Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18691
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Waleed Adel
Mohamed Mohamed Moubarak
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Waleed Adel Mohamed Mohamed Moubarak, Egypt
Represented by Luiza De Sant Ana Leal
RESPONDENT:
Pattaya Dolphins United, Thailand
Represented by Mistara Suwannawin
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18691
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 July 2024, the Egyptian player, Waleed Adel Mohamed Mohamed Moubarak
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the Thai club, Pattaya Dolphins United
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from 5 July 2024 until the end of the Thai League 2024/2025.
2.
According to clause 4 of the Contract, the parties agreed on a monthly salary of THB 70,000
as well as housing and car allowance of THB 20,000.
3.
On 11 December 2024, the parties signed a mutual termination agreement (hereinafter:
the Termination Agreement) and agreed on the following (quoted verbatim):
“The company wants to agree to cancel the athlete's contract. For a reason The player is not
in the club's plans in the second Leg of the competition before the contract expires on 10th
December 2024, Athletes will receive working wages from 1st December to 9th December
2024 in the amount of 20,999 baht (Twenty thousand nine hundred ninety nine baht) which
is the last month of working with the company and The company will pay compensation 1
month's salary (90,000 Baht) for canceling this contract. and the athlete agrees to receive 1
month's salary (90,000 Baht) to cancel this contract. Before 31 January. 2025 and Visa 30,000
bath and Over Stay 5,000 bath and Ticket Bangkok to Egypt 10,000 bath.
Mr. Waleed Adel Mohamed Mohamed Mubarak has been informed of the wages. and agree
to terminate the contract without requesting any additional compensation after this
cancellation has begun All contents and benefits contained in Contract No. P0009/2024 are
void.”
4.
Between 28 October 2024 and 10 December 2024, the Player repeatedly contacted the
Club via WhatsApp to inquire about the status of his work visa. The Club’s responses were
generally limited to stating that there were no updates.
5.
On 18 January 2025, the Player received a fine from the Royal Thai Police of THB 20,000 for
overstaying 47 days in the country.
6.
On the same date, the Player flew from Bangkok, Thailand to Cairo, Egypt with his family.
The total amount paid for the for the flight tickets was THB 37,740.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 20 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18691
a. Claim of the Claimant
8.
The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for breach of contract. The Player contended
that the Club repeatedly breached both the Contract and the Termination Agreement
through abusive conduct, making compliance impossible for the Player. As a result, the
Contract should be considered terminated without just cause by the Club, and the Club
must compensate the Player for damages. Additionally, the Player argued that he was not
required to send a written default notice because the termination occurred under coercion
and without just cause.
9.
The Player stated that the Club did not arrange his visa, leaving him in an illegal situation
in Thailand. As a result, he contended that the Club pressured him to sign the Termination
Agreement by warning that his visa would not be renewed if he refused.
10. In addition, the Player claimed that “he felt his life completely disrupted, as he was forced to
leave Thailand and abandon all the plans he had carefully built for his future, which has caused
him significant emotional, professional and financial harm.”
11. In this regard, the Player alleged that he was “entitled to receive the outstanding salaries that
were due by the Respondent under the Contract, but also the Club shall be held liable for
terminating the Contract without just cause, and the Player shall be awarded the corresponding
compensation for the damages incurred.”
12. In view of all the above, the Player requested the amount of THB 519,001 as compensation
corresponding to the residual value of the Contract (i.e. from December until May 2025).
13. The Player also stated the following (quoted verbatim):
“Under the Termination, the Club was supposed to pay to the Player the total amount of
155,999 Thai Baht. However, only the amount of 90,000 Thai Baht was paid on 31 January
2025. Furthermore, the amount of 20,000 Thai Baht remains outstanding by the
Respondent as the second part of the Signing Fee. In addition, upon his departure, the
Player was obliged to pay 20,000 Thai Baht for the overstay, which was never reimbursed
by the Club. Finally, the Player had to pay for his own flight tickets to leave Thailand, which
was also the Club’s obligation, in the total amount of 37,740 Thai Baht.
Therefore, pursuant to Art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP, and deducting the amount of 90,000 Thai
Baht paid by the Club on 31 January 2025, the Respondent shall be ordered to pay to the
Claimant the amount of 506,741 Thai Baht as compensation for breach of contract
without just cause, i.e., 519,000+ 20,000+ 20,000+ 37,740-90,000.
