):
“[Player]: […] What happens is that I wanted to talk to you about the situation regarding my
salary, because I sincerely need it for the needs that I have, so please talk to your father about
this issue and he can help me, I appreciate it hermanito
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18476
[Club]: I talked with him. He said in the end of January because the bank I is blocked. He said
that you come since 3 months and you have played just 1 match how can i pay you like this.
He said to train hard to play in match to take money. I can’t give money like this without
playing. You need to give maximum and after he can pay you.”
8.
On 20 February 2025, the legal representative of the Player put the Club, through a person
identified as the “captain”, Mr. Santiago Selmani (hereinafter: Mr. Selmani) to the email
address santiago****@gmail.com, in default requesting his salaries within 10 days. The
amounts were not specified.
9.
On the same day, Mr. Selmani replied to the Player the following (cited verbatim):
“The player took the salaries, every month 300 euros, from september 2023 until May 2024.
He injured tendon, we pay the surgery 5000 euros. So we don’t have any contract professional
with this player. He is not our player.”
10. On 21 February 2025, the parties’ exchanged the following mails (cited verbatim):
•
Player’s legal representative to Mr. Selmani:
“the agent said he never received any salary, and after the surgery, he returned to train with
your team, and the club still has not paid his salary. The contract has a vigency before May
2025.”
•
Mr. Selmani to the Player’ legal representative:
“Yes he took every salary last year from September 2023 until May 2024. He injured on 2
October 2023 we pay the surgery 5000 euros and we continue to give him salary until May.
on May the contract finished here in the club and we let him free player. He told us to come
again on October 2024 in the team but he didn’t have contract in the club, he comes here
injured again and we did the tests in clinic, he was injured he felts pain and we didn’t accept
him in the team, we didn’t have contract with him because the contract was finished on May
2024. That is all my friend.
He is lies. We are football team, which we have paid every player here in the club.”
•
Player’s legal representative to Mr. Selmani:
“Dear, the player and the agent told me he never received any salary. Do you have proof of
payment? On the other hand, I understand the contract is still valid, the final date is May
2025.”
•
Mr. Selmani to the Player’ legal representative:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18476
“No the contract is not still valid because the league is amateur and the contract are amateur
in this league and are 1 year which for another year need to sign the contract before the
season starts.”
•
Player’s legal representative to Mr. Selmani:
“I understand dear, well I think my client wants to file the claim, because we think the contract
end in May, and the player told me several times, he never receive any salary.
I think we can stop the communication here, and we will wait 9 days to file the claim in the
Football Tribunal.”
11. On 17 April 2025, the Club requested the Albanian Football Federation (FSHF) whether the
Player had a contract with the Club and a copy of the Player’s Football Passport
(hereinafter: the Player’s Passport).
12. On the same day, the FSHF replied to the Club, explaining that the Player had not filed any
employment contract with the FSHF. In this context, the FSHF provided a copy of the
Player’s Passport. The Player’s Passport indicates the following registrations with Club: (i)
from 18 September 2023 until 22 January 2024 as an amateur player, permanent
registration; and (ii) from 30 September 2024 until 5 February 2025 as an amateur player,
permanent registration.
13. In accordance with the information retrieved from the FIFA Transfer Matching System
(hereinafter: the TMS), the Player was registered with the Club under the amateur status on
18 September 2023.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 6 March 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
15. The Player stated that he had signed the Contract with the Club in September 2023,
entitling him to a monthly salary of EUR 300. Despite fulfilling his duties, the Club never
paid any of the agreed salaries, even though it had covered a medical injury. As a result, he
left Albania in February 2025 and claimed unpaid salaries between October 2023 and
January 2025, totalling EUR 3,900 plus 5% interest.
16. He further argued that the Contract was valid even without the Club’s signature because it
reflected the parties’ intentions and was aligned with FIFA jurisprudence. Since Albania’s
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18476
National Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Albanian NDRC) was not recognised
by FIFA, he maintained that FIFA had jurisdiction over the case.
17. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“1) Se solicita que el Tribunal del Fútbol de la FIFA se declare competente para entender en
las presentes actuaciones.
2) Se condene al club requerido al pago de la suma de 3.900 EUR con más el 5% de interés
desde la fecha debida de cada cuota hasta el efectivo pago de la potencial condena.
Free translation to English:
“It is requested that the FIFA Football Tribunal declare itself competent to hear the present
proceedings.
