Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18872
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Bi Duvan Jean Marc Diby
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Bi Duvan Jean Marc Diby, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Iftah Even Ezra
RESPONDENT:
Hapoel Nir Ramat Hasharon, Israel
Represented by Ofer Ben-assa Advocate
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18872
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Ivorian player, Bi Duvan Jean Marc Diby (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
and
•
The Israeli club, Hapoel Nir Ramat Hasharon (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), affiliated to the Israel Football Association (IFA).
2.
On 5 February 2024, the Player and the Israeli club Hapoel Hadera (hereinafter: Hapoel
Hadera), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Hapoel Hadera Contract) valid
as from the date of signature until 31 May 2024. In addition, the Hapoel Hadera Contract
established that the club had an option to extend the duration of the agreement for three
additional football seasons by notifying the Player no later than 1 July of each year.
Furthermore, Hapoel Hadera undertook to pay the Player four monthly salaries of ILS 3,700
net for the 2023/2024 football season and 10 monthly salaries of ILS 8,000 net for the
2024/2025 football season.
3.
On 21 January 2025, the Player and the Club concluded a document entitled “Player
Agreement Form for the season of 2024/25” (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from 20
January 2025 until 31 May 2025.
4.
In clause 6.a of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player 4.5 monthly salaries of
ILS 9,590, totalling ILS 43,155. Additionally, clause 6.f stipulated that the salaries were to be
paid no later than the 9th day of the following month.
5.
Clause 11 of the Contract included the following general provisions (quoted verbatim):
“11 General Provisions
a. The provisions of this Agreement will become valid and obligate the parties, only after
it has been presented before the Authority and has been approved thereby.
The Club undertakes to present this Agreement to the Authority for confirmation when it
has signed been by both parties and this no later than 14 days after it has been signed
by the Player as set out at the preface to this Agreement.
b. The parties are entitled to cancel this Agreement before the end of its validity, provided
that the cancellation is mutually agreed by the parties and approved by the Chairman
of the Authority.
c. The parties are entitled to change the terms of this Agreement before the end of the
period of its validity, subject to the condition that the change shall receive the prior
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18872
approval of the Authority. Every change and/or addition to this Agreement will be signed
by the parties separately next to each change.
d. It is specifically agreed upon by the parties, that this Agreement, as it shall be
presented to the Authority and hall be approved thereby, is the only binding agreement
between the parties and any other agreement that shall not be presented to the Authority
and shall not be approved thereby shall be null and void, devoid of any validity whatever
and parties will not act according to its provisions.
e. The Club and the Player confirm that they have read the provisions and the terms of
the Agreement and that they are understood by them and agreed upon by them and that
it is agreed that the Authority's approval of this Agreement is solely for purposes of the
Codex and not for any other purpose.
f. This Agreement also constitutes notice according to law to an employee in accordance
with the Notice to Employee and to Candidate for Employment Law (Terms of
Employment and Classification and Acceptance for Employment Proceedings), 57622002.”
6.
It must be noted that the Contract was not signed by the IFA Budget Control Authority
(hereinafter: the IFA Budget Control Authority).
7.
Also on 21 January 2025, the Player and Hapoel Hadera signed a document entitled
“Termination notice”, which established (quoted verbatim):
“Further to the agreement dated ("the agreement"), the parties agreed that the club has
paid all its obligations towards the player for season 2024/25 except the half of January
salary (4,000 NIS) which will be paid by 9/02/25.
With his signature below, the player confirms that with a total payment of 4,000 NIS
gross, Hapoel Hadera has no debts towards him for the 2024/25 season”
8.
On 23 January 2025, the Player and Hapoel Hadera signed a “Deregistration Form”, through
which the Player was officially released by Hapoel Hadera.
9.
On 31 January 2025, the Player’s agent and a contact saved as “Meyer Adi…”, who, according
to the Player, is the Club’s manager, had a group call via WhatsApp.
10. Also on 31 January 2025, a person who assisted the Player and an unidentified person, who,
according to the Player, is one of the Club’s officials, had the following conversation via
WhatsApp:
Player’s assistant: “Hi Shlomi. There's no train to Duvan after the match today. Please
arrange for him how to get home. Thanks.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18872
Unidentified person: “According to what Meir told me he’s not continuing and so he
didn't need to come. That's what Meir told me.”
Player’s assistant: “What do you mean he's not continuing??? He's got a contract until
the end of May. What is this shady arrangement?”
Unidentified person: “There's no shady arrangement Rachel. Meir already spoke to his
agent Roy at the start of the week and told him that the player isn't right for the team
and Roy knows this. So I don't understand why you're writing "shady arrangement"’.
Sorry. Rachel. I don't like these kinds of words.
Player’s assistant: [Voice message]
Unidentified person: “Rachel it’s not me”
Player’s assistant: “I know, but it's not on, you know.”
11. On 10 February 2025, the Player’s agent and the contact saved as “Meyer Adi..” had a voice
call. Additionally, the Player’s agent sent a picture to this contact, a document entitled “Copy
of contract Duvan Ramat Hasharon 2025” and the following messages:
“Do you remember now?
There's a lot more to show and say
Aren't you ashamed? Seriously? Do you sleep well at night?”
12. On 20 March 2025, the Player sent a notice to the Club, stating that, on 21 January 2025,
the parties concluded the Contract, by means of which the Club undertook to pay him a
monthly salary of ILS 9,590 for a period of 4.5 months, totalling ILS 43,155. The Player
further contended that the Contract was signed while the Player was registered with
Hapoel Hadera and that, therefore, he terminated the Hapoel Hadera Contract by mutual
consent in order to be removed from that club’s roster, allowing the Club to register him.
Additionally, the Player alleged that he was added to the WhatsApp group but, after he had
already trained for approximately two and a half weeks, the Club chose not to approve the
Contract with the IFA Budget Control Authority before the closure of the mid-season
registration period and, consequently, never registered him. The Player additionally stated
that he was removed from the WhatsApp group and that the Club’s failure to secure the
Contract with the IFA Budget Control Authority constitutes a flagrant and fundamental
breach.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18872
The Player further argued that, since his registration with Hapoel Hadera had been
cancelled, he was currently not registered with any other team. Based on the above, the
Player put the Club in default and requested payment of the entire value of the Contract,
i.e., ILS 43,155 gross, within 5 days, and ILS 40,000 net as compensation for professional
and nonpecuniary damage.
13. On 30 June 2025, the Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he remained
unemployed during the term of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 7 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
15. The Player argued that, on 5 February 2024, he signed the Hapoel Hadera Contract and,
immediately thereafter, he was transferred on loan to the Israeli club Maccabi Herzliya F.C.
until the end of the 2023/24 season. According to the Player, he then returned to Hapoel
Hadera, where he played during the first half of the 2024/2025 season.
16. The Player further contended that, during the 2024/25 mid-season registration period,
Hapoel Hadera offered him a transfer on loan to the Club, until the end of the 2024/2025
season. Therefore, the Player stated that the parties concluded the Contract on 21 January
2025, which was valid until 31 May 2025, under which the Club undertook to pay him ILS
43,155.
17. The Player alleged that, after signing the Contract, he signed a waiver with Hapoel Hadera,
which removed him from its players’ roster. Furthermore, he asserted that he began
training with the Club and was added to the WhatsApp group but, for its own reasons, the
Club failed to have the Contract licensed by the IFA Budget Control Authority and did not
register him with the IFA.
18. The Player stated that the mid-registration period ended on 5 February 2025, without the
Club having registered him, leaving him ineligible to play for any club until the end of the
2024/2025 season. Additionally, the Player pointed out that he was removed from the
WhatsApp group and that the Club’s manager failed to reply to his inquiries.
19. According to the Player, the Club breached the Contract by shirking its obligation to employ
him, transfer him on loan and take all the actions required to do so, including obtaining
approval of his contract, obtaining a player’s license and registering him with the IFA.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18872
20. Based on the above, the Player argued that he is entitled to receive the entire value of the
Contract, totalling EUR 10,155, as well as to receive EUR 10,000 for damages.
21. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“Based on all of the foregoing, the Plaintiff asks the Honorable Football Tribunal order
the Defendant to pay him a total sum equivalent to 20,155 euros, together with interest
from the date on which the agreement was signed until the actual date of payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club first denied all the allegations made by the Player, except those
explicitly admitted in the reply. In this regard, the Club stated that the parties entered into
the Contract on 21 January 2025, which, pursuant to clause 11.a, would only become valid
after its submission and approval by the IFA Budget Control Authority.
23. According to the Club, the IFA Budget Control Authority only approves the registration of a
player if:
a) The new club or the releasing club requests the loan;
b) The player and the releasing club sign a release and waiver over the current
employment agreement;
c) The releasing club or new club and the player (separately) accept the loan;
d) The new club deposits and secures the budget under the satisfaction of the IFA
Budget Control Authority.
24. The Club stated that it fulfilled its obligations by initiating the loan request through the IFA
portal, but the Player or Hapoel Hadera, for unknown reasons, failed to complete the loan
process and did not sign the required documentation in the IFA portal. The Club alleged
that it was reflected that the Player refused to sign the release of loan and requested to
sign a different form. Therefore, according to the Club, the IFA and the IFA Budget Control
Authority rejected the transfer.
25. The Club pointed out that, after this situation, the Player and his agent disappeared, failed
to attend training sessions and did not communicate with the Club nor complain about the
situation. The Club further asserted that the Player regretted leaving the first division
league and neglected the Contract.
26. The Club stated that the claim should be dismissed based on the following grounds: (i) the
Contract was conditional upon the completion of the formal loan process through the IFA,
which never occurred due to the Player’s own actions; and (ii) the Player never sent a formal
notice, demand letter or even informal communication expressing dissatisfaction with the
non-completion of the transfer at the time it occurred. Therefore, the Club assured that he
was not interested in starting the execution of the Contract and departed from it.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18872
27. Furthermore, the Club argued that, if the Player considered himself to have suffered any
damages, his claims should be addressed to Hapoel Hadera, which, as his parent club, had
the contractual authority and responsibility regarding his potential loan to other clubs.
Moreover, the Club stated that, in the document signed by the Player with Hapoel Hadera,
there is no mention whatsoever that he was signing this document because he was being
transferred to the Club.
28. Additionally, the Club asserted that the Player remained registered with Hapoel Hadera
and his contract remained in effect.
29. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“Based on the above, the honourable DRC is respectfully requested to dismiss the Claim
in its entirety and to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant's legal costs and expenses.
For these reasons, this Claim shall be rejected.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
30. In his rejoinder, the Player insisted that he was released from Hapoel Hadera on 23 January
2025, and provided a document issued by the IFA as supporting evidence, along with a
deregistration form.
31. According to the Player, based on clause 11.a of the Contract, the Club bore the
responsibility and obligation to submit the Contract before the IFA Budget Control
Authority, as he had no standing and was not the one required to present the budgetary
sources required in order to obtain its approval.
32. The Player further contended that neither the Club nor any other party ever contacted him
to inform him that action was needed on his part to implement the loan. The Player argued
that, since he had already cancelled the Hapoel Hadera Contract, it was vitally important
for him to be transferred and registered with the Club immediately after. Additionally, the
Player indicated that, had the Club really intended to honour the Contract, it would have
contacted him. The Player restated that he remained without a club for the second half of
the 2024/2025 season.
33. Furthermore, the Player alleged that his representative and interpreter, Mr. Mike Danan,
sent several messages to the Club’s representative, Mr. Meir Hadadi, complaining and
reproaching him about the breach of the Contract. He also argued that a woman who
assisted him was in contact with the Club’s manager and that, on 20 March 2025, he sent a
letter before action, but to no avail.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18872
34. On another note, the Player alleged that the contention that Hapoel Hadera is the correct
respondent is entirely baseless, as he argued that the Hapoel Hadera Contract had been
temporarily cancelled by mutual consent after entering into the Contract.
