Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19162
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Hadi Idrissou
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Hadi Idrissou, Togo
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
DHJ (DIFAA HASSANI EL JADIDI), Morocco
Represented by Abderrahim Aslaoui
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19162
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 August 2023, the Togolese player, Hadi Idrissou (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Moroccan club, DHJ (DIFAA HASSANI EL JADIDI) (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from its date of signature until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of
MAD 12,000 for the 2023/24 season, MAD 15,000 for the 2024/25 season and MAD 20,000
for the 2025/26 season.
3.
In addition, the Club undertook to pay the Player a sign-on fee of MAD 200,000, payable as
follows:
-
4.
MAD 70,000 on 30 August 2023;
MAD 70,000 on 30 December 2023; and
MAD 60,000 on 30 April 2024.
Clause 7 of the Contract provided for the following bonus payable in the event of the Club’s
promotion to the Moroccan First Division (hereinafter: the Promotion Bonus), quoted
verbatim:
“d) Article 7: PRIMES D’OBJECTIFS
Le club et le joueur ont convenu des primes d’objectifs comme suit:
Pour la saison sportive 2023/2024, en cas de montée en 1ère division le joueur
percevra une prime de montée de 100 000 MAD (cent mille dirhams).
[…]”
Freely translated into English as:
“d) Article 7: PERFORMANCE BONUSES
The club and the player have agreed on the following performance bonuses:
For the 2023/2024 sports season, in the event of promotion to the 1st division, the
player will receive a promotion bonus of 100,000 MAD (one hundred thousand
dirhams).
[…]”
5.
Clause 9 of the Contract provided the following (quoted verbatim):
“Le club employeur est tenu au strict respect des dispositions légales et
réglementaires en vigueur. Il doit notamment :
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19162
-
Déclarer le sportif à l’administration fiscale
Retenir l’impôt sur le revenu sur les salaires et les primes et le verser à
l’administration fiscale
Déclarer toute rémunération versée à l’intermédiaire intervenant dans la
conclusion du présent contrat (le cas échéant) ;
Souscrire au profit du joueur une police d’assurance couvrant les accidents qui
peuvent survenir pendant les séances d’entraînement ou les compétitions
amicales ou officielles.
[…]”
Freely translated into English as:
The employing club is required to strictly comply with the legal and regulatory
provisions in force. In particular, it must:
-
Declare the player to the tax authorities;
Withhold income tax on salaries and bonuses and pay it to the tax
authorities;
Declare any remuneration paid to the intermediary involved in the conclusion
of this contract (where applicable);
Take out, for the benefit of the player, an insurance policy covering accidents
that may occur during training sessions and friendly or official competitions;
[…]”
(emphasis added)
6.
Clause 20 of the Contract read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“En cas de contestation et/ou de litige né de l'exécution et/ou de l'interprétation
des clauses du présent contrat, les parties sont tenues de recourir à tous les
moyens et procédures en vue d'un règlement amiable du litige.
En cas d'échec, le différend est soumis par l'une ou l'autre partie, à la chambre de
résolution des litiges de la Fédération Marocaine de Football. Les décisions de la
chambre de résolutions des litiges de la FRMF sont susceptibles de recours
conformément aux dispositions des statuts et règlements de la FRMF”
Freely translated into English as:
“In the event of a dispute and/or conflict arising from the execution and/or
interpretation of the clauses of this contract, the parties are required to resort to
all means and procedures with a view to reaching an amicable settlement of the
dispute.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19162
If such attempts fail, the dispute shall be submitted by either party to the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Moroccan Football Federation. The decisions of the
FRMF Dispute Resolution Chamber may be appealed in accordance with the
provisions of the FRMF statutes and regulations.”
7.
At the end of the 2023/24 season, the Club was promoted to the Moroccan first division.
8.
On 14 November 2024, the Player placed the Club on default, requesting the payment of
MAD 225,000 corresponding to: (i) MAD 60,000 as the sign-on fee instalment due on 30
April 2024; (ii) MAD 100,000 corresponding to the Promotion Bonus due on 30 June 2024;
(iii) MAD 15,000 corresponding to the salary for October 2024; and (iv) MAD 50,000
corresponding to match bonuses. The Player granted the Club 15 days to remedy the
default.
9.
On 28 November 2024, the Club imposed a fine on the Player in the amount of MAD
130,000 on account of his unjustified absences between 22 and 29 July 2024.
10. On 29 November 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice dated 14 November
2024, providing a breakdown of the amounts allegedly paid and asserting that the fine of
MAD 130,000 had been imposed due to his unjustified absences. The Club further asserted
that, after applying the corresponding set-off, the Player remained liable to pay MAD
37,374 to the Club. The Club granted the Player 15 days to settle said amount.
11. On 2 December 2024, the Player terminated the Contract invoking just cause.
12. On 1 August 2025, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Albanian club
Bylis, valid for three sporting seasons, namely, until 31 May 2027, pursuant to which he
was entitled to a monthly remuneration of USD 1,000.
