Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18759
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player George Owen Marsh
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
CLAIMANT:
George Owen Marsh, Great Britain
RESPONDENT:
Derry City FC, Republic of Ireland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18759
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the British player George Owen Marsh (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
•
the football club Derry City FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated
with the Football Association of Ireland (FAI).
2.
On 17 August 2024, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 19 August 2024 until 30 November 2025.
3.
According to the Contract, the Player was entitled to GBP 6,066 monthly, with the total
annual gross payment amounting to GBP 72,800. Additionally, the following provisions
were included (quoted verbatim):
“Salary £1,400 per week until end off season 2025
After 22 starts in the league wage increases to £1,600 per week and triggers an extra
years contract until end of season 2026
All of above figures are Gross.
£400 per month living allowance.
£8,000 relocation fee.”
4.
On 19 August 2024, the Club initiated the instruction for the Player’s transfer from the
Cypriot club AEL Limassol (hereinafter: AEL Limassol) in the FIFA Transfer Matching System
(TMS), uploading the relevant documents. It has to be noted that, in the transfer details, it
was established that the Player and AEL Limassol had mutually agreed on an early
termination of their employment relationship on 28 July 2024.
5.
Also on 19 August 2024, the FAI requested the Player’s International Transfer Certificate
(ITC).
6.
On 20 August 2024, the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) requested the transfer
cancellation due to an “incorrect last contract end date”. The CFA noted that the
employment relationship between the Player and AEL Limassol had been mutually
terminated on 29 July 2024.
7.
On 23 August 2024, the FAI accepted the transfer cancellation request.
8.
Also on 23 August 2024, the transfer was cancelled in TMS.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18759
9.
On 26 August 2024, the Club addressed a letter to the Player with the subject “George
Marsh signing for Larne FC” (hereinafter: the Letter) and with the following content:
“Dear George,
Derry City Football Club hereby confirms that we will sign you on a contract for 2025 and
2026 seasons on the same terms as your original contract.
Larne Football Club have agreed to release you on January 1st 2025 for a nominal fee
paid by Derry City Football Club and will confirm that in writing to you also.”
10. The Letter was signed by the Club’s CEO and by the Player, who added the following
handwritten note: “I George March agree to join Derry City on 1st January 2025”.
11. On 27 August 2024, the Player signed a new contract with the club Larne FC (hereinafter:
Larne), affiliated to the Irish Football Association Ltd. (IFA) of Northern Ireland, valid as from
the date of signature until 31 May 2025 (hereinafter: the Larne Contract). According to this
contract, the Player was entitled to a gross salary of GBP 1,200 per week or GBP 47,562.57
per season.
12. On 28 August 2024, according to the information retrieved from TMS, the Player’s ITC was
transferred from the CFA to the IFA.
13. On 3 September 2024, the Player concluded a rental agreement, pursuant to which he had
to pay GBP 1,100.
14. On 4 September 2024, the Club allegedly paid the Player GBP 2,000.
15. On 30 December 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club, stating that the former manager
of the Club had signed him on a pre-contract for 1 January 2025. In this regard, he stated
that on 26 August 2024 the parties had entered into a contract for the 2024 and 2025
seasons, also indicating that a nominal fee had to be paid to Larne. The Player mentioned
that Larne had issued a letter confirming the same, and that the Club had been paying his
housing expenses as agreed in the Contract. The Player argued that the Club was breaching
the Contract and had no intention of fulfilling its obligations. Therefore, the Player
requested that the Club either honour the Contract or compensate him for its breach.
16. Also on 30 December 2024, the Player sent a new email to the Club, requesting a response
and arguing that he had been told by Larne that the Club was arranging something
regarding the Contract.
17. On 6 January 2025, the Player sent a new letter to the Club, stating that the parties had
concluded a contract in 2023 (sic), which had been signed and retained by the Club, and
that he did not have a copy of it. The Player stated that he was unwilling to mutually
terminate the Contract, and that the Club did not have just cause to terminate it. According
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18759
to the Player, the Contract was valid as from 1 January 2025, as confirmed by the Letter.
The Player also stated that he only signed with Larne because the Club was “out of time” to
execute the Contract in accordance with the FAI rules. Therefore, the Player argued that
the Club had unlawfully terminated the Contract and he sought compensatory damages.
18. On 9 January 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter. In this regard, the Club affirmed
that no contract existed between the parties. The Club acknowledged that, in August 2024,
it intended to sign him from AEL Limassol, but the latter had failed to register his
termination by 28 July 2024, which was the FAI’s closing date for registering new players.