It is requested that the Respondent club be ordered to pay the amount of EUR 3,900 plus 5%
interest as from the due date of each instalment until effective payment of the potential
award.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
18. The Club challenged the validity of the Contract.
19. The Club argued that even if the Contract was considered valid, the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) lacked jurisdiction, as the parties had allegedly agreed to
resolve disputes before the Albanian NDRC, an officially recognised body meeting FIFA
requirements.
20. The Club further argued that the Player had been registered and transferred as an
amateur, and no employment contract ever existed between the parties. It maintained that
the Contract presented by the Player was unsigned, falsified, and never issued or approved
by the Club. The only official documents that existed, according to the Club, were those
recorded in TMS and the FSHF, both reflecting an amateur status without any contractual
salary obligations. The Club emphasized that the Player failed to meet his burden of proof
as he could not produce a contract signed by both parties.
21. The Club further asserted that the Player only raised financial claims more than a year after
his initial registration, which it said undermined the credibility of his allegations.
Communications relied on by the Player, mainly WhatsApp messages with the team
captain, were described as irrelevant, since the “team Captain” (Mr. Selmani) had no
authority to negotiate or confirm contractual terms.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18476
22. In case it is decided that the Contract is valid, regarding remuneration, the Club insisted
that the Player had not met the match‑participation condition that would have triggered
any payments (cf. art. 9 of the Contract). It stated that the Player played very few minutes
during the periods in question and therefore was not entitled to the EUR 300 monthly
amount.
23. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that “even in the worst-case scenario, in the event that the DRC
establishes that the contract presented by the Player as evidence is valid, quod non, again, as
the Player's Lawyer himself admitted in his Claim, It turns out that the Player has abandoned
the team by terminating the so-called contract without respecting Article 14bis”. Consequently,
the Club argued that, if the Contract was deemed valid, the Player was liable for breach of
contract. The Club therefore requested dismissal of the claim and sought compensation of
EUR 1,200, reimbursement of the flight ticket (EUR 1,600), and allocation of all procedural
costs to the Player.
24. The Club requested the following relief (cited verbatim):
“On account of all the foregoing, the Player respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber to issue a decision ruling that:
i. The present claim filed by the Player is inadmissible.
In alternative:
ii. The Club is ordered to pay to the Player the amount of EUR 300 as overdue payment.
iii. The Player is ordered to pay to the Club the amount of EUR 1,200.00 as compensation
for breach of contract plus 5% interest as from the due dates until the date of full and
effective payment.
iv. The Player is ordered to reimburse the Club in the amount of EUR 1,600.00 as
compensation regarding the flight ticket that the club has paid from Colombia to Albania.
v. Respondent shall bear any and all the possible costs of this procedure.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim from the Player
25. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player mentioned the following (cited verbatim):
“First of all, an amateur player can receive money for playing football. According to RTSP the
amateur is a player who receives less than the minimum amount of money to survive in a
country, but of course, the player can receive a sum in exchange for his services. The player
never put in default the club, because Rafael wanted to play football and he was worried
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18476
about the situation of filing a lawsuit against a club. He had the idea that if a player filed a
complaint he never obtained a new job.
Regarding the jurisdiction, the respondent did not turn off the argument of this part. It is true
that the agreement subjects the jurisdiction to Albania, but the Chamber of Albania doesn't
apply to be an admissible tribunal to the FIFA criteria. Because, the President is not designed
by the representative of players, no, is designed by the executive of the Federation (same
situation with the vice-president).
The player or this attorney did not false the agreement! The club must prove this is a serious
offense to this party. As i told ut supra, is totally valid to be an amateur and have an
agreement. Again, the player is registered as an amateur but receives sums of money. I
understand this Chamber can check this situation with the agreement uploaded in the TMS.
About the point 50/62 of the answer of the respondent, it is totally illegal to discount all the
salaries for not participating in the match of the club, otherwise, the player played a lot of
matches, and he was injured during an important period of time, and that is not a counter
back to the player. Is important to highlight the importance of the labour rights of the player
around the world. This article of the agreement is not bilateral, so must be avoided.
About the cause of the termination of the agreement, in first place, it is important to highlight
that the respondent does not have any interest in continuing with the contract. According to
the case CAS 2015/AA/4532 & 4553, and his extract in the commentary to the RSTP ed. 2023,
the rupture of the agreement didn't cause any direct or indirect damage to the club. Is the
club saying that there is no agreement between the parties, and the club didn't pay any salary!
The interest of the club was VERY low to have the player on the pitch.