13. On 9 January 2026, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Indian club
Sreenidi Deccan Football Club, valid as from 10 January 2026 until 31 May 2026, pursuant
to which he was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 15,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 7 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
15. In his claim, the Player submitted that, notwithstanding clause 20 of the Contract conferring
jurisdiction upon the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Royal Moroccan Football
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19162
Federation (hereinafter: the FRMF NDRC), the Football Tribunal is competent to hear the
present dispute, on the grounds that the FRMF NDRC is not recognised by FIFA.
16. The Player further argued that the Club had failed to fulfil its financial obligations and that
he had just cause to terminate the Contract.
17. As at the date of default notice, the Player submitted that the Club had failed to pay a total
amount of MAD 225,000, corresponding to: (i) MAD 60,000 as the sign-on fee instalment
due on 30 April 2024; (ii) MAD 100,000 corresponding to the Promotion Bonus due on 30
June 2024; (iii) MAD 15,000 as the October 2024 salary; and (iv) MAD 50,000 corresponding
to match bonuses.
18. As at the date of the claim, the Player submitted that the outstanding amounts totalled
MAD 190,000, corresponding to: (i) MAD 60,000 corresponding to a sign-on fee instalment
due on 30 April 2024; (ii) MAD 100,000 corresponding to the Promotion Bonus due on 30
June 2024; (iii) MAD 15,000 corresponding to the October 2024 salary; and (iv) MAD 15,000
corresponding to the November 2024 salary.
19. In addition, the Player alleged that he is entitled to be compensated in the amount of MAD
945,000, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract.
20. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“In view of the above, the Player hereby submits the following requests for relief to
the attention of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST – To accept and uphold the present Claim;
SECOND – To confirm that the Player terminated the Employment Contract with
just cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of MAD 15,000
(fifteen thousand Moroccan Dirhams) as outstanding salary for the month of
October 2024, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent)
annually as from 1 November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of MAD 15,000
(fifteen thousand Moroccan Dirhams) as outstanding salary for the month of
November 2024, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent)
annually as from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of MAD 100,000
(one hundred thousand Moroccan dirhams) as outstanding Promotion Bonus, plus
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19162
default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 1 July
2024 until the date of effective payment;
SIXTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of MAD 60,000
(sixty thousand Moroccan Dirhams) as the third instalment of the signing-on fee,
plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 1
May 2024 until the date of effective payment;
SEVENTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount MAD 945,000
(nine hundred and forty-five thousand Moroccan Dirhams) as compensation for
the unilateral termination of the Employment Contract with just cause, plus default
interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 3 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
EIGHTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the
Club immediately (cf. Art. 21, par. 1 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); and
NINTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of costs.”
b. Reply of the Club
21. In its reply, the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction to hear the present dispute in favour of
the FRMF NDRC and asserted that the Moroccan Law governed the employment
relationship between the parties.
22. The Club further submitted that the Player had misrepresented the terms of the Contract
by presenting the agreed remuneration as “net”, whereas the Contract expressly referred
to a “monthly gross salary”. In this respect, the Club alleged that all contractual amounts
were subject to mandatory deductions under Moroccan Law.
23. In this regard, the Club provided a reconciliation of the amounts claimed by the Player,
according to which:
-
the Player had received a sign-on fee in the net amount of MAD 128,000
instead of MAD 126,033, resulting in an overpayment of MAD 1,967;
-
in respect of the 2023/24 season, the Player had received a net salary in the
amount of MAD 135,000 instead of MAD 109,868, resulting in an alleged
overpayment of MAD 25,132;
-
in respect of the 2024/25 season, four monthly salaries allegedly remained to
be regularised in the net amount of MAD 47,692;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19162
-
a promotion bonus in the net amount of MAD 64,033 allegedly remained
outstanding; and
-
match bonuses were allegedly only payable in the event of actual participation
in official matches, in respect of which the Club asserted that the Player had
provided no evidence.
24. On the basis of the above, the Club calculated that, after offsetting the alleged
overpayments, the net amount allegedly owed to the Player corresponded to MAD 92,626.
25. The Club further submitted that the Player had been absent without authorisation from 22
to 29 July 2024 and had failed to respond to several requests for explanations. On this
basis, the Club’s disciplinary committee imposed a fine in the amount of MAD 130,000,
which, according to the Club, should be offset against any amounts owed to the Player.
26. The Club submitted the following requests for relief (quoted verbatim):
« Au vu de ce qui précède, le Club demande à la FIFA de:
Déclarer la requête irrecevable ou infondée dans son entièreté,
Rejeter toute autre demande abusive (primes non dues, montants bruts),
Tenir compte de la résiliation abusive du contrat par le joueur et de son
comportement fautif,
Compter les amendes disciplinaires dans l’équilibre final du compte du joueur. »
Freely translated into English as:
“In view of the above, the Club requests FIFA to:
Declare the claim inadmissible or entirely unfounded,
Reject any other abusive requests (undue bonuses, gross amounts),
Take into account the player’s abusive termination of the contract and his wrongful
conduct,
Include the disciplinary fines in the final balance of the player’s account.”
c. Replica of the Player
27. In his replica, the Player insisted on the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal to hear the
present dispute, as the FRMF NDRC was not recognised by FIFA.