Therefore, the Club stated that it was unable to sign and/or register him. The Club added
that, on or around 26 August 2024, the Player had signed for Larne and had been registered
as a Larne player, who could register him as the closing date for the IFA was one month
later. In this respect, the Club asserted that the Player was contracted to and registered
with Larne, and had played on at least six occasions. The Club acknowledged issuing the
Letter indicating an intention to sign him on a contract for the 2025 and 2026 seasons, but
stated that, since then, it had reconsidered its position and decided not to sign him. The
Club argued that the Letter did not create legally binding obligations and constituted an
unenforceable “agreement to agree”. The Club asserted that there was no valid and binding
contract between the parties and that, if such a contract had existed, a new one would not
have been necessary. Hence, the Club held that it had not cancelled or terminated any
contract, nor refused to honour its terms, and alleged that the Player’s claim had no legal
basis.
19. According to the information retrieved from TMS, the Player and Larne terminated the
Larne Contract on 3 February 2025. Based on the relevant termination agreement, the
Player was entitled to GBP 13,500 in compensation for loss of employment, to be paid no
later than two days after the day on which Larne received the signed copies of the
agreement or the termination date.
20. On 1 July 2025, the Player signed a new contract with the club Dagenham & Redbridge FC,
affiliated to the Football Association (FA), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2027. According to this contract, the Player would be entitled to GBP 4,983.33 gross per
month.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 26 March 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
22. The Player stated that, in August 2024, he had arranged a two-year contract with the Club,
under which he would be entitled to GBP 8,000 as a relocation fee, GBP 1,400 per week for
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18759
two years (increasing to GBP 1,600 after 20 appearances), and a monthly payment of GBP
400 as a contribution towards his rent. According to the Player, the Club even paid him GBP
2,000 to cover five months of rent.
23. In this context, the Player argued that the Club breached the Contract by refusing to comply
with any of its obligations, including refusing to allow him to train, refusing to pay his salary,
and discontinuing the monthly GBP 400 rent contribution.
24. The Player alleged that the Club had offered no just cause for cancelling the Contract and
even refused to acknowledge that the Contract had been signed. The Player argued that
he was seeking two years’ salary as compensation for his financial losses.
25. In addition, the Player argued that the Letter was contractually binding and confirmed that
the Contract was valid, as Larne had agreed to release him for a nominal fee on 1 January
2025. The Player explained that the original contract was concluded with the Club, and that
he only moved to Larne because the Club had been “out of time” to register him in
accordance with the FAI rules.
26. The Player originally requested the following relief:
“26. Breach of contract without just cause request the payment of the following amounts:
27. Remaining value of the Employment Contract: £145,600.00 net Additional
compensation for estimated sporting and financial damages: £25,000 net (rent
contributions £4800 and appearance higher wage at £400 p week total £4800 and
Interest on overdue salaries and compensation: 5% p.a. £7200 net.”
27. The Player then clarified that his requests as follows, quoted verbatim:
“(…) the total amount is as follows
In August 2024 Lee Marsh arranged along with the claimant and the manager and the
club officials at Derry City FC a 2-year contract for the claimant to play for Derry FC.
9. The following terms were agreed.
10. £8000 Relocation fee I Statement of George Marsh (player contracted to Derry FC)
Date 06/02/2025
11. £1400 per week for 2 years, then £1 600 a week after playing 20 appearances.
12. As part of the contract Derry FC agreed to pay a monthly payment of £400 towards
the rent of the claimant’s home
Total amount is therefore: £145,600 up to £166,400 (2 years wage) plus £8000 relocation
fee, plus £9600 to rent property 2 years.
Grand total £184.000”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18759
b. Position of the Respondent
28. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 26 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
12 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.
30. 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
a British player and a club affiliated to the FAI.
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18759
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
34. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract.
35. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the parties had concluded a valid and
binding contract, which the Club subsequently breached by refusing to fulfil its obligations.
Therefore, the Player alleged that the Club must pay him the entire amount stipulated in
the Contract.
36. Since the Club did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber noted that the
decision shall be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the statements
and documents presented by the Player) (cf., art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
37. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
parties had a valid and binding contract and, if so, if this contract had been breached by
the Club and its ensuing consequences.
38. The Chamber first noted that it was undisputed that the parties concluded the Contract on
17 August 2024, which clearly contained all the essentialia negotii and was therefore a valid
and binding agreement. The Chamber further observed that the Contract was valid as from
19 August 2024 until 30 November 2025, and the Player was entitled to several financial
benefits.
39. The Chamber then recalled that it was also undisputed that, due to unclear registration
issues, the Club was not able to register the Player and, therefore, the Contract was never
executed. Although the Club did not reply to the claim, the Chamber pointed out that the
Player provided a copy of the correspondence exchange in which the Club acknowledged
that, in August 2024, it intended to sign him from AEL Limassol, but that AEL Limassol had
failed to register his termination by 28 July 2024, which was the FAI’s closing date for
registering new players.