The club is not in a position of damage, because the club abandoned the player in Albania,
Rafael didn't play for the club, so the position of the club is not a weak position According to
the award Maazou (CAS 2015/A/3955 & 3956) the panel rejected the claim of the former club
because the former club had an important liability in the supposed breach of contract.
Indeed, in this case the club didn't pay salaries.
Is clear, the club did not have interest in having the player and for this reason they didnt pay
the salaries and attack the player. So, no correspondence to give the payment of the article
17 RSTP.
Therefore, I request the admission of the lawsuit of this part and the rejection of all the
petitions of the respondent.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18476
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 6 March 2025 and submitted for
decision on 19 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 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.
27. 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 in principle competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Colombian player and an Albanian club.
28. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction
in favour of the Albanian NDRC based on clause XVI of the Contract.
29. Although the Chamber observed that the validity of the Contract was disputed, it
considered it relevant to preliminarily assess its jurisdiction based on this clause and for
the sake of completeness. The Chamber, however, anticipated that any conclusion reached
in this respect would need to be further balanced with its findings on the merits, so as to
ensure a coherent decision.
30. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that in January 2025, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for NDRCs in order to provide clarity and the necessary legal
certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible
formal and permanent recognition by FIFA and existing NDRCs.
31. Most importantly, the Chamber noted that the aforementioned rules have been
incorporated in art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases
brought before FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf. art. 26 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations).
32. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 6 March 2025, the Chamber remarked
that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on art. 22 of the
Regulations (January and July 2025 edition).
33. In this context, the Chamber underscored that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in
favour of an NDRC, the interested party challenging the Football Tribunal’s should first
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18476
demonstrate that the parties had validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant
decision-making body and, in such case, that such body has been officially recognised by
FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles.
The Chamber also highlighted that, according to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
these conditions were cumulative and should all be met at the time a party submitted a
claim to FIFA.
34. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that it first of all had to analyse whether the
parties had clearly and exclusively agreed on the jurisdiction of the Albanian NDRC. In this
regard, the Chamber confirmed that clause XVII of the Contract contains a clear and
exclusive referral to the Albanian NDRC.
35. The Chamber then turned to the assessment of the Albanian NDRC’s recognition vis-à-vis
the FIFA regulations. In doing so, the Chamber noted that the Albanian NDRC was not
included in the official list of recognised NDRCs at the time of submission of the claim (nor
since then).
36. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the second mandatory requirement has not been
met. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Football Tribunal, without prejudice on
its findings on the Contract’s validity, has jurisdiction to hear the present claim.
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 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. 10
REF. FPSD-18476
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
40. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that the Player lodged
a claim for overdue payables, while the Club filed a subsidiary counterclaim for breach of
contract.
41. The Chamber further observed that the parties were in dispute regarding the existence
and validity of an employment relationship. In this context, the Chamber recalled the
Player’s position, namely that he had signed an employment contract (i.e., the Contract)
with the Club in September 2023 providing for a monthly salary of EUR 300. Conversely,
the Club argued that the Player had been registered under amateur status and that no
valid employment contract existed between the parties.
42. In light of the above, the Chamber considered that its task is to analyse the following (i)
whether the Contract constituted a valid and binding employment agreement between the
parties; and (ii) its consequences.
43. As to the first issue, the Chamber recalled that the Player submitted a contract allegedly
signed on 15 September 2023 and valid until 31 May 2025. The Chamber observed,
however, that the document only bore the Player’s signature.
44. The Chamber acknowledged that, in line with well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, the signatures of both parties is an essential element to establish mutual consent
and, consequently, the existence of a valid employment contract. Nonetheless, the
Chamber emphasised that the absence of a fully-signed contract does not automatically
exclude the existence of an employment relationship, which must be assessed on a
case-by-case basis taking into account all circumstances and documentary evidence on file.
45. The Chamber nonetheless recalled that while the absence of a signed contract is not
automatically decisive, mutual consent must be demonstrated through other robust,
objective evidence. However, a high evidentiary standard applies when a party alleges the
existence of an employment contract without an executed document.
46. In this regard, the Chamber observed that:
-
According to TMS, the Player was transferred to the Club on 18 September 2023 under
the category “amateur”. The Chamber acknowledged that, as expected for purely
amateur players, no employment contract was uploaded into the system.
-
The Chamber further noted that TMS information is completed exclusively by the
Club; the Player has no possibility to add or amend transfer instructions.