35. Moreover, the Player explained that the IFA Budget Control Authority’s approval is required
in order to complete the transfer/loan registration process with the IFA and not vice versa:
first, the contract must be approved, and then, within the framework of the transfer
approval request, said approval must be uploaded to the IFA’s portal. According to the
Player, the Club did not submit the Contract for approval by the IFA Budget Control
Authority.
36. Therefore, the Player maintained his requests.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
37. In its duplica, the Club restated that the official records of the IFA demonstrate that the
Player rejected the loan transfer on 20 January 2025, preventing the transfer that was a
prerequisite for the Contract’s validity. The Club insisted that the approval of the IFA Budget
Control Authority could not be obtained because the Player refused to sign the mandatory
loan form required by the IFA.
38. In this regard, the Club provided a note issued by the IFA stating that, on 20 January 2025,
the Club initiated the loan process for the Player from Hapoel Hadera, but the loan was not
executed because the Player did not sign the official loan form.
39. According to the Club, the Player was aware that he had to sign the official loan form but
deliberately chose not to sign it. In this sense, the Club indicated that it did not make any
sense for the Club to initiate the loan process if it wanted to depart from the Contract.
40. Moreover, the Club remarked that the Player cancelled the Hapoel Hadera Contract on 23
January 2025, while he had already refused to sign the loan form on 20 January 2025.
Therefore, the Club stated that this was a risk undertaken solely by the Player.
41. Furthermore, the Club acknowledged that it was responsible for submitting agreements to
the IFA Budget Control Authority and asserted that it had initiated the process for obtaining
the approval. However, the Club argued that it could not complete it because the
transfer/registration process stalled due to the Player’s failure to complete his required
actions in the IFA system.
42. Regarding the evidence submitted by the Player, the Club mentioned that it lacked
credibility, based on the following facts:
a) These messages were allegedly sent by an individual named Mike Danan, but the
Player failed to provide any representation agreement or power of attorney;
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18872
b)
c)
d)
e)
According to the IFA, he is not registered as an authorised agent;
There is no affidavit from this individual;
The woman who assisted the Player was unidentified;
The letter was sent more than two months after the signature of the Contract and
more than one month after the registration period had closed.
43. In this sense, the Club alleged that these unverified, unauthenticated and anonymous
communications cannot be considered reliable evidence in a formal dispute. Additionally,
the absence of any contemporaneous formal complaints or notices from the Player until
months after the alleged breach suggests that he understood that the Contract had not
come into effect.
44. The Club concluded that the Player, who played in Israel’s top league until January 2025,
was likely seeking a team at a higher level. According to the Club, that is why he refused the
loan, made himself a free agent and continued to explore better options. After he failed, he
attempted to claim against the Club.
45. Lastly, the Club again requested that the claim be rejected in its entirety.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. 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 7 April 2025 and submitted for decision on 14
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.
47. 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 Ivorian player and a Israeli club.
48. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18872
b. Burden of proof
49. 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
50. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
51. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract.
52. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club breached the Contract by
failing to register him during the registration period set forth by the IFA. Therefore, the
Player argued that he is entitled to compensation equal to the full value of the Contract,
plus an additional amount for damages.
53. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Club argued that the registration could not be
completed because the Player failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the
IFA. Hence, the Club stated that both parties departed from the Contract.
54. In this context, the Chamber observed that it is undisputed that (i) the parties concluded
the Contract and that (ii) the Player was never registered with the Club. Nevertheless, the
Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the non-registration was
due to the Club’s conduct or the Player’s negligence.
55. First, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 137), which establishes that:
“A similar approach applies to the non-registration of a player. This often happens where
a club does not undertake all the necessary due diligence to determine that a player it
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18872
has signed is eligible to be registered to participate in a championship (e.g. due to a
specific foreign player rule, or specific squad size limit) or, as has been seen in recent
cases, where a club fails to obtain the ITC (through its own decision or negligence) before
the close of the relevant registration period, despite having signed an employment
contract with a player.
