Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18953
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Roger Bonet
Badia
BY:
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal)
CLAIMANT:
Roger Bonet Badia, Spain
Represented by Alejandro Pascual Madrid
RESPONDENT:
PSIS Semarang, Indonesia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18953
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 May 2024 , the Spanish player Roger Bonet Badia (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Indonesian club PSIS Semarang (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment agreement, valid for “1 season Competition Liga 1 in 2024-2025
(The contract will be active when/if the League 1 2024-2025 kick off begins)” (hereinafter: the
Contract).
2.
During the course of the submissions phase, both parties ultimately acknowledged that
the relevant competition began on 9 August 2025.
3.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Player would receive a total value expressed as USD 60,000,
paid in Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) at a fixed exchange rate of IDR 15,000/USD 1. Furthermore,
the Player was entitled to inter alia the following (art. 4 of the Contract):
4.
-
Down payment:
o Signing fee – expressed as IDR 35,000,000
o July – expressed as IDR 27,500,000
o August – expressed as IDR 27,500,000
-
A monthly salary expressed as USD 5,400, payable on the 10th of every month and
in IDR at the abovementioned conversion rate.
-
Bonuses, payable after the match in question
o Goal (“if team win”) – expressed as IDR 5,000,000
o Clean sheet (“if team win and draw away”) – IDR 5,000,000
-
Accommodation, in the form of:
o House, with an untranslated portion of the Contract making reference to the
amount of IDR 50,000,000
o Car
o “Departure and return tickets for players”
Art. 10 of the Contract further stipulated the disciplinary measures that could be
undertaken (quoted verbatim, in relevant part):
“[…]
2. In case the Player conduct violation upon the duties of the Player based on the Agreement,
the Club may give sanction in the form of fine by viewing the type of violation conducted and
related with discipline regulation made by the Club. here are the sanctions that the club can
give:
i. If the player comes late to practice:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18953
▪
▪
One time too late : Reprimand sanctions
Twice late : Sanctions warnings and fines
[…]
ii. If the player does not come to training without a clear reason, he will be
penalized in the form of a fine of Rp. 1,000,000, and if you don’t practice for
3X in a row without a clear reason, you will immediately be dismissed and not
get any compensation.
iii. […]
iv. If the player violates the rules that have been made by the club, then the player
will get a sanction in the form of a fine that will be determined based on the
level of the intended violation.
[…]
3. The Player entitles to propose rejection or appeal upon the sanction given by the Club and
entitle to be accompanied by the team Captain, the Player Agent or the organization of the
Player recognized by PSSI.”
5.
On 21 February 2025, the Player failed to participate in training, in apparent protest and
together with other players, citing alleged payment failures on the Club’s part.
6.
On 22 February 2025, the Player returned to training but did not travel with the Club for its
away match against Arema FC.
7.
On 24 February 2025, the Player sent the Club a default notice, requesting payment of IDR
182,000,000 net corresponding to:
-
Partial salary of December 2024, due on 10 January 2025, of IDR 26,000,000 net
Salary of January 2025, due on 10 February 2025, of IDR 81,000,000 net
Bonus for 6 clean sheets, which were due at the end of each match, of IDR
30,000,000 net
Down payment pursuant to art. 4.1.b of the Contract, which were due on the last
day of July and August 2024, of IDR 45,000,000 net.
8.
On 12 March 2025, the Player sent the Club a second default notice, granting 15 days to
remit payment. In it, he claimed the total amount of USD 17,533 net (or IDR 263,000,000
net; comprised of the partial salary for January 2025, salaries for February and March 2025,
6 clean sheet bonuses and the down payments for July and August 2024).
9.
On 19 March 2025, the Player sent the Club a third default notice, again granting 15 days
for the Club to remit payment. In it, he claimed the total amount of USD 17,533 net (or IDR
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18953
263,000,000 net; comprised of the partial salary for January 2025, salaries for February and
March 2025, 6 clean sheet bonuses and the down payments for July and August 2024).
10. On 4 April 2025, the Player sent the Club a termination notice, referencing the stilloutstanding amount of USD 17,533 net (or IDR 263,000,000 net) and citing just cause.
11. On 15 April 2025, the Player purchased a flight from Semarang, Indonesia to Barcelona,
Spain in the amount of EUR 585.90.
12. On 7 July 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with Indonesian club Madura
United. This contract had a duration beginning on 1 July 2025 until 31 May 2026, and
foresees a basic salary of IDR 36,000,000 gross per month payable in 11 instalments.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 16 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
14. The Player lodged a claim with FIFA for outstanding remuneration, unpaid bonuses,
reimbursement of travel expenses, and compensation for breach of contract.