Finally, considering that the Contract was terminated without just cause by the
Respondent – or with just cause by the Claimant – during the protected period, as it was
during the first season of the Contract’s duration, which was concluded after the Player’s
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18691
28th birthday, the Respondent shall be sanctioned in accordance with Art. 17, par. 4, of
the RSTP”.
14. Furthermore, the Player requested an additional compensation of 6 monthly salaries for
the “significant emotional, professional and financial damages suffered” of the total amount
of THB 540,000 (90,000x 6). Specifically, the Player argued that due to the Club’s repeated
abusive conduct, his life was at risk as he was in an irregular immigration situation in
Thailand.
15. Finally, the Player requested the following relief:
“67. The Claimant, thus, requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football
Tribunal:
a) Rules that the present claim is fully admissible;
b) Declares that the Contract was terminated without just cause by the Respondent;
c) Orders the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the amount of 506,741 (five hundred
thousand and one) Thai Baht net as compensation for breach of the Contract, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 11 December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
d) Orders the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the amount of 540,000 (five hundred
and forty thousand) Thai Baht net as compensation for the significant emotional,
professional, and financial damages suffered, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11
December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
e) Sanctions the Respondent in accordance with Art. 17, par. 4, of the RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club denied the Player’s allegations in their entirety.
Regarding the duration of the Contract:
17. The Club alleged that the Contract would expire on 26 April 2025, i.e. the date of the final
matchday of the Thai League 2 regular season, and not in May 2025 as alleged by the Player
and provided evidence in this regard.
Regarding the visa expiration:
18. The Club sought to shift responsibility for obtaining the visa to the Player, stating that the
Contract only provided that “Club will pay visa expense for the player.” In this regard, the Club
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18691
argued that its obligation was limited to covering visa-related costs, not arranging the
issuance or renewal of the visa.
19. Furthermore, the Club contended that the Player or his agent should have undertaken the
necessary steps to renew the visa. Consequently, the Club asserted that the overstay fine
was attributable solely to the Player’s failure to renew his visa in a timely manner.
Regarding the Termination Agreement:
20. The Club alleged that the Termination Agreement was freely signed by the Player, and the
Club did not threat, coerce or force him into signing this document.
21. The Club further argued that the Player personally signed the Termination Agreement and
was assisted by his agent. In this regard, the Club provided a photograph, showing the
Player together with his agent and the Club’s representatives, holding the Termination
Agreement, a payment receipt and money in cash.
22. Based on the foregoing, the Club argued that the Player could not have been coerced into
signing the document, as it was executed in the presence of his representative, who is
visibly positioned to the left in the submitted photograph.
23. The Club also submitted evidence demonstrating that this individual acted as the Player’s
representative throughout his employment with the Club. Additionally, the Club provided
details of the exact location where the photograph was taken, further supporting its
authenticity.
24. Furthermore, the Club alleged that the Player did not raise any objection before or the
weeks that followed the execution of the Termination Agreement. The Player only raised
these allegations in the statement of claim presented before the Dispute Resolution
Chamber.
25. In addition, and regarding the Player’s allegations of the Club having breached the
Termination Agreement as it did not pay the amounts agreed upon, the Club provided the
above photo as proof of payment of THB 45,000 and a handwritten payment receipt
bearing the Player’s signature. The Player also provided a bank receipt showing the transfer
of the amount of THB 90,000 to the Player’s bank account on 31 January 2025.
Regarding the alleged breach of Contract:
26. In light of the foregoing, the Club argued that it has not breached the Contract as the
Termination Agreement is valid and binding and all the amounts agreed upon have been
duly paid.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18691
27. Consequently, the Club alleged that the Player is not entitled to compensation for breach
of contract.
28. Finally, the Club requested the following relief:
“The Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
a) Declare the claim inadmissible or, alternatively, unfounded in its entirety;
b) Confirm the validity and legal effect of the Mutual Termination Agreement dated 11
December; 2024;
c) Reject all claims for compensation under Article 17 of the RSTP;
d) Dismiss the Claimant’s request for emotional, professional, and financial damages;
e) Order the Claimant to bear all legal costs of these proceedings.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
29. In its replica, the Player contested the authenticity of the handwritten receipt denying
having signed it. The Player alleged that it “can be clearly noticed by the way it is made, in a
gross poorly drawn manner, even appearing to be a child’s sketch.”