28. The Player further submitted that the Club’s argument regarding the alleged overpayments
was unfounded and had only been raised after the default notice had been sent.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19162
29. In addition, the Player stressed that the Club had paid his remuneration for the 2023/24
season and part of the 2024/25 season consistently and without objection throughout the
relevant period, in accordance with the agreed terms of the Contract.
30. The Player further argued that the Club had failed to meet its burden of proof with regard
to any alleged overpayment or any lawful entitlement to deduct future remuneration.
31. The Player alleged that the disciplinary allegations had only been raised after the default
notice had been received, more than four months after the alleged events. In this respect,
the Player submitted that the Club had produced no evidence of any disciplinary offence
or of any regular and timely disciplinary procedure.
32. The Player further argued that the fines had been imposed with the intention of reducing
the Club’s alleged financial liability or of supporting a potential counterclaim against the
Player.
33. In light of all the above, the Player maintained his initial requests for relief.
d. Duplica of the Club
34. In its duplica, the Club asserted that the Player had intentionally omitted the word “brut”
(gross) when quoting clause 5.1(a) of the Contract in his claim, thereby suggesting that the
salary amounts stated therein were net.
35. In this regard, the Club submitted that the following legal bases supported the application
of statutory deductions:
-
pursuant to clause 5.1(a) of the Contract, the agreed salaries were expressly
indicated as gross and were therefore subject to statutory deductions;
-
pursuant to clause 9 of the Contract, the Club was required to declare the
Player to the relevant tax authorities, withhold income tax, pay social
contributions, and subscribe to medical and social insurance on behalf of the
Player; and
-
in accordance with the applicable federation regulations, including the
relevant FRMF circulars, clubs were required to declare and withhold
mandatory taxes and social contributions.
36. The Club further submitted that the disciplinary sanction had been imposed on the Player
in accordance with the Contract, the Club’s internal regulations, and the decision of its
Disciplinary Committee.
37. In light of all the above, the Club maintained its initial position.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19162
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 7 May 2025 and submitted for decision on 19
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.
39. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Togolese player and a Moroccan club.
40. The Chamber further noted that the Club contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding
bodies, alleging that the Football Tribunal is not competent to deal with any dispute
deriving from the Contract, as, in accordance with its clause 20, disputes must be
adjudicated before the FRMF NDRC.
41. The Chamber also noted that the Player alleged that the Football Tribunal is competent to
adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the FRMF NDRC is not recognised by FIFA.
42. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that, in January 2024, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for NDRCs in order to provide clarity and the necessary legal
certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible
formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
43. Most importantly, the Chamber noted that the aforementioned rules have been
incorporated into art. 22, par. 1, lit. b and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases
brought before FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
44. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 7 May 2025, the Chamber concluded
that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the following
provision:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
[…]
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19162
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international
dimension; the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such
disputes to be decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national
dispute resolution body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially
recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either
directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties;”
45. The Chamber considered that this case, in principle, falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction, and
therefore would only be prevented in the hypothesis of (1) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in the Contract in favour of the civil courts; or (2) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause included in the Contract or in an applicable collective bargaining agreement in
favour of a NDRC “that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National
Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
46. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in
favour of an NDRC, the interested party challenging the Football Tribunal’s must
demonstrate that the parties have validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant
decision-making body and that such body is recognised by FIFA. These conditions are
cumulative and must all be met at the time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
47. In this respect, the Chamber referred to clause 20 of the Contract, according to which:
“In the event of a dispute and/or conflict arising from the execution and/or interpretation of
the clauses of this contract, the parties are required to resort to all means and procedures
with a view to reaching an amicable settlement of the dispute.
If such attempts fail, the dispute shall be submitted by either party to the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Moroccan Football Federation. The decisions of the FRMF Dispute Resolution
Chamber may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of the FRMF statutes and
regulations.”
48. The Chamber, after analysing the wording of the referred jurisdiction clause, concluded
that the parties did clearly and exclusively establish the competence of one body, in
accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations.
49. The Chamber then turned to the assessment of the FRMF NDRC’s recognition vis-à-vis the
FIFA regulations. In doing so, the Chamber noted that FRMF NDRC was not included in the
official list of recognised NDRCs at the time of submission of the claim (and since then).
50. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the second pre-requisite was not
met, and therefore, it established that the Club’s objection to the jurisdiction of FIFA to deal
with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber has
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19162
jurisdiction, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
51. The Chamber next observed that the Club argued the national law of Morocco is applicable
to the present dispute.
52. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which provides that
“in their application and adjudication of law, the chambers shall apply the FIFA Statutes and FIