Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19003
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Crysencio Jilbert Sylverio Cirro Summerville
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Crysencio Jilbert Sylverio Cirro Summerville, Netherlands
Represented by Rustam Sethna
RESPONDENT:
Leeds United AFC, England
Represented by Litigation Centrefield Llp
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19003
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Dutch player Crysencio Jilbert Sylverio Cirro Summerville (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant);
•
The British club Leeds United AFC (hereinafter: the Club, LUFC or the Respondent),
affiliated to the English Football Association (the FA).
2.
On 10 September 2020, the Club and the Dutch club Feyenoord (hereinafter: Feyenoord)
entered into a document titled “Transfer Agreement” (hereinafter: the First Transfer
Agreement), pursuant to which the Player’s registration was permanently transferred from
Feyenoord to the Club as of 9 September 2020 or the first available date thereafter.
3.
Clause 2 of the First Transfer Agreement provided as follows:
“2. As compensation for the transfer of the Player, LUFC shall irrevocably pay, and
Feyenoord shall accept, a fixed transfer fee in the amount of £ 1.000.000 - (in words:
one million British Pound) (hereafter the ‘Transfer Fee’), plus Dutch vat (or equivalent
sales tax) if applicable, but including the FIFA solidarity contribution (‘Solidarity
Contribution’) which is due on the basis of the applicable FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players version 2020 (hereafter: the 'FIFA Regulations’). The Transfer Fee
shall be paid by bank transfer in four (4) equal instalments upon receipt of a
corresponding invoice from Feyenoord in accordance with the following payment
schedule:
£ 250,000.- (in words: two hundred and fifty thousand British Pound) on the 1st of
October 2020;
£ 250,000.- (in words: two hundred and fifty thousand British Pound) on the 1st of
February 2021;
£ 250,000.- (in words: two hundred and fifty thousand British Pound) on the 1st of
October 2021;
£ 250,000.- (in words: two hundred and fifty thousand British Pound) on the 1st of
February 2022.
In accordance with Annex 5 to the FIFA Regulations, LUFC is responsible for the
distribution of the FIFA solidarity contribution and LUFC shall withhold the FIFA solidarity
contribution of 5% from the instalments of the fixed Transfer Fee, or any other possible
fee due (see article 3, 4 and 6 of this Agreement) in order to distribute this amount to
the rightful clubs.
(…)”
4.
Clause 3 of the First Transfer Agreement stipulated:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19003
“3. In addition to the Transfer Fee as defined under article 2., LUFC shall pay to
Feyenoord the following bonuses related to certain results achieved by the Club:
- Retention Bonuses:
On each occasion that LUFC retains its position in the Premier League and the Player
has made 15 Premier League appearances of at least 45 minutes in the season of
retention, LUFC shall pay Feyenoord an amount of £150,000 (in words: one hundred
and fifty thousand British Pound);
- If LUFC retains its position in the Premier League and the Player was registered for
LUFC throughout the season of retention but has made less than 15 Premier League
appearances as aforementioned, LUFC shall pay Feyenoord £50,000 (in words: fifty
thousand British Pound).
- Promotion Bonus:
- Should LUFC be relegated from the Premier League, on each occasion that LUFC
achieves promotion back to the Premier League and the Player has made 15
Championship appearances for LUFC of at least 45 minutes in the season of promotion,
LUFC shall pay Feyenoord £150,000 (in words: one hundred and fifty thousand British
Pound);
- If LUFC achieves promotion to the Premier League in this sense and the Player was
registered for LUFC throughout the relevant season but has made less than 15
Championship appearances as aforementioned, LUFC shall pay Feyenoord £50,000 (in
words: fifty thousand British Pound).
- Positional Bonus:
On each occasion that LUFC finishes the season in the top 10 of the Premier League
table and the Player has made 15 Premier League appearances of at least 45 minutes
in the relevant season, LUFC shall pay Feyenoord £150,000 (in words: one hundred and
fifty thousand British Pound);
- On each occasion that LUFC finishes the season in the top 10 of the Premier League
table and the Player was registered for LUFC throughout this season but has made less
than 15 Premier League appearances, LUFC shall pay Feyenoord £50,000 (in words: fifty
thousand British Pound). For the avoidance of doubt, this bonus shall be payable in
addition to the abovementioned 'retention bonus'.
Payment of the bonuses mentioned in this article 3 shall be made upon receipt of a
corresponding invoice from Feyenoord by bank transfer within 14 days after the
particular result (retention, promotion, position) of LUFC in any season is clear and
final.”
5.
Clause 4 of the First Transfer Agreement established:
“4. Further to articles 2. and 3. LUFC shall be obliged to pay 'Appearance Bonuses' to
Feyenoord in the form that each time the Player has appeared on the pitch (regardless
of the time period he has appeared on the pitch) as a member of the first team of LUFC
in the Premier League or other Official Match for five (5) times, LUFC shall pay Feyenoord
an amount of £ 100,000,- (in words: one hundred thousand British Pound), up to a
maximum of fifty (50) matches (maximum £1,000,000).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19003
For the purposes of this article 4, an ‘Official Match’ shall mean any matches which LUFC
plays in the FA Cup, the EFL Cup (also known as: 'the League Cup') or in any UEFA
competition (including any qualifying rounds) whilst and provided that LUFC is in the
Premier League. No Appearance Bonus will be due for any match during the period in
which LUFC is not in the Premier League.
Payment of any appearance bonus due shall be made by LUFC to Feyenoord upon
receipt of a corresponding invoice from Feyenoord by bank transfer within 14 days after
the set number of 5 appearances in official matches by the Player as mentioned above
has been reached.”
