Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18806
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Paul Gladon
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Paul Gladon, the Netherlands
Represented by VVCS
RESPONDENT:
FC Noah, Armenia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18806
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2023, the Dutch player Paul Gladon (hereinafter: Claimant) and the Armenian
club Noah FC (hereinafter: Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 1 August 2024.
2.
According to art. 7.1 (vi) of the Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“The club shall be obliged in case the player is injured during the term of the contract, pay for
assessment, treatment, surgery, and rehabilitation, which will be taken on the territory of
Armenia and by initiative of the Club.”
3.
On 11 April 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent a message on WhatsApp stating as
follows:
“(…) I don’t know if you know, but I suffered a cruciate ligament injury. I have just been to the
best doctor in Europe in Brussels and I will be operated on May 6. He says I’m recovering well
because I’m fit.”
4.
On 12 April 2024, the president of the Respondent informed the Claimant as follows:
“Dear Paul, I was devastated and very upset by the news when told by Artur. I’m wishing you a
speedy recovery, you are very important to us. The club will cover all the expenses, just take well
care of yourself.”
5.
Between 2 May 2024 and 9 July 2024, the Claimant incurred various medical expenses and
pharmaceutical bills related to his rehabilitation from injury, all of which were incurred in
the Netherlands.
6.
On 12 September 2024, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for overdue
payables, with reference FPSD-15976. Such claim contained a request for relief the
reimbursement of medical costs related to his injury in the amount of EUR 7,473.01,
incurred between May 2024 and July 2024.
7.
On 8 November 2024, the FIFA DRC rendered a decision in the matter with reference
FPSD-15976, granting the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of EUR 7,284.76.
8.
On 4 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of further medical costs
incurred after July 2024. More specifically, the Claimant requested an amount of EUR
17,614 to be paid within 16 days.
9.
On 6 March 2025, the Claimant sent a reminder to the Respondent in respect of the above
default notice.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18806
10. On 7 March 2025, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, stating that, as the decision with
ref. FPSD-15976 was issued without grounds, and therefore, it is “purely speculative” and
“hardly reasonable” to say that this established an obligation in perpetuity to cover the
Claimant’s recovery costs. The Respondent therefore denied any obligation to pay the
requested amounts.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 1 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
12. In his claim, the player requested overdue payables of EUR 17,614 net plus interest of 5%
per annum as from the respective due dates of the medical bills.
13. The Claimant asserted that the Respondent, despite a formal warning, failed to remit the
due amount.
14. The Claimant emphasised that the Respondent was not only contractually obligated to
reimburse the Claimant for any medical expenses, but equally that the president of the
latter unequivocally undertook to cover all costs in writing.
15. The Claimant also outlined that the reason he chose to conduct the treatment abroad was
because “the same expertise and facilities are not available in Armenia.”
16. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the issuance of the previous decision with ref.
FPSD-15976 confirmed the Respondent’s obligation to pay the Claimant’s medical costs as
a result of the injury suffered during the contractual term.
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Respondent argued that, pursuant to art. 7.1 of the Contract, the obligation
for the Respondent to cover the medical expenses was subject to the treatment taking
place in Armenia, and further, to be initiated by itself, rather than the Claimant handpicking
a treatment place.
18. The Respondent stressed that the commitment to “cover all expenses” only extended to
the costs of the surgery and should be understood as a commitment to make a “one-time
payment”. In no way, so it was argued, should the Respondent be held liable for any further
rehabilitation costs.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18806
19. The Respondent equally argued that the Contract limited the payment of any medical
expenses to the term of the Contract – namely until no later than 1 August 2024. The
Respondent emphasised that this was in line with the terms of the medical insurance
coverage under Annexe 2 of the Contract.
20. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the invoices submitted by the Claimant do not
sufficiently indicate what kind of services were provided or what kind of injury was being
treated, thereby not creating a sufficiently close causal link between the injury and the
costs incurred.
21. Lastly, the Respondent asserted that the decision with ref. FPSD-15976 should not be taken
to have created an ongoing obligation to pay recovery costs. As the grounds of the decision
were not requested, the legal reasoning is “unknown” and should therefore not create a
precedent for an ongoing obligation.
22. All in all, the Respondent requested for the claim to be rejected.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18806
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. 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 1 April 2025 and submitted for
decision on 27 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.
24. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Dutch player and an Armenian club.
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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 Judge 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. 6
REF. FPSD-18806
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
28. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the obligation to reimburse medical costs incurred by the
Claimant as a result of the injury sustained during the course of the Contract.
29. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether or
not the Claimant was entitled to receive the amounts at stake, and, if so, what the
consequences of such non-payment may be. In this regard, the non-payment of the
disputed sums remained undisputed.