Again, it is the club’s responsibility to register the player on time. If the registration cannot
be completed, the player will not be able to participate in organised football. Therefore,
if it fails to act, the club is effectively blocking the player’s access to competitive football.
This is a violation of a footballer’s fundamental rights, and gives the player concerned
just cause to terminate the contract.”
56. Taking this into account, the Chamber acknowledged that, as a general rule, and based on
the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, it is the club’s responsibility to register a player
and, thus, to ensure that all administrative requirements are complied with before
registering a contract. The failure to do so constitutes a breach. Nonetheless, the Chamber
also recalled that, in line with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, players are
required to exercise a reasonable degree of diligence after signing contracts, in order to
assist clubs with all the administrative steps in which they are required to participate.
57. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Club acknowledged that, based on clause
11 of the Contract, it was its burden to submit the Contract to the IFA Budget Control
Authority. However, the Club stated that it could not complete the registration because the
transfer/registration process stalled due to the Player’s failure to complete his required
actions in the IFA system.
58. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club provided (i) a screenshot from IFA’s portal,
which shows that the transfer was rejected and that there was no approval from “IFA Budget
Control” and (ii) a communication from IFA informing that the Club had initiated the loan
process for the Player from Hapoel Hadera but the loan was not finalised because the
Player did not sign the official loan form. In addition, the Club contended that the Player
refused to sign the release of the loan and instead requested to sign a different form.
59. At this point, the Chamber observed that, based on the screenshot from the IFA’s portal, it
is not possible to establish that the transfer was rejected because the Player refused to
sign the release of the loan and requested to sign a different form; the screenshot merely
states that the transfer was rejected and that the IFA Budget Control Authority did not
approve the Contract. The Chamber considered that, solely with this screenshot, the Club
could not discharge its burden of proving that the Player refused to sign the Contract and
that the registration was not completed due to his responsibility.
60. Moreover, although IFA confirmed that the loan was not finalised because the Player did
not sign the official loan form, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Club failed to prove
that it had guided the Player through the necessary procedure, followed up proactively
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18872
and/or held the Player accountable for mishandling the documentation. In the Chamber’s
view, to prove that the Player was not registered due to his own negligence, the Club should
have provided evidence demonstrating that the Player was aware of how the entire process
worked and that he intentionally failed to complete all administrative steps. Nonetheless,
there is no evidence indicating that the Player was assisted by the Club in any manner.
61. The Chamber stressed that the Club is affiliated to the IFA and, therefore, it is familiar with
the relevant system, whereas the Player is a foreign player. In this context, the Chamber
highlighted that the Club bore the burden of exercising the appropriate diligence expected
of an employer.
62. In addition, the Chamber remarked that the Club failed to provide evidence demonstrating
that, in fact, it was unable to obtain the IFA Budget Control Authority’s approval if the Player
failed to complete his required actions in the system. In this respect, the Chamber
considered that the Club could have at least provided the relevant regulations showing
how the procedure is conducted. Nevertheless, the Club only limited itself to stating that it
was unable to submit the documents before the IFA Budget Control Authority.
63. The Chamber found important to highlight that clause 11 of the Contract did not specify
that the parties had to sign any additional form; it merely stated that the Club was obliged
to submit the Contract before the IFA Budget Control Authority within 14 days of the
signature.
64. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Club, in the duplica, informed that it had initiated
the process for obtaining the IFA Budget Control Authority’s approval but did not provide
any supporting evidence.
65. In light of all the above and based on art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
highlighted that the Club failed to prove that the Player was negligent and that it was not
liable for not registering him. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the nonregistration of the Player was attributable to the Club’s own conduct.
66. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that the fact that the Contract was not approved by
the IFA Budget Control Authority due to the Club’s negligence cannot work to the Player’s
detriment. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the Contract was valid as from 20
January 2025, regardless of the wording of clause 11.