6.
Clause 5 of the First Transfer Agreement set forth:
“5. The maximum amount on the bonuses referred to in article 3 and the Appearance
Bonuses referred to in article 4 combined payable by LUFC to Feyenoord shall be £
1.500.000,- (in words: one million five hundred thousand British Pound). Such sums
shall be inclusive of any Solidarity Contribution that may be payable.”
7.
Clause 6 of the First Transfer Agreement included the following:
“6. In addition to the above, Feyenoord remains entitled to a so-called 'sell on
percentage' of 30% (in words: thirty percent) in excess of the amounts paid to Feyenoord
by LUFC, or payable to Feyenoord pursuant to articles 2 till 4, In case of a future
permanent transfer of the (registration of the) Player, at any moment, from LUFC to a
third club (hereafter: the 'acquiring club’). This means that in case of such a future
permanent transfer of the Player, LUFC must pay Feyenoord an amount equal to 30%
of the total transfer fee (including contingent, additional, variable transfer fees,
amounts on sell on fees and / or bonuses) due by the acquiring club and payable to
LUFC in excess of the amounts paid to Feyenoord by LUFC, or payable to Feyenoord
pursuant to articles 2 till 4. The aforementioned amounts due because of the sell on
percentage of 30% are net, but including FIFA solidarity contribution, and shall be paid
by LUFC in full upon receipt of a corresponding invoice from Feyenoord within 14 days
after LUFC has received the total transfer fee from the acquiring club. Where the transfer
fee (or contingent, additional, variable transfer fees, amounts on sell on fee and / or
bonuses) is paid by the acquiring club in instalments, Feyenoord shall receive the
amounts of sell on percentage in proportion to the instalments received by LUFC. LUFC
shall inform Feyenoord on the details of the future transfer of the (registration of the)
Player meant in this article and shall upon request provide Feyenoord, subject to
confidentiality, with a statement certified by the LUFC's legal representative as
representing the amounts due to Feyenoord under that transfer in order for Feyenoord
to authenticate the exact amounts due to Feyenoord.”
8.
On 16 September 2020, the Player and the Club concluded a document titled “Premier
League Contract” (hereinafter: the 2020 Contract), valid as from the date of signature until
30 June 2023.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19003
9.
Clause 14.27 of Schedule 2 of the 2020 Contract provided as follows:
“14.27 In the event that the Player is transferred on a permanent basis from the Club,
the Player shall be entitled to receive £10 for every £100 of any total net profit received
by the Club (over and above the total sum paid by the Club to Feyenoord for the
permanent transfer of the Player). The sell on fee payable to the Player shall relate to
the guaranteed and unconditional headline transfer fee and not to any conditional
transfer payments that may become due and payable or any contingent fees. The
amount payable to the Player will be paid pro-rata in accordance with when the
instalments of the guaranteed transfer fee are received by the Club. Such payment may
be subject to PL Board approval under Rule U.36 (in the event of a subsequent transfer
to a PL Club) and a condition of the Board approving the payment may involve the Club
having to settle the payment falling due immediately, irrespective of whether or not the
Club are receiving the compensation fee in instalments.”
10. On 1 August 2022, the parties concluded a new employment contract (hereinafter: the 2022
Contract), valid until 30 June 2026.
11. Clause 14.28 of Schedule 2 of the 2022 Contract set forth:
“14.28 In the event that the Player is transferred on a permanent basis from the Club,
the Player shall be entitled to receive £15 for every £100 of the net fees received by the
Club in excess of the sums paid to Feyenoord for the original transfer of the Player (the
profit will be calculated by deducting the transfer fee and any contingent payments paid
to Feyenoord). This shall relate to the guaranteed and unconditional headline transfer
fee paid and not to any conditional transfer payments that may become due and
payable or any contingent fees or any non-cash consideration (including but not limited
to: (a) any agreement by Leeds to participate in a friendly match (or similar event) with
any other club; or (b) any agreement by another club to transfer or loan the registration
of one or more of its players to Leeds in exchange or otherwise as part of the transfer).
The amount payable to the Player will be paid pro-rata in accordance with when the
instalments of the guaranteed transfer fee are received by the Club. Such payment may
be subject to PL Board approval under Rule U.38 (in the event of a subsequent transfer
to a PL Club) and a condition of the Board approving the payment may involve the Club
having to settle the payment falling due immediately, irrespective of whether or not the
Club are receiving the compensation fee in instalments.”
12. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the 2022 Contract provided as follows:
“9. Disciplinary Procedure
Except in any case where the Club terminates the Player’s employment pursuant to the
provisions of clause 10 hereof (when the procedure set out therein shall apply) the Club
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19003
shall operate the disciplinary procedure set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 hereto in relation
to any breach or failure to observe the terms of this contract or of the Rules.
10. Termination by the Club
10.1. The Club shall be entitled to terminate the employment of the Player by fourteen
days’ notice in writing to the Player if the Player:
10.1.1. shall be guilty of Gross Misconduct;
10.1.2. shall fail to heed any final written warning given under the provisions of Part 1
of Schedule 1 hereto; or
10.1.3. is convicted of any criminal offence where the punishment consists of a sentence
of imprisonment of three months or more (which is not suspended).
10.2. If the Club terminates the Player’s employment for any reason under clause 10.1,
the Club shall within seven days thereafter notify the Player in writing of the full reasons
for the action taken.