15. The Player stated that from the beginning of the employment relationship, the Club
consistently failed to pay his remuneration on time and, after several verbal reminders, he
issued three written warning notices that went unanswered.
16. In addition to salary earned, the Player submitted that he had earned six clean sheet
bonuses totaling USD 2,000 net (IDR 30,000,000 net), which also remained unpaid.
17. According to his calculations, the Club owed him USD 17,533 net in outstanding
remuneration at the time of termination, consisting of:
-
USD 3,000 for remaining down payments for July and August 2024;
USD 1,733 for the unpaid portion of the December 2024 salary;
USD 5,400 for the January 2025 salary;
USD 5,400 for the February 2025 salary; and
USD 2,000 for unpaid clean sheet bonuses.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18953
18. Furthermore, the Player requested USD 16,200 as compensation for breach of contract,
corresponding to the remaining three monthly instalments (March, April, and May 2025)
that would have been due had the contract run to term.
19. He also sought reimbursement of EUR 585.90, representing the cost of his return flight
from Indonesia, asserting that the Club was contractually obliged to cover this expense.
20. Additionally, he claimed 5% annual interest on all amounts from their respective due dates
until full payment.
21. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“J. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
63.In view of all the foregoing, the Player herein requests the FIFA DRC to:
1.To accept this claim;
2.To determine the Employment Contract was terminated with just cause by the Player on 4 of
April 2025 and condemn the Club to pay the Player:
2.1. USD 15,533 (fifteen thousand five hundred and thirty-three US Dollars) net as
outstanding remuneration related to the Down Payment of July and August 2024 as well as
the monthly payments scheduled for 10 January, 10 February and 10 March 2025, plus
five percent interest until the effective payment in the following way:
- 5% on 1,166.66 net from 31 July 2024 until its effective payment; •5% on
1,833.33 net from 31 August 2024 until its effective payment;
- 5% on USD 1,733 net from 10 January 2025 until its effective payment;
- 5% on USD 5,400 net from 10 February 2025 until its effective payment;
- 5% on USD 5,400 net from 10 March 2025 until its effective payment;
2.2.USD 2,000 (two thousand US Dollars) net as outstanding bonuses for 6 clean sheets,
plus interests from 4 April 2025 until its effective payment;
2.3.USD 16,200 (sixteen thousand two hundred US Dollars) net as compensation for
breach of contract, plus interests from 4 April 2025 until its effective payment;
2.4.EUR 585,90 (five hundred and eighty-five Euros with ninety cents) as per the flight ticket
cost, plus interests from 4 April 2025 until its effective payment.
3.To impose the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, in case the amounts are not paid within the 45-day deadline;”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18953
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club rejected the Player’s claim, asserting that his termination had been
unlawful.
23. The Club confirmed that the employment relationship began with the signing of the
contract on 29 May 2024, covering one season of the 2024/2025 Liga 1 competition, with a
salary of IDR 810,000,000 payable in ten monthly instalments of IDR 81,000,000 each, plus
accommodation subsidy and match-related bonuses. It stressed that the league season
officially commenced on 9 August 2024, disputing the Player’s assertion that the season
began at the end of June.
24. The Club acknowledged a delay in the payment of the January 2025 salary but emphasized
that this was the first such delay. It stated that on 21 February 2025, it held a meeting with
all foreign players to explain temporary financial difficulties and reassured them that all
contractual obligations would be fulfilled.
25. However, according to the Club, on 22 February 2025 the Player and several other foreign
players announced that they would not attend official training. The Club considered this a
serious violation, issuing a written warning on 23 February 2025 that included a 20% salary
deduction and a two-match suspension. The Club alleged that the Player continued to
engage in misconduct by attending training sessions in casual clothing and refusing to
participate in training activities.
26. Regarding the alleged outstanding payments, the Club disputed several of the Player’s
claims. It admitted that the down payments for July and August 2024 totaling IDR
45,000,000 had not been fully paid, though it argued that the Player failed to account for
deductions related to accommodation subsidies amounting to IDR 15,000,000.
27. It also accepted that clean-sheet bonuses of IDR 30,000,000 remained outstanding.
28. However, the Club rejected the allegation that part of the December 2024 salary had not
been paid, asserting that the full amount (IDR 81,000,000) was paid in three instalments on
20 and 28 December 2024 and 7 January 2025 (alleging payments of IDR 20,000,000, IDR
20,000,000, and IDR 41,000,000, respectively).