30. In this regard, the Player claimed that he did not receive the amount of THB 45,000.
However, he failed to address the evidence submitted by the Club, which shows the
payment of the aforementioned amount.
31. Subsequently, the Player merely reiterated the arguments set out in his statement of claim,
without addressing the Club’s submissions regarding the validity of the Termination
Agreement, nor did he provide any additional evidence.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
32. In its duplica, the Club reiterated its argument concerning the photograph taken after the
signing of the Termination Agreement, alleging that it clearly depicted the Player’s
representative holding a copy of the handwritten receipt, as well as cash, the Termination
Agreement and the original handwritten receipt held by the Player.
33. In addition, the Club submitted three videos showing the Player signing the handwritten
payment receipt, receiving cash, and verbally confirming the amount of “45,000.” The
footage also shows the Termination Agreement being reviewed by the Player’s agent
before it was returned to the Club’s President.
34. Consequently, the Club alleged that the document could not have possibly been forged
and the Termination Agreement was freely signed by the Player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18691
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 20 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
4 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
36. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
an Egyptian player and a Thai club.
37. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
38. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
39. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18691
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
40. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the termination of the Contract and the validity of the
Termination Agreement.
41. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Termination Agreement was valid and binding and the consequences thereof.
42. In this regard, the Chamber reiterated that on 11 December 2024, the Player signed a
Termination Agreement with the Club. However, the Player contended that he executed
the agreement under duress, rendering it null and void, and sought compensation for
breach of contract. The Chamber noted that various allegations were raised regarding the
Club’s conduct, including issues related to the Player’s visa. However, the Chamber
considered that the allegations about the visa issued will only be considered if the
Termination Agreement is deemed invalid.
43. In view of the above, the Chamber had to first determine whether the Termination
Agreement was valid and binding.
44. On the one hand, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Player alleged that he signed
the Termination Agreement under coercion and threats from the Club. He further claimed
that he never received the agreed amount under the Termination Agreement and asserted
that the Club breached both the Contract and the Termination Agreement. However, the
Chamber noted that the Player did not request payment of the amounts stipulated in the
Termination Agreement.
45. On the other hand, the Chamber observed that the Club denied any coercion and
submitted the following evidence in this regard:
-
A photo showing the Player with his agent, the Club’s president, and a representative,
holding the Termination Agreement, along with the original and a copy of a
handwritten payment receipt and THB 45,000 in cash.
-
A video showing the Player counting the cash and stating “45,000.”
-
A video showing the Player signing the handwritten payment receipt.
-
A video showing the Player’s agent returning the signed Termination Agreement to
the Club’s president.
46. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber remarked that the Player insisted that he signed
under duress and requested the Termination Agreement be declared null and void.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18691
However, he did not address the Club’s evidence nor provide any supporting
documentation.
47. The members of the Chamber considered that the videos and photos submitted by the
Club leave no room for doubt as they clearly show that the Player was assisted by his agent
when signing the Termination Agreement and receiving part of the agreed amount.
48. The Chamber also deemed that the Player failed to discharge his burden of proof to
demonstrate that the Termination Agreement was signed against his will. In contrast, the
Chamber considered that the Club provided compelling evidence of the circumstances
under which the Termination Agreement and handwritten receipt were executed and there
are no indications of coercion or forgery.
49. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that the Player did not hold a valid work
permit, which appears attributable to the Club. The Chamber clarified, that even if the Club
tried to prove that it was not responsible for the renewal of the Player’s visa, it is a wellestablished DRC and CAS jurisprudence that clubs are obliged to take all the necessary
administrative action to ensure a work permit or visa is granted to the players, allowing
them to render their services to the club.
50. However, according to the Chamber, even if the Termination Agreement was signed due
to immigration-related issues, this does not invalidate the agreement, as it was validly and
voluntarily executed.
51. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim as the Contract was validly
and mutually terminated by the parties through the Termination Agreement.
d. Costs
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18691
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Waleed Adel Mohamed Mohamed Moubarak, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18691
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. 12