10.3. The Player may by notice in writing served on the Club and the League at any time
from the date of termination up to fourteen days after receipt by the Player of written
notification under clause 10.2, give notice of appeal against the decision of the Club to
the League and such appeal shall be determined in accordance with the procedures
applicable pursuant to the League Rules.
10.4. If the Player exercises his right of appeal the termination of this contract by the
Club shall not become effective unless and until it shall have been determined that the
Club was entitled to terminate this contract pursuant to clause 10.1 but so that if it is
so determined then subject only to clause 10.5.3 the Player shall cease to be entitled to
any remuneration or benefits with effect from the expiration of the period of notice
referred to in clause 10.3 and any payment made by the Club in respect thereof shall
forthwith become due from the Player to the Club.
10.5. Pending the hearing and determination of such appeal the Club may suspend the
Player for up to a maximum of six weeks from the date of notice of termination and, if
the Board so determine, such suspension shall be without pay provided that:
10.5.1. the payment due to the Player in respect of the fourteen days’ notice period
under clause 10.1 is made to the Player forthwith;
10.5.2. pending the determination of the appeal an amount equal to the remuneration
which would otherwise have been due to the Player but for the suspension without pay
is paid to an escrow account held by the PFA as and when it would otherwise have
become due for payment to the Player and following the determination of the appeal
the PFA will either pay the money (including interest earned on the said account) to the
Player or return it to the Club according to the appeal decision;
10.5.3. all other benefits for the Player under the provisions of clauses 6.1.3 and 6.1.4
of this contract shall be maintained and remain in force while the appeal is pending;
and
10.5.4. during any such period of suspension the Club shall be under no obligation to
assign to the Player any playing training or other duties and shall be entitled to exclude
the Player from the Club’s premises including its ground and training ground.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19003
10.6 Upon any termination of this contract by the Club becoming operative, the Club
shall forthwith release the Player’s registration.
11. Termination by the Player
11.1. The Player shall be entitled to terminate this contract by fourteen days’ notice in
writing to the Club if the Club:
11.1.1. shall be guilty of serious or persistent breach of the terms and conditions of this
contract; or
11.1.2. fails to pay any remuneration or other payments or bonuses due to the Player
or make available any benefits due to him as it or they fall due or within fourteen days
thereafter and has still failed to make payment in full or make the benefits available by
the expiry of the said fourteen days’ notice.
11.2. The Club may, within fourteen days of receipt of any notice of termination of this
contract by the Player in accordance with clause 11.1 give written notice of appeal
against such termination to the Player and to the League which shall hear such appeal
in accordance with procedures applicable pursuant to the League Rules.
11.3. If the Club exercises its right of appeal pursuant to clause 11.2, the termination of
this contract shall not become operative unless and until it shall have been determined
that the Player was entitled to terminate this contract pursuant to clause 11.1.
11. 4. Upon any termination of this contract by the Player becoming operative the Club
shall forthwith release the Player’s registration.
12. Grievance Procedure
In the event that the Player has any grievance in connection with his employment under
this contract the grievance procedures set out in Part 2 of the Schedule 1 hereto shall
be available to the Player.”
13. Clause 17 of the 2022 Contract included the following:
“Arbitration
Any dispute between the Club and the Player not provided for in clauses 9, 10, 11,12
and Schedule 1 hereof shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the League
Rules or (but only if mutually agreed by the Club and the Player) in accordance with the
FA Rules.”
14. Clause 22 of the 2022 Contract set forth:
“22. Jurisdiction and Law
This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and
the parties submit to the non exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.”
15. On 1 August 2024, the Player, through his representative, sent a letter to the Club,
apparently in connection with a termination agreement that the parties were discussing.
The Player emphasised that, in relation to the sell-on clause stipulated in clause 14.28, only
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19003
the fixed transfer fee and contingent payments paid to Feyenoord should be taken into
account when calculating the Club’s net profit. The Player further argued that eventual sellon payments should not be considered, as they are not contingent payments, based on the
Premier League Handbook, the parties’ understanding, standard practice in transfer
agreements, and case law. In any event, the Player referred to the legal principle contra
proferentem and stated that the Club should have expressly included that sell-on fees were
to be considered when calculating profit.
16. Also on 1 August 2024, the Club replied to the letter, expressing its disagreement with the
Player’s interpretation of clause 14.28. The Club stated that the sell-on entitlement is
calculated by reference to the profit made on the onward transfer, which is after the sellon due has been deducted. The Club further alleged that, as the Player refused to enter
into the settlement agreement, the Club would proceed to complete the transfer without
it, and affirmed that it would pay the first instalment of the sum it considers due in
accordance with clause 14.28 of the 2022 Contract, once the Club received the first
instalment of the transfer fee.
17. On 2 August 2024, the Club and the British club West Ham United (hereinafter: West Ham)
concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the Second Transfer Agreement), pursuant to
which the Player’s registration was permanently transferred from the Club to West Ham.
18. Clause 2 of the Second Transfer Agreement provided as follows:
“2. Transfer Fee
2.1. [West Ham] shall pay to LUFC, subject to the satisfaction (or waiver in writing by
[West Ham]) of the Registration Condition, a net transfer fee equal to £20,000,000
(twenty million British Pounds) (the ’Transfer Fee‘) plus VAT in the following instalments:
a. £4,000,000 (four million British Pounds), being the total VAT payable on the Transfer
Fee, within 30 (thirty) days of registration of the Player in accordance with Premier
League Rules;
b. £10,000,000 (ten million British Pounds) on 29 January 2025; and
c.£10,000,000 (ten million British Pounds) on 29 July 2025.
2.2. if the Player’s registration shall be further transferred by [West Ham] on a
permanent basis prior to the payment of the Transfer Fee in full then [West Ham] shall
notify LUFC in writing and any outstanding instalments of the Transfer Fee shall become
due and shall be paid by [West Ham] to LUFC subject to and in accordance with EFL
Regulations or Premier League rules (as applicable) or (if there is no relevant rule in
place at the date of the relevant transfer) within 14 days of the date on which the Player
ceases to be registered with [West Ham] on a permanent basis.
2.3. If [West Ham] does not pay any sums due under this Agreement in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement, LUFC shall issue a written notice to [West Ham] in respect
of such late payment (a ’Late Payment Notice‘). If such sum(s) remain outstanding 10
days following the receipt of such Late Payment Notice, then all such late payments
thereafter shall bear interest at the rate of 5% per annum which shall accrue from the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19003
due date for payment until the date of actual payment (both dates inclusive) by [West
Ham].”
19. Clause 3 of the Second Transfer Agreement established:
“3. Solidarity and Other Contributions
3.1. [West Ham] acknowledges and agrees that there shall be no deductions made to
any of the sums payable by [West Ham] to LUFC hereunder in respect of Solidarity
payable to the Player’s former clubs under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (the ‘FIFA RSTP’) and [West Ham] shall be responsible for the payment
of any Solidarity which may be due to the Player’s former clubs (excluding LUFC), with
any such payments to be made by [West Ham] in accordance with any applicable
payment procedures set out in the FIFA RSTP and the FIFA Clearing House Regulations
(in force from time to time) in addition to the payments due to LUFC under this
Agreement.
3.2. LUFC hereby waives any and all rights to receive any of the following sums in
addition to the Transfer Fee payable to it hereunder: (i) any Training Compensation
under Article 20 and Annex 4 of the FIFA RSTP; (ii) any Solidarity under Article 21 and
Annex 5 of the FIFA RSTP; and/or (iii) any other training rewards under the rules of the
FA, the Premier League, the EFL and/or any other rules applicable to the transfer of the
Player's registration in respect of the Transfer contemplated by this Agreement. [West
Ham] shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this clause as a valid waiver for the
purposes of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations or otherwise and, if required, LUFC
shall promptly enter into such separate documentation as reasonably requested by
[West Ham] to give effect to the provisions of this clause.
3.3. [West Ham] shall be solely responsible for the payment of any transfer levies to the
Premier League which fall due as a result of, or in connection with, the Transfer
contemplated by this Agreement.”
20. Clause 4 of the Second Transfer Agreement stipulated:
“4. General Financial Terms
4.1. All amounts payable to LUFC under this Agreement are expressed as exclusive of
value added tax or any other applicable sales tax which shall also (if applicable) be paid
by [West Ham].
4.2. For the avoidance of doubt, all value added tax and any other applicable sales tax
on all instalments of the Transfer Fee which are not contingent or conditional payments,
shall be payable in accordance with applicable laws (which may require [West Ham] to
pay all taxes on the full amount of the Transfer Fee at the time the first instalment of
the Transfer Fee is due).
4.3. Any payment which falls due to LUFC hereunder shall be paid, via the Premier
League Compensation Fee Account, subject to the receipt by [West Ham] of an
appropriate invoice from LUFC to be sent to [West Ham] addressee set out in clause 7.2
(or such other addressee as notified in writing to LUFC from time to time). (…)”
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19003
21. On 3 August 2024, the Player, through his representative, replied to the Club’s letter of 1
August 2024, stating that he could not accept the Club’s position regarding the
interpretation of clause 14.28 of the 2022 Contract and how it was reflected in the
settlement agreement. Therefore, the Player agreed that the settlement be abandoned, as
his entitlements were protected under the 2022 Contract. Lastly, the Player reserved his
rights to commence Rule K arbitration proceedings.
22. On 15 August 2024, the Club replied to the Player, stating that clause 14.28 should be
interpreted in accordance with English law. In this regard, the Club argued that, for the
purpose of calculating the Player’s payments and the Club’s net profit on the onward sale
of the Player, the Club was entitled to deduct the sell-on payments it was obliged to pay to
Feyenoord pursuant to the First Transfer Agreement. The Club referred to clause 14.27 of
the 2020 Contract, which provided that the Player was entitled to receive a percentage of
any total net profit received by the Club, and explained that this was modified by clause
14.28 of the 2022 Contract, confirming that the intention of the parties was that all sums
the Club was obliged to pay to Feyenoord were to be taken into account. The Club further
supported its position based on the wording of the clause and referred to the
jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), while arguing that the Player did
not attempt to exclude the sell-on payments from the clause. Lastly, the Club invited the
Player to reconsider his position and reserved its rights.
23. On 13 February 2025, the Player, through his representative, requested a payslip or a
statement regarding the gross sell-on amount that he had received from the Club.
24. Also on 13 February 2025, the Club replied, stating that GBP 502,479.98 had been paid in
advance of 53% of the gross value of GBP 948,075.45. The Club further alleged that the
total amount would be processed as a gross payment in the February payroll and that the
Club would deduct the GBP 502,479.98 as an advance. The Club stated that the Player
would be able to view the payslip at the end of February.
25. On 10 March 2025, the Player, through his representatives, placed the Club in default and
requested payment of GBP 406,318.05 within 10 days. The Player alleged that his
entitlement based on the sell-on clause included in the 2022 Contract was GBP 2,708,787
gross, and that on 29 January 2025, the first of two equal instalments of the transfer fee
was due from West Ham to the Club, making him entitled to GBP 1,354,393.50. The Player
asserted that he had received GBP 502,479.98 on 28 January 2025 and GBP 982.47 on 28
February 2025, which he understood was based on a gross sum of GBP 948,075.45. Thus,
the Player argued that this leaves a shortfall of GBP 406,318.05 gross and stated that, in
the absence of payment, he would initiate a claim before FIFA.
26. On 19 March 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter. The Club first argued that FIFA
would not have jurisdiction to resolve any disputes between the parties, as the parties had
explicitly opted in writing for any dispute to be decided by a National Dispute Resolution
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19003
Chamber (NDRC) established within English professional football, which had been
recognised by FIFA on 1 January 2025. The Club stated that, in any event, art. 12bis of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (hereinafter: the Regulations) could not
apply as there is a genuine dispute as to the proper interpretation of the sell-on clause.
Lastly, the Club referred to the letter sent on 15 August 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
27. On 23 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
28. The Player argued that the parties concluded the 2020 Contract, which included a sell-on
clause in favour of the Player in case he was transferred to another club. The Player also
alleged that the parties subsequently concluded the 2022 Contract, under which they
deliberately changed the wording of the sell-on clause. In this context, the Player explained
that he was transferred on 3 August 2024 to West Ham for a transfer fee of GBP 20,000,000.
29. According to the Player, he became contractually entitled to 15% of the net fees received
by the Club arising from this sell-on clause. The Player stated that on 29 January 2025 the
Club received the first instalment, and, under the proper interpretation of the sell-on
clause, he was entitled to be paid GBP 1,354,393.50 gross, representing 50% of his
entitlement. However, the Player stated that the Club paid him GBP 948,075.45 in total, or
GBP 503,462.45 net.
30. The Player alleged that, despite his notice of default, the Club refused his request based on
(i) the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) lacked jurisdiction and (ii) a
prima facie dispute existed, and therefore art. 12bis of the Regulations does not apply.
31. Regarding jurisdiction, the Player first argued that the parties have not explicitly opted in
writing for disputes to be decided by an NDRC, for the simple reason that arbitration under
the English Football League (EFL) Regulations has not been recognised as an NDRC by FIFA
and that the Player Related Dispute Commission was not an arbitration under the EFL
Regulations. The Player alleged that only the English Football NDRC had been recognised
by FIFA and, in any event, clause 17 of the 2022 Contract was not clear, specific, and
exclusive.
32. The Player contended that the 2022 Contract was internally contradictory and confusing,
as it referred to arbitration under various potential English football rules (clause 17), then
the parties expressly agreed to submit to national courts (clause 22), and then there was
an agreement to adhere to FIFA Regulations. Furthermore, the Player maintained that the
2022 Contract was not specific, as clause 17 refers to arbitration in accordance with
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19003
“League Rules”. The Player stated that arbitration could be under the Premier League Rules
or the EFL Rules and that clause 17 leaves open the possibility of arbitration under four
separate jurisdictions. The Player also remarked that the 2022 Contract was standardised
and did not reflect the actual intention of the parties.
33. Lastly, the Player insisted that the 2022 Contract did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on a
national arbitration body.
34. Regarding the merits, the Player alleged that the sell-on clause was subject to the condition
of the Player being transferred to another club, which occurred on 3 August 2024 when he
was transferred to West Ham. The Player also mentioned that the percentage of the sellon fee is clear: 15%, which was increased from the 10% provided in the 2020 Contract. The
Player highlighted that the dispute between the parties concerns the sum against which
the 15% is to be calculated, more particularly the meaning of “net fees received by the
Club”. In summary, the Player contended that the DRC must determine whether the Club
is entitled to deduct sell-on payments made to Feyenoord.
35. In this context, the Player affirmed that the DRC must interpret whether the disputed sellon payments are contingent payments or not, assessing the common intent of the parties.
According to the Player, the parties’ real and common intention was that the sell-on
payments were not to be taken into account as contingent payments in the calculation of
net fees.
36. In this regard, the Player argued that the parties removed the reference to “the total sum
paid by the Club to Feyenoord”, which appeared in clause 14.27 of Schedule 2 of the 2020
Contract. For the Player, this can only mean that not all payments due from the Club to
Feyenoord were to be deducted under the new sell-on clause because, otherwise, there
would be no need to remove the wording “total sum”. The Player stated that the real and
common intention of the parties shall prevail over the inexact manner of expression or the
literal meaning of “contingent payment”.
37. Based on this, the Player affirmed that he is entitled to 15% of the net fees received by the
Club excluding sell-on payments due to Feyenoord. Hence, the Player alleged that upon
receipt of the first instalment, the Club was obliged to pay him GBP 1,354,393.50 gross.
38. The Player asserted that under English law, the same interpretation would prevail and
further argued that the Premier League Handbook 2022-23 (hereinafter: the Premier League
Handbook) deals separately with contingent sums and sell-on fee.
39. Lastly, the Player remarked that there is no prima facie contractual basis for this dispute
and that the Club is a repeat offender.
40. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19003
“66. For the reasons above, the Claimant invites the DRC to issue a decision that:
1. The Respondent must pay the Claimant the overdue payable in the sum of GBP
408,318.05 gross into the bank account registered in the name of the Claimant
pursuant to Article 18, para. 1 e) of the Procedural Rules as set out in the Bank Account
Registration Form at Exhibit 22;
2. The Respondent must pay the Claimant interest on the said overdue payable in the
sum of 5% pa from 29 January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
3. The Respondent shall be sanctioned in accordance with Article 12bis, paras. 2 and 4
of the RSTP by way of a: (i) warning; (i) reprimand; (ii) fine; or (iv) a ban from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, for one or two entire and
consecutive registration periods. Given the Respondent is a repeated offender6 (see
paragraphs 63.1-63.2 supra), the DRC is invited to sanction the Respondent with either
a fine or a registration ban;
4. The Respondent shall be warned of the consequences of non-payment of the relevant
amount in the decision within 45 days of notification of the decision to the Parties in
accordance with Article 24, paras. 1, 2, 4 and 7 of the RSTP, namely a ban shall become
immediately effective on the Respondent from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods; and
5. No procedural costs shall be imposed on the parties in accordance with Article 25,
paras. 1 and 8 of the Procedural Rules.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
41. In its reply, the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction, arguing that the three conditions
required for FIFA to cede its jurisdiction were met.
42. First, the Club stated that there was a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter: CBA)
applicable to the parties containing a clear, written, and exclusive jurisdiction clause,
specifying that any potential dispute is to be decided by the NDRC. The Club alleged that
the English Football NDRC (hereinafter: the English NDRC) had been officially recognised by
FIFA as a result of the submission made by the FA on 31 May 2024, and asserted that a CBA
applicable to the parties exists, as recorded in the FA submission, implying that the parties
have opted to have employment-related disputes of an international dimension
determined by the English NDRC.
43. Then, the Club contended that the second condition was also met, as the English NDRC was
recognised by FIFA, as well as the third, being that a challenge to FIFA’s jurisdiction must be
raised during the proceedings. Therefore, the Club stated that the DRC must cede its
jurisdiction in favour of the English NDRC, specifically the Player Related Dispute
Committee.
44. Notwithstanding the above, and in the event the DRC was deemed competent, the Club
alleged that English law shall apply rather than Swiss law.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19003
45. Regarding the merits, the Club first contended that the First Transfer Agreement included
(i) a guaranteed transfer fee of GBP 1,000,000, which was to include the solidarity payments
that would have to be paid to the Player’s training clubs; (ii) payments relating to the Club’s
performance up to GBP 1,500,000; and (iii) a significant sell-on entitlement of 30% of any
profit the Club made on any onward sale of the Player in the future. The Club also stated
that Feyenoord only agreed to accept a guaranteed transfer fee of GBP 1,000,000 because
it would receive the valuable contingent payments and provided a witness statement from
the Club’s sporting director.
46. Moreover, the Club alleged that it was undisputed that the 2020 Contract included a sellon clause and that this sell-on clause allowed the Club to deduct (i) the guaranteed transfer
fee paid to Feyenoord, (ii) any contingent payments, and (iii) any sell-on. The Club stated
that from March 2022 to August 2022, the Club and the Player, who was duly represented,
negotiated the terms of the 2022 Contract and revisited certain terms of the sell-on clause.
The Club remarked that the percentage was increased to 15% and it was stipulated that
any payment would be paid pro-rata when the Club received such payments.
47. The Club then acknowledged that the Player was transferred to West Ham and that he
became entitled to a sell-on fee. However, it remarked that a dispute arose regarding the
interpretation of the sell-on clause included in the 2022 Contract, specifically regarding the
deduction of the sell-on fee that must be paid to Feyenoord. According to the Club, the
Player was entitled to GBP 1,896,150.90 gross and GBP 1,186,924.90 net, of which the first
instalment of GBP 593,462.45 was paid in January and February 2025, and the remaining
amount would be paid in July/August 2025.
48. The Club agreed with the Player that the DRC must interpret the meaning of the words “net
fees received/profit” and whether the Club was entitled to deduct the sell-on fee to be paid
to Feyenoord. In the Club’s opinion, the meaning of the clause was clear, in the sense that
the net fees received by the Club in excess of the sums paid to Feyenoord for the original
transfer of the Player and the Club’s profit could only mean the net profit that the Club
would receive after taking into account the sums paid for the original transfer and any
contingent payment paid to Feyenoord, referring to clauses 3, 4, and 6 of the First Transfer
Agreement.
49. The Club argued that the removal of the words “total sum paid by the Club to Feyenoord”
did not confirm that the parties agreed that the sell-on fee paid to Feyenoord would no
longer be deducted when calculating the “net fees received/profit”, and the term “net fees”
could only mean the profit that the Club would make after considering all sums to be paid
to Feyenoord. The Club stated that the meaning would remain the same even if the words
in parenthesis had been included in the 2022 Contract.
50. The Club maintained that the clauses included in the 2020 Contract and 2022 Contract had
the same meaning but are expressed differently, based on the standard practice that the
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19003
Club was following in 2022, as confirmed by the witness statement of Ms. Cox. In addition,
the Club alleged that the Player failed to explain why the Club would have agreed to no
longer have the right to deduct the sell-on to be paid to Feyenoord. The Club stated that
the Player cannot rely on the term “paid” to argue that the sell-on fee was not considered
to be deducted, as this payment to Feyenoord would have been paid as at the date the
Player’s entitlement under the sell-on clause arises.
51. Moreover, the Club argued that the Player failed to provide documentary or factual
evidence of the negotiations between the parties to support his position. Nevertheless,
once the evidence of the negotiations was assessed, it confirmed that the Club considered
the sell-on to be paid to Feyenoord as part of the contingent payments and that, rather
than limiting this scope, the Club sought to widen the scope of the outgoing
payments/expenses, which was ultimately rejected by the Player’s advisers, who did not
seek to limit the scope of the broad wording “any contingent fees”.