29. The Club also claimed it had partially paid the January 2025 salary (payment on 11 January
2025 of IDR 25,000,000 on 25 January 2025 of IDR 10,000,0000, and on 31 January 2025 of
IDR 20,000,000, for a total payment of IDR 55,000,000), leaving only IDR 26,000,000
outstanding, and that the February 2025 salary remained unpaid only because it applied a
salary deduction of 20% on the Player due to misconduct.
30. Based on these calculations, the Club argued that, as of the Player’s termination on 4 April
2025, the outstanding salary amounted to no more than IDR 90,800,000, or IDR
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18953
150,800,000 even when including down payments and bonuses—still less than two
monthly salaries. Therefore, the conditions of art. 14bis of the Regulations for termination
due to overdue payables were not met
31. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“Request for Relief
1. In light of the aforementioned points and enclosed supporting evidence by way of the
exhibited items, the Respondent respectfully and humbly requests the following:
a. To enforce FIFA’s jurisdiction as the competent body to rule on this matter; and
b. To reject the Player’s claim in its entirety; and
c. To rule that the Player has materially breached the Contract by repeatedly failing to attend
mandatory training sessions without justification; and
d. To rule that the Respondent is entitled to appropriate compensation as a result of said
breach; and
e. To rule that the Player had indeed terminated the Contract unlawfully; and
f. To rule that the Respondent is due appropriate compensation for the same; and
g. To rule that simple interest at the amount of 5% or alternatively as determined by the FIFA
Judge, is applied unto all amounts the Player is found liable for; and
h. To rule that the Player, for the proffering of a flawed claim, is liable to pay for all procedural
costs in connection with this matter; and
i. To rule that the Player is to pay a contribution to the legal fees for the Respondent.
2. In the alternative (and unlikely event) that the FIFA Judge does not decide that the Player
terminated the Contract unlawfully, the Respondent respectfully and humbly requests the
following:
a. To rule that the Respondent had, as chronicled through a multitude of evidence, complied
with its obligations to the Player throughout the Term; and
b. To rule that the Respondent had not at any time violated the Contract on a continuous and
severe manner; and
c. To rule that the Player has materially breached the Contract by repeatedly failing to attend
mandatory training sessions without justification; and
d. To rule that the Player is to pay a contribution to the legal fees for the Respondent.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
32. In his replica, and regarding the Club’s assertion that the Player failed to attend training
and a match—actions for which the Club imposed a 20% salary deduction—the Player
stresses that the Club misrepresented the facts. He clarifies that the only training session
he did not attend was on 21 February 2025, not 22 February, and that he actually appeared
and trained on 22 February 2025, as evidenced by the Club’s own official social media posts.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18953
33. He further explains that the session he missed was part of a collective protest involving the
entire squad in response to the Club’s persistent non-payment of salaries. He argues that,
under a bilateral contract, a party that is not receiving the agreed consideration is entitled
to suspend performance.
34. The Player also notes that he did not participate in the match on 24 February 2025 after
speaking with the coach, who made a technical decision not to include him—thus, no
breach can be attributed to him.
35. He asserts that the Club’s warning letter imposing the 20% deduction was never
communicated to him and was fabricated post-factum to justify an unlawful penalty. He
adds that absences from some subsequent matches resulted from injury, not misconduct.
36. Altogether, he maintains that no violation of the contract occurred and that the Club’s
disciplinary measures were wholly unjustified.
37. Addressing the Club’s claim that the Player owed IDR 15,000,000 related to a supposed
“housing subsidy deficit,” the Player states that this claim is unfounded. He recalls that the
contract entitled him to a IDR 50,000,000 housing subsidy, and that the Club paid this
amount directly to the landlord while he personally paid the remaining IDR 20,000,000 for
the rent. He argues that even if the Club’s theory were based on a proportional adjustment
because he did not remain for the full rental term, such an argument is invalid because any
early termination was caused by the Club’s own breaches. Therefore, the Club cannot seek
to benefit financially from its own misconduct.
38. The Player disputes the Club’s claim that outstanding salaries at the time of termination
did not reach two monthly wages. He argues that the payment proofs submitted by the
Club are“not clearly payment proofs and, more importantly, have not been translated.
Therefore, they shall not be taken into account by FIFA, as they have not been submitted in one
of the four official languages.”