40. Moreover, the Chamber underlined that it was further undisputed that the Club
subsequently issued the Letter on 26 August 2024, with the subject “George Marsh signing
for Larne FC”, in which it confirmed that it would sign the Player for the 2025 and 2026
seasons and stated that Larne had agreed to release him on 1 January 2025 for a nominal
fee to be paid by the Club. Moreover, the Chamber remarked that this Letter was signed
by both parties, and the Player expressly acknowledged that he agreed to join the Club on
1 January 2025.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18759
41. In this context, based on the timeline of events, the Chamber stressed that it appeared that
the parties initially signed the Contract which, for reasons unknown but attributed by the
Club to the Player’s former club, could not be registered. Consequently, the parties
mutually decided to modify the terms of the Contract through the Letter. In particular, the
Chamber considered that the parties accepted that the Contract would no longer be valid
from 19 August 2024 until 30 November 2025, but that they would instead sign a new
contract for the 2025 and 2026 seasons, on the same terms as the first agreement.
42. In the Chamber’s opinion, although the Club in its correspondence dated 9 January 2025
alleged that the Letter was merely an expression of intention, the Letter clearly confirmed
that the Club would sign the Player for the 2025 and 2026 seasons and referred to the same
terms as those contained in the Contract. Although the Letter did not include all essentialia
negotii, the Chamber interpreted that by referencing the terms of the Contract, the parties
agreed on (i) duration, (ii) remuneration, and (iii) the respective roles of the parties.
Furthermore, the Letter was signed by both parties, demonstrating their consent.
43. The Chamber underscored that the parties already had a valid and binding contract and
that, therefore, it was the Club’s responsibility to register him – while the Player was
expected to cooperate as needed. Although the Club, in its correspondence, alleged that
the failure to register him was due to the Player’s former club, the Chamber remarked that
there was no evidence of this on file. In fact, there was no evidence that the Club had indeed
been diligent enough to register the Player and – again, in principle – it could be argued
that the failure to register him was attributable to the Club. It is in this context that the
Chamber stressed that, although the Player could have had just cause to terminate the
Contract, as he had a valid and binding contract but the Club failed to register him, the
parties nonetheless decided to modify the terms and to maintain contractual stability,
without departing from the Contract.
44. Consequently, in the Chamber’s view, through the Letter, the parties - although confirming
that they would sign a new contract - effectively modified the duration of the Contract and
novated the employment relationship. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the parties had
formally altered the Contract’s duration to run from 1 January 2025 to 30 November 2026.
45. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Player, after signing the Letter on 26 August
2024, concluded the Larne Contract on 27 August 2024, valid until 31 May 2025.
Considering that the Letter acknowledged that the Player would start on 1 January 2025,
the Chamber observed that the duration of the Larne Contract overlapped with the
modified Contract, which, in principle could be considered a regulatory violation.
46. In this respect, although the Chamber recalled that, based on art. 18 par. 5 of the
Regulations, a player cannot enter into more than one contract covering the same period,
the Chamber emphasized that (i) the Larne Contract was valid until 31 May 2025 because,
pursuant to art. 18 par. 2 of the Regulations, the minimum duration of a contract shall be
until the end of the season – which, according to TMS, was 31 May 2025 – and (ii) in the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18759
Letter the Club clearly stated that the Player would sign a new contract with Larne and that
said club had agreed to release him for a nominal fee paid by the Club, thus implying that
the signature of the Larne Contract was only for the purposes of not leaving him without
any club during that day until 1 January 2025. Accordingly, the Chamber considered that
the Club was aware of – and, based on the evidence on file, suggested or arranged – the
signature of the Larne Contract.
47. Hence, in the Chamber’s view, although the Player subsequently signed another contract
that partially covered the same period agreed by the parties, the intention of the parties
was clearly for the Player to sign the Larne Contract and then commence under the
Contract as of 1 January 2025 until 30 November 2026.
48. While the Chamber acknowledged that the Player failed to provide evidence demonstrating
that the Larne Contract, although signed until 31 May 2025, was actually valid only until 31
December 2024, or that Larne agreed to release him prior to 1 January 2025, the Chamber
noted that, in the Letter, the Club expressly acknowledged this.
49. The Chamber also noted that the Player’s behaviour was consistent with his narrative: on
30 December 2024, before the starting date of the novated contract, he remarked that on
26 August 2024 the parties had entered into a contract and that a nominal fee would be
paid to Larne, but that the Club was breaching the Contract. Additionally, he sent an email
on the same day requesting a reply and arguing that he had been told by Larne that they
were “arranging something”. Only a few days later, on 6 January 2025, the Player sent a
new communication alleging that he was unwilling to terminate the Contract and that the
Club did not have just cause for doing so. He also expressly mentioned that he only signed
for Larne because the Club had failed to register him.