-
It was undisputed that the Player effectively played for the Club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18476
-
The Player had been seemingly absent from 22 January 2024 to 28 September 2024,
and from 5 February 2025 onwards, as evidenced by flight tickets, his passport, and
the parties’ submissions.
-
The Player suffered an injury, apparently in October 2023, although the precise
duration of the injury period remained unclear.
-
The Club issued an official invitation letter dated 26 September 2024 confirming that
the Player was invited to Albania and that all expenses would be borne by the Club.
-
The Club conceded that the Player had been registered as an amateur and that it
covered medical expenses in the amount of EUR 5,000.
-
Although the Club denied that Mr. Selmani had authority to negotiate or
communicate on behalf of the Club, the Chamber noted that the email address used
by Mr. Selmani corresponded to the address registered in the Club’s TMS account,
which, in accordance with the Procedural Rules, is binding upon the party who
registered it. From these communications, the following elements could be
established:
➢ the Player “took” monthly salaries of EUR 300 from September 2023 to May
2024;
➢ the Player was injured on 3 October 2023 and the Club paid EUR 5,000 for
surgery;
➢ the Club considered that no professional contract existed;
➢ the Player received salaries until May 2024, at which point the Club considered
that “the contract finished” and the Player became a free agent;
➢ the Player returned in October 2024 but, according to the Club, “he didn’t have
contract in the club, he comes here injured again and we did the tests in clinic, he
was injured he felts pain and we didn’t accept him in the team, we didn’t have
contract with him because the contract was finished on May 2024”.
-
The Player did not submit any conclusive evidence demonstrating that the alleged
contract had been issued, signed, or otherwise accepted by the Club, apart from a
WhatsApp correspondence, the authenticity of which was contested by the Club.
47. In view of the above, the Chamber noted that, based on the communications sent from the
Club’s official TMS-registered email address, the Club itself confirmed the existence of a
contractual arrangement between the parties until May 2024. Although no copy of such
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18476
agreement was submitted, the Chamber considered sufficiently established that the
parties had agreed upon a monthly remuneration of EUR 300 and that the Player was
entitled to this amount between September 2023 and May 2024.
48. The Chamber however established that any award in this respect was based exclusively on
the Club’s acknowledgement of the financial conditions, and not on any purported
confirmation of the validity of the Contract’s validity in its entirety.
49. In this respect, the Chamber wished to highlight that, even if the Contract were considered
valid between the parties – and for which the Club subsidiarily requested application of
clause 9 and the corresponding deduction - such clause could not be applied. The Chamber
clarified that the clause in question had a potestative nature, as it granted the Club the
unilateral discretion to enable his participation in official matches.
50. The Chamber further noted that, although the parties disputed whether the salaries had
effectively been paid, they did not dispute that the Player was entitled to such
remuneration. In accordance with the principle that the burden of proof regarding
payment rests with the Club, and given the absence of any proof of payment, the Chamber
held that no salary payments had been established for the period in question.
51. Accordingly, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to unpaid remuneration
for the period between October 2023 and May 2024 for a total of EUR 2,400.
52. In addition, 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 the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 November 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 December 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 January 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 February 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 March 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 April 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 May 2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18476
53. Regarding the remaining portion of the claim, namely salaries allegedly accruing after May
2024, the Chamber noted that no contractual basis was established. On the contrary, the
evidence indicated that the Player had not been present at the Club’s premises from May
to September 2024 and no explanation as to his absence was provided, and that the Club’s
invitation letter dated 27 September 2024 only referred to the coverage of food,
accommodation and related expenses, without any reference to the Contract, an element
which was not contested by the Player.
54. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that no remuneration could be granted for any
period after May 2024. Likewise, no analysis of the subsidiary counterclaim requesting
compensation for breach of contract was made, considering that no contractual
relationship could be determined for the period as of June 2024. Therefore, the Chamber
rejected the Club’s subsidiary counterclaim.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. TheChamber 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18476
d. Costs
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18476
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant/counter-respondent,
Rafael Enrique Villarreal Correa.
2.
The claim of the claimant/counter-respondent, Rafael Enrique Villarreal Correa, is partially
accepted.
3.
The claim of the respondent/counter-claimant, Iliria, is rejected.
4.
The respondent/counter-claimant must pay to the claimant/counter-respondent the
following amount(s):
a. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2023
until the date of effective payment;
b. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2023
until the date of effective payment;
c. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
d. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2024
until the date of effective payment;
e. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2024
until the date of effective payment;
f.
EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
g. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
h. EUR 300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18476
7.
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/counter-claimant 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.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the claimant/counterrespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18476
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