67. Additionally, the Chamber was of the opinion that the behaviour of the parties does not
clearly demonstrate, as the Club stated, that there was a mutual departure. In this respect,
the Player proved that on the same day that he signed the Contract, he also signed the
document entitled “Termination Notice” with Hapoel Hadera, in which it was set forth that
Hapoel Hadera only owed him half of his salary for January. This is consistent with the
Contract being signed for 4.5 salaries. Moreover, only a few days after signing the Contract,
the Player was released from Hapoel Hadera, as confirmed by the IFA.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18872
68. In the Chamber’s view, had the Player intentionally refused to complete all administrative
steps, he would not have accepted being released from his current club. The Chamber
stressed that it does not make any sense for the Player to (i) sign a contract to be
transferred on loan to the Club, (ii) be deregistered from Hapoel Hadera and (iii) then
refused to be transferred to the Club, without signing another contract.
69. The Chamber also considered that the Club’s allegations – that the Player attempted to sign
a contract with another club – were unfounded, as the Club failed to provide any evidence
of this alleged scenario.
70. Although the Chamber was unimpressed with the limited evidence provided by the Player,
it nevertheless concluded that he was able demonstrate that he did not consent the nonregistration. In this regard, the Chamber found that, while it is true that the notice of default
was sent on 20 March 2025, whereas the registration period ended on 5 February 2025, it
is also true that any notice of default after 5 February 2025 would have been moot, as in
any event, the Club would not have been able to register the Player. The Chamber wished
to recall that the Contract was only valid for four and a half months, meaning the Player
could have only been registered in one registration period. Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that, within a span of two months, the Player first sent a notice of default and
subsequently lodged the claim, thereby clearly showing disagreement with the nonregistration.
71. Moreover, the Chamber observed that, although the Club disputed the WhatsApp
messages, it only pointed out that the senders were unidentified but did not argue that
these messages were not received by the Club or that these unverified individuals did not
communicate with the Club’s manager/officials.
72. After this analysis, the Chamber recalled that the failure to register a contract constitutes
a violation of a footballer’s fundamental rights and provides the player with just cause to
terminate the contract.
73. In the present case, although the Chamber noted that no termination letter had been
submitted, it concluded that, by failing to register the Contract by 5 February 2025, the Club
demonstrated a lack of interest in the Player’s services. Therefore, and having attention to
the very specific circumstances of the case, the Chamber determined that the Club
terminated the Contract without just cause on 5 February 2025.
ii. Consequences
74. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18872
75. Considering that the Contract was valid as from 20 January 2025 and the Club terminated
it on 5 February 2025, the Chamber concluded that the Player is entitled to the salary for
January as outstanding remuneration. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Club
undertook to pay the Player 4.5 salaries, from 20 January 2025 until 31 May 2025. Since the
Contract would have been valid for four complete months and 10 days had the Club not
terminated it, the Chamber therefore considered that the parties had stipulated that, for
January 2025, the Player was entitled to half a salary, i.e., ILS 4,795.
76. Hence, the Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination was equivalent to ILS 4,795.
77. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the time of the termination, i.e., ILS 4,795.
Although the Player requested all the amounts in EUR, the Chamber determined that there
was no contractual basis for such a request.
78. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 5 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
79. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
80. 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.
81. As a consequence, the members of 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 the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18872
82. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of ILS 38,360 (i.e. ILS 9,590 multiplied by four months) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
83. 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 player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
84. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player informed that he has remained
unemployed since the termination of the Contract and, therefore, did not mitigate his
damages. Since no mitigation applied, the Chamber also confirmed that no additional
compensation was due.
85. 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
ILS 38,360 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
86. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 5 February 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
87. Lastly, the Chamber recalled that the Player requested EUR 10,000 for damages. However,
the Chamber considered that the Player failed to substantiate and prove this claim.
Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject this claim based on the lack of evidence.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
88. 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.
89. 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18872
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.
90. 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
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.
91. 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.
92. 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
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18872
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bi Duvan Jean Marc Diby, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Hapoel Nir Ramat Hasharon, must pay to the Claimant the following
amounts:
- ILS 4,795 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 5 February 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- ILS 38,360 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 5
February 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. 18
REF. FPSD-18872
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. 19