50. In this context, the Chamber was convinced that the Player did not have the intention to
depart from the Contract and was expecting the Club to resolve matters in order to sign
him, as appeared to have been arranged in August 2024. The Club, however, departed from
its own Letter, in which it had confirmed that it would sign him and that Larne would release
him, and alleged that this was only an expression of intention and that it had subsequently
decided to change its view because there was no valid and binding contract. However, as
mentioned before, the Letter was clear in the sense that it modified the contractual period,
and the Chamber recalled that all of this was based on the Club’s failure to register him.
51. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that the Larne Contract was terminated before 31
May 2025, which implies that neither the Player nor Larne were interested in having the
Player remain contracted until 31 May 2025.
52. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that (i) the parties signed a valid and binding
contract on 17 August 2024 (i.e., the Contract), (ii) the Club was not able to register him due
to unknown reasons which, in principle, were attributable to the Club, as this was its
responsibility and there was no evidence to the contrary, (iii) despite the Club’s failure, the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18759
parties modified the terms and arranged the signature of a contract with a new club (i.e.,
Larne), ensuring that they would start their employment relationship as from 1 January
2025, and, lastly (iv) the Club decided to withdraw from the modified Contract, rejecting all
liabilities despite having failed to register the Player and, at the very least, having agreed
on the signature of the Larne Contract.
53. Hence, the Chamber interpreted that through the Club’s refusal to undertake the necessary
diligences for signing him, the Club prevented the parties from executing the Contract and
unilaterally departed from it without just cause on 9 January 2025, when it confirmed that
it would withdraw from the relationship.
ii. Consequences
54. Having established that the Contract was valid as from 1 January 2025 until 30 November
2026, and that the Club terminated it without just cause on 9 January 2025, the Chamber
turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of
contract committed by the Club.
55. First, since the Contract was never executed, the Chamber remarked that there was no
outstanding remuneration at the time of the relevant events.
56. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
57. 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.
58. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18759
59. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. At this point, the Chamber
noted that the Contract established that the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of GBP
6,066, which annually amounted to GBP 72,800. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that
the Player was further entitled to (i) GBP 1,400 weekly until the end of the 2025 season,
which would be raised to GBP 1,600 after 22 starts in the league, (ii) GBP 400 for
accommodation, and (iii) GBP 8,000 as a relocation fee.
60. The Chamber recalled that the Player claimed the following: “£145,600 up to £166,400 (2
years wage) plus £8,000 relocation fee, plus £9,600 to rent property 2 years. Grand total
£184,000”. In this regard, the Chamber considered that GBP 1,400 weekly would amount to
GBP 5,600 per month, which, along with the GBP 400 accommodation allowance, was
practically the same amount as the GBP 6,066 established in the Contract.
61. Hence, the Chamber determined that the Player was entitled to the monthly salary
established in the Contract, namely GBP 6,066, which included the accommodation
allowance. Since the Chamber considered that the Contract was never executed due to the
Club’s breach of contract, it also concluded that no payments were made by the Club in
this regard.
62. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of GBP 139,518 (i.e., GBP 6,066
times 23) served as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract. To this amount, the Chamber decided to add the GBP 8,000 relocation
fee, as it was a guaranteed lump sum payable to the Player. Hence, the Chamber
established that the total remuneration under the Contract amounted to GBP 147,518.
63. 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
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
64. At this point, the Chamber noted that based on the Larne Contract, the Player was entitled
to GBP 1,200 per week and that from 1 January 2025 to 3 February 2025, the date of
termination, five weeks elapsed, totalling GBP 6,000. Moreover, based on the termination
agreement with Larne, the Player was entitled to GBP 13,500. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the Player mitigated his damages through the Larne Contract for an amount
of GBP 19,500.
65. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that on 1 July 2025, the Player signed a new contract with
the British club Dagenham & Redbridge FC, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18759
2027. According to this contract, the Player was entitled to GBP 4,983.33 gross per month.
Hence, the Chamber concluded that in the 17 overlapping months, the Player would
receive GBP 84,716.61.
66. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in
the total amount of GBP 104,216.61 (i.e., GBP 19,500 plus GBP 84,716.61).
67. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club and
therefore decided that the Player shall not receive additional compensation.
68. 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
GBP 43,301.39 to the Player (i.e., GBP 147,518 minus GBP 104,216.61), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
69. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim until the date of effective
payment. Additionally, the Chamber remarked that although the Player requested the
amount as net, the Contract established that they were gross amounts.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18759
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.
73. 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.
74. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18759
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, George Owen Marsh, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Derry City FC, must pay to the Claimant GBP 43,301.39 as compensation
for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 March 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. 15
REF. FPSD-18759
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. 16