52. The Club also asserted that the definition of “contingent sum” in the Premier League
Handbook was consistent with the normal meaning of those words. In any event, the Club
maintained that art. 12bis of the Regulations was not applicable, but if it were, this was not
a case where the imposition of sporting sanctions was appropriate.
53. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“36. For the reasons set out above, the Respondent requests the DRC to issue a decision
that dismisses the Claim in its entirety.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
54. In his replica, the Player disputed the Club’s allegation that specifically the Premier League
Player Related Dispute Committee had jurisdiction over the dispute, as the claim was
lodged on 15 May 2025, when the Club was not a member of the Premier League and was
not subject to its jurisdiction. In any event, the Player stated that the Club failed to address
the confusing nature of the arbitration clause in the 2022 Contract and failed to refer to a
clear, written, and exclusive arbitration clause, as well as failed to address the fact that an
arbitration under the EFL Regulations was not recognised by FIFA as part of the English
NDRC. The Player remarked that the Club merely referred to the NDRC Recognition
Principles and a letter from the FA to FIFA. Thus, the Player argued that there was no clear,
specific, and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the 2022 Contract opting out of the DRC’s
competence and insisted on FIFA’s jurisdiction.
55. Regarding the applicable law, the Player maintained that the case must be decided based
on FIFA Regulations and, as necessary, Swiss law on a subsidiary basis.
56. Regarding the merits, the Player asserted that the meaning of the sell-on clause was not
clear on a literal reading, as the parties deliberately set out in parenthesis how net fees
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19003
were to be calculated, without stating that the Club would deduct the total sum paid by the
Club to Feyenoord - a wording that had been removed from the 2020 Contract. According
to the Player, the Club’s interpretation was wrong, as the clause could not still have the
same meaning since the parties removed reference to the “total sum”. In this regard, the
Player maintained that the only explanation for this was that only the transfer fee and the
contingent bonus payments were intended to be deducted.
57. The Player further argued that not only was the percentage modified in the 2022 Contract,
but also its scope was narrowed by removing reference to the “total sum”, as stated by the
witness Leegreg Fer (hereinafter: Mr. Fer).
58. The Player alleged that, taking into account the context and circumstances at the date of
the 2022 Contract, the meaning of contingency payments did not include the sell-on fee to
be paid to Feyenoord, as, based on the evidence provided by the Club, Mr. Orta instructed
Ms. Cox to change the sell-on included in the 2020 Contract by amending the percentage
to 15%, including “bonus Feyenoord” and the Claimant’s salary, which was later dropped.
In this sense, the Player alleged that “Bonus Feyenoord” was and could only be referable to
the contingency bonus payment, not the sell-on entitlement in the 2020 Contract. The
Player stated that the persons who negotiated the 2022 Contract knew that the only
reference to bonus was to contingency bonus payments.
59. The Player also contended that the sell-on clause was amended specifically to improve the
financial terms for the Player and to incentivise him. In any event, the Player alleged that
the witness statements from Mr. Orta and Ms. Cox should bear no probative value as they
had a personal interest and that the principle in dubio contra proferentem should be
respected.
60. Lastly, the Player maintained his requests for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
61. In its duplica, the Club stated that the relevant jurisdiction clause does not necessarily need
to be included in the contract but can also be included in a CBA, based on the Regulations
and the Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Thus, the
Club alleged that there was no basis to suggest that the parties, via the CBA recorded in
the FA submission and recognised by the DRC, have not explicitly opted in writing for this
dispute to be determined by the English NDRC.
62. Moreover, the Club contended that the events which took place after the signing of the
2022 Contract are not irrelevant, as the new wording of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations applied to all claims lodged after 1 January 2025. The Club affirmed that if the
Player’s submission was accepted - that only the state of affairs at the time the relevant
employment contract was signed must be considered - it would allow players with
employment contracts signed before 1 January 2025 to have employment-related disputes
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19003
determined before the DRC, while other players would have identical disputes before the
English NDRC, which would be contrary to the statement in the NDRC Explanatory Notes
issued by FIFA in January 2024.
63. Regarding the merits, the Club remarked that the Player has been unable to advance or
adduce any contemporaneous evidence showing that the Club agreed to narrow the scope
of the 2022 sell-on clause. In addition, the Club argued that the textual differences between
the 2020 Contract and the 2022 Contract did not reflect the negotiations of the parties or
an alleged demand from Mr. Fer that the scope of the sell-on clause in the 2022 Contract
be narrowed. On the contrary, the change was due to a standard modification in the Club’s
contracts. As evidence of this, the Club provided several contracts with different players.
64. The Club stated that, in any event, the Player’s alleged superior bargaining position was
reflected by the increase in the percentage and his salary. Regarding the witness statement,
the Club argued that, based on the same logic used by the Player, Mr. Fer’s statement would
bear no probative value and, since Mr. Orta is no longer employed by the Club, his evidence
should have the most probative force.
65. Based on the above, the Club requested that the claim be dismissed.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
66. First of all, the DRC (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber) 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 23 April 2025 and submitted for decision on 12 February
2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
67. 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 (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Dutch player and a British club.
68. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Club challenged the
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter, arguing that the English NDRC has
jurisdiction to decide on this matter. In this regard, the Club contended that there is a CBA
applicable to the parties containing a clear, written, and exclusive jurisdiction clause,
specifying that any potential dispute was to be decided through the national decision-
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19003
making bodies. In addition, the Club stated that the English NDRC has been recognised by
FIFA.
69. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Player argued that FIFA has jurisdiction to decide
on this matter, as there was no clear, specific, and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the 2022
Contract opting out of the DRC’s competence. In fact, the Player alleged that the 2022
Contract included several confusing and contradictory jurisdiction clauses and therefore
there was neither a clear nor a specific clause. In any event, the Player asserted that the
Premier League Player Related Dispute Commission was not the competent tribunal at the
time he lodged the claim, as the Club was not part of the Premier League, and that
arbitration under the EFL Regulations was not recognised by FIFA as part of the English
NDRC.
70. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to art. 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, the Football Tribunal has default jurisdiction over employment-related
disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension unless the parties
decide to opt out FIFA’s jurisdiction in favour of (i) civil courts; and/or (ii) a NDRC that has
been officially recognised by FIFA. This choice of forum can be added to the specific
contract and/or to a validly negotiated CBA.
71. The Chamber found furthermore noteworthy that “the FT reviews jurisdiction clauses on a
case-by-case basis and only when one of the parties challenges the competence of the FT,
invoking the relevant clause” (cf., Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players, 2023 edition, p. 446-7).
72. Based on the above, the Chamber therefore proceeded to analyse whether the parties had
validly opted out FIFA’s jurisdiction.
73. In this respect, the Chamber first turned to the analysis of the 2022 Contract and recalled
that it contained the following provisions:
“17. Arbitration
Any dispute between the Club and the Player not provided for in clauses 9, 10, 11,12
and Schedule 1 hereof shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the League
Rules or (but only if mutually agreed by the Club and the Player) in accordance with the
FA Rules.
[…]
“22. Jurisdiction and Law
This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and
the parties submit to the non exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.”
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-19003
74. From the outset, while the Chamber concurred with the Player’s argument that the 2022
Contract contained references to both Arbitration and the English civil courts, it also
pointed out that (i) NDRCs’ competence to hear employment-related matters is generally
without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek redress before a civil courts; and
(ii) in any event, the 2022 Contract was sufficiently clear to establish that the intention of
the parties was to refer its disputes to the national bodies, which is all the more supported
by the collectively bargained regulations.
75. In this context, the Chamber‘s conclusions regarding its (lack of) jurisdiction were the
following.
76. First, the Chamber noted that the 2022 Contract established that disputes between the
parties should be referred to arbitration in accordance with “the League Rules” and, only if
there was a specific agreement between the parties, in accordance with “the FA Rules”.
Hence, the Chamber considered that, in the absence of any such agreement, the intention
set out in this contract was to refer disputes to arbitration in accordance with “the League
Rules”.
77. Second, the Chamber pointed out from the FA’s submission to FIFA for the recognition of
the English NDRC - also submitted by the Club to this case - that both the Premier League
Rules and the EFL Regulations refer player club disputes to the Player Related Dispute
Commission. The Chamber further observed that this jurisdictional framework was
endorsed by the relevant English football stakeholders, including the players’ national
association, which was also confirmed to FIFA during the NDRC recognition process.
78. Third, the Chamber considered that the 2022 Contract was drafted in the standard
federative contract template, which was also collectively negotiated by the relevant
stakeholders within English football. In this respect, and in the absence of any contradictory
proof, the Chamber was convinced that the stakeholders’ interests – again, including the
players’ association – was duly reflected and, particularly, that there were a common
intention and explicit agreement to refer all disputes to the English NDRC (irrespective of
the specific chamber / commission), as set out in both the Premier League and the EFL
Regulations.
79. Fourth, while the Player argued that the Premier League Player Related Dispute
Commission was not the competent dispute resolution mechanism to entertain this
dispute, as the Club was not participating in the Premier League, and that arbitration under
the EFL Regulations was not recognised by FIFA as part of the English NDRC, the Chamber
again stressed that, as stated in the submission made by the FA for the recognition of the
English NDRC and in the EFL Regulations provided by the Player, any dispute arising out of
either an English Football League Playing Contract or a Premier League Playing Contract –
which was the type of contract concluded by the parties – was referred to the Player Related
Dispute Commission.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-19003
80. The Chamber found also noteworthy that in the decision of the DRC passed on 19
November 2024, through which the English NDRC was recognised, the following bodies
were mentioned: the Player Related Dispute Commission, the Managers’ Arbitration
Tribunal and FA Rule K Arbitration. Hence, the Chamber emphasised that the Player
Related Dispute Commission, which entertains disputes between players and clubs from
both Premier League and EFL contracts, was indeed recognised by FIFA.
81. In this context, and while taking all above considerations together, the Chamber
interpreted that the intention of the parties with the 2022 Contract was ultimately to refer
disputes to the English NDRC – as agreed between all English football stakeholders.
Moreover, the Chamber also pointed out that in one of his first correspondences, the
Player reserved his rights to initiate proceedings before the English NDRC, which aligned
with this interpretation.
82. Consequently, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the
systematic analysis of the 2022 Contract, the Chamber was sufficiently satisfied that the
parties had agreed not to submit any dispute to FIFA but rather to the national bodies,
namely the English NDRC. In other words, and irrespective of the different layers of analysis
undertaken, the Chamber was comfortable in concluding that the parties had validly opted
out of international jurisdiction and that such choice of forum must be respected.
83. In light of all the above, the Chamber decided that the Football Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Player.
b. Costs
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-19003
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Crysencio
Jilbert Sylverio Cirro Summerville.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-19003
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. 23