39. The Player went on to state that, even if the payment proofs are considered valid, the Club’s
calculations are flawed, concluding that by 4 April 2025, the Club owed him:
-
USD 3,000/IDR 45,000,000 for outstanding amounts on the July and August down
payments;
USD 1,733/IDR 26,000,000 for salaries up to, and including, December 2024;
USD 10,800/IDR 162,000,000 corresponding to unpaid January and February 2025
salaries;
for a subtotal of USD 15,533, which already exceeds two monthly salaries under FIFA’s art.
14bis. He further recalls that the Club expressly admitted in its Answer that it had not paid
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18953
the clean-sheet bonuses totaling USD 2,000, increasing the debt to USD 17,533 at the time
of termination.
40. In conclusion, the Player upholds all the requests for relief contained in his claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
41. In its duplica, the Club states that during the training session on 21 February 2025, although
players and coaches attended as scheduled, the entire group—both foreign and local
players—collectively decided not to train.
42. The Club further asserts that on 22 February 2025, all players did participate in the morning
training session held before the team’s scheduled departure for an away match against
Arema FC. However, according to the Club, when the time came to depart for the match,
the Player—together with two other players—refused to travel with the team. The Club
claims that the Player had already decided beforehand that he did not wish to travel to
Malang for the match against Arema.
43. The Club concludes that the Player’s conduct constituted an unjustified refusal to fulfill his
professional obligations, contributing to what the Club maintains was an unlawful
termination by the Player.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18953
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
44. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 16 April 2025 and submitted
for decision on 16 March 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.
45. 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 Spanish player and an Indonesian club.
46. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
47. 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 she 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
48. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18953
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
49. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract,
whereby the parties strongly dispute the legality of the Player’s termination. On one hand,
the Player sustained he had just cause to terminate, after having complied with the formal
requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations, whereas the Club averred that, while there
were outstanding amounts owed to the Player, they did not amount to the requisite 2
monthly salaries foreseen in art. 14bis.
50. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine what
amounts remained outstanding at the time of termination in order to determine whether
there was just cause pursuant to art. 14bis, as well as any consequences deriving from the
aforementioned conclusions.
51. In doing so, the Single Judge recalled the Player’s contentions that he was owed:
-
USD 3,000 for outstanding July and August down payments;
USD 1,733 outstanding from the period up to December 2024;
USD 10,800 corresponding to unpaid January and February 2025 salaries;
USD 2,000 corresponding to 6 clean sheet bonuses
52. Conversely, the Club insisted that the Player’s receivables were subject to deductions
pursuant to a disciplinary infraction, applied to his February salary, and housing payments
deficit, applied to the outstanding down payment, such that the total amount owed to the
Player was IDR 150,800,000.
53. To begin, the Single Judge noted 2 observations concerning the due dates of the contractual
payments at issue.
54. First, while the Contract stated that the salary was payable “the 10th every month,” the
Player’s submissions contended that this was to be paid in arrears (July 2024 salary paid in
August 2024, etc.). Similarly, the Club’s submissions indicated to the Single Judge that this
was the Club’s understanding, though she noted that the Club also filed contradicting
statements in this respect.
55. Second, the Contract explicitly established that there was a down payment concerning July
and another one concerning August, but omitted specific due dates. The Player’s
submissions contended that these were to be paid in the month of reference, and the
Club’s submissions did not dispute this.
56. Therefore, in light of the evidence and allegations on file, the Single Judge was satisfied that
the salaries were paid in arrears on the 10th of the following month, and the down
payments were due, at the latest, by the end of the month to which they belonged.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18953
57. Following the above, and turning to the matter of the deductions the Club sought to apply
to the Player’s salary, the Single Judge noted that the evidence filed by the Club in support
of said deductions consisted mainly of (1) a spreadsheet apparently produced by the Club
itself, (2) partially translated proofs of payment evincing certain payments, and (3) a
notification dated 23 February 2025 addressed to the Player indicating that, due to his
failure to train and unwillingness to participate in a match on 21 and 22 February 2024, and
citing the Player’s duties under the Contract to inter alia attend all matches and training
sessions, obey the Club’s rules, and exhibit proper behaviour, they were deducting 20% of
his salary and banning him from playing 2 matches.
58. However, after careful consideration of all of the foregoing, the Single Judge was not
satisfied that the Club has met its burden of proof in demonstrating the propriety of the
deductions it sought to apply to the Player’s receivables.
59. Notably, the evidence provided in support of the 20% salary deduction for disciplinary
reasons was, in the Single Judge’s view, insufficient, as it was premised on a disciplinary
notice that had no proof of remittance to the Player nor was it accompanied by any proof
of a disciplinary hearing or other measure to ensure due process, nor was the possibility
of such sanction clearly and specifically stipulated in the Contract. This is aside from the
fact that the alleged misconduct referenced in the notice was, based on the evidence in the
file, questionable, given that the Club ultimately conceded that the Player did train on 22
February 2025 and the videos provided by the Club do not, in the Single Judge’s opinion,
amount to proof positive of a disciplinary infraction.
60. Hence, the Single Judge considered that the 20% salary deduction sought to be applied to
the February 2025 salary is improper and the February salary is owed in full (IDR 81,000,000
or USD 5,400).
61. Turning now to the purported deficit from the housing subsidy which the Club sought to
apply as a deduction to the July 2024 down payment, the Single Judge noted that there was
no proof provided to substantiate any deduction and, as such, it shall be rejected.
Therefore, the July 2024 down payment was still partially due (IDR 17,500,000 or USD
1,666.66).
62. Finally, the Single Judge recalled that, as admitted by the Club, the Player was still owed the
August 2024 down payment of IDR 27,500,000, clean sheet bonuses totalling IDR
30,000,000 and IDR 26,000,000 from part of his December 2024 salary, in addition to being
owed his January 2025 salary.
63. Similarly, the Single Judge noted that the Player, when confronted with the Club’s evidence
of payment, did not outright deny having received the amounts as described therein;
rather, he considered they should be disregarded due to not being translated and then
challenged the Club’s calculation. In this sense, and in the interest of avoiding the risk of
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18953
unjust enrichment, the Single Judge determined that the amounts that can be identified
from the Club’s evidence shall be deemed as having been paid.
64. All things considered, and especially in light of the parties’ respective evidence and
acknowledgements as described above, the Single Judge determined that the amounts
outstanding on the date of termination (4 April 2025) were the following:
Amount in
IDR
1,166.66
27,500,000
26,000,000
Salary December 2024
1,733
81,000,000
Salary January 2025
5,400
81,000,000
Salary February 2025
5,400
17,500,000
Total
Guaranteed
Amount
in USD
Purpose
Down Payment July
2024
Down Payment August
2024
233,000,000
30,000,000
1,833.33
15,533
6 Clean sheet bonuses
2,000
65. Therefore, on the date of termination, there were at least 2 full salaries outstanding and
the Club had been provided at least 15 days’ opportunity in writing to remedy said breach.
66. As such, the Single Judge was satisfied that the clearly defined, formal requirements of art.
14bis were met in this case and the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract. Thus,
the Club shall be held liable for the consequences deriving from this finding.
ii. Consequences
67. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
68. As a preliminary matter, and considering that (i) the total contract value was expressed in
USD, (ii) the Contract expressed amounts in both USD and IDR, and further specified an
exchange rate for IDR/USD, and (iii) the Player’s request for relief was in USD, the Single
Judge determined that the amounts awarded shall be calculated and awarded in USD.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18953
69. The Single Judge then observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounted to USD
17,533; comprised of part of the July 2024 down payment, the entire August 2024 down
payment, part of the December 2024 salary, the entire January and February 2025 salaries,
and the accumulated clean sheet bonuses under the Contract.
70. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
17,533.
71. In addition, taking into consideration 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 follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,666.66 as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,833.33 as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,733 as from 11 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,400 as from 11 February 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,400 as from 11 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 as from 4 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
72. Moreover, in light of the evidence provided, the Single Judge also considered it was
appropriate to award the requested reimbursement for flight tickets, in the amount of EUR
585.90 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
73. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
74. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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 Single Judge
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18953
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
75. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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).
76. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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 Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 10,800 (i.e., USD 5,400 x 2 months left
on the Contract – March and April 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
77. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Football Tribunal 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.
78. In doing so, the Single Judge noted that the Player had not been able to mitigate his
damages, as his subsequent employment contract did not overlap with the initial term of
the Contract.
79. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 10,800 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
80. Lastly, taking into consideration 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
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 4 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
81. 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18953
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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18953
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Roger Bonet Badia, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PSIS Semarang, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 17,533 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,666.66 as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,833.33 as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,733 as from 11 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,400 as from 11 February 2025 until the
date of effective payment
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,400 as from 11 March 2025 until the
date of effective payment
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 as from 4 April 2025 until the date
of effective payment
- USD 10,800 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 April
2025 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 585.90 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
April 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.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18953
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. 19
REF. FPSD-18953
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. 20