30. Prior to analysing the merits of the case at hand, the Single Judge revisited the parties’
submissions. On one hand, according to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to provide
adequate medical care in contravention of its obligations, thus requesting the
reimbursement of various medical bills incurred abroad.
31. The Respondent, on the other hand, challenged the obligation to have to pay the amounts,
since the Contract stipulates that any medical care must be initiated by itself and any
treatment conducted in Armenia only. Moreover, the Respondent has argued that the
invoices on file do not properly establish a causal link between the injury and the costs
incurred, as well as the decision with ref. FPSD-15976 not setting a precedent for an
ongoing obligation.
32. In this respect, the Single Judge took note of the wording of art. 7.1 of the Contract,
pursuant to which the parties agreed that “The club shall be obliged in case the player is
injured during the term of the contract, pay for assessment, treatment, surgery, and
rehabilitation, which will be taken on the territory of Armenia and by initiative of the Club.”
33. Whilst the Contract stipulated that the treatment must take place in Armenia, and that for
such treatment the Respondent will cover all expenses, the correspondence exchanged
between the parties reveals that, after being informed that the Claimant had left for
Brussels and had seen “the best doctor in Europe”, the president of the Respondent
affirmed that “the club will cover all the expenses”.
34. Consequently, the Single Judge understood that the parties departed from the terms of the
Contract, and the Respondent effectively undertook to cover all expenses of the Claimant’s
treatment without limitation as to territory or otherwise – in particular with no limitation
as to the kind of treatment or duration.
35. In other words, the Single Judge opined that the Respondent undertook to pay for any
treatment costs until the player’s full recovery. Hereby, the Single Judge clarified that such
conclusion was independent from the decision with ref. FPSD-15976 – in as far as the
decision did not create an obligatio in perpetuum. Rather, the wording of the Respondent’s
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18806
undertaking did so, to the extent that the Claimant’s recovery from the injury sustained as
a result of his employment with the club was complete.
36. Moreover, for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge highlighted that the wording of
the Contract contains no temporal limitation as to the treatment costs being covered. The
Contract refers to the injury taking place during the course of the Contract – not the
coverage of expenses.
37. Equally, the length of the insurance coverage was, in the Single Judge’s view, not of
relevance in this respect, as neither the Contract, nor the subsequent undertaking by the
club president makes a clear reference to the coverage of costs being dependent on the
length of the insurance policy.
38. Lastly, the Single Judge disagreed with the assessment of the Respondent in the sense that
the invoices do not create a sufficient causal link to the injury. The invoices are clearly for
the rendition of physiotherapy services and are issued by the same provider as for the
claim with reference FPSD-15976. In any event, no evidence to the contrary – establishing
that the medical costs incurred in the claim at stake were the result of an injury sustained
after the conclusion of the Contract – has been submitted by the Respondent. Therefore,
the Single Judge deemed that the invoices on file met the requirements of art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules.
39. Therefore, the Respondent shall pay the medical costs falling due since the previous claim
was lodged.
40. At this stage, the Single Judge deemed it important to point out that any amounts falling
due before then, which were requested by the Claimant at a later stage (i.e., including
during the present proceedings) were precluded. In line with the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, which is enshrined in the Commentary to the RSTP, parties are precluded
from filing independent claims as they please, as this could jeopardise the legal due
process and legal certainty before the Football Tribunal.
41. As a result of the above, any amounts falling due before the date of the claim with reference
FPSD-15976 – i.e., 12 September 2024 – could not be considered within the scope of the
present proceedings.
42. With this established, the Single Judge recalled that the non-payment of the remaining
amounts was undisputed – totalling EUR 13,257.25.
43. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the total amount which shall be reimbursed to the
Claimant in accordance with pacta sunt servanda corresponds to EUR 13,257.25.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18806
44. Furthermore, in line with 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 the following dates until the date
of effective payment:
-
On the amount of EUR 2,237.25, 5% p.a. as from 15 October 2024
-
On the amount of EUR 2,590.50, 5% p.a. as from 22 November 2024
-
On the amount of EUR 2,276.50, 5% p.a. as from 6 December 2024
-
On the amount of EUR 2,355, 5% p.a. as from 31 December 2024
-
On the amount of EUR 3,798, 5% p.a. as from 4 February 2025.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
45. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
46. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
47. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
48. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
he has the competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Single Judge decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance with art.
12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
49. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
50. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18806
51. 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.
52. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
53. 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.
54. The Single Judge 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
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18806
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Paul Gladon, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Noah, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 13,257.25 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,237.25 as from 15 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,590.50 as from 22 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,276.50 as from 6 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,355 as from 31 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 3,798 as from 4 February 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18806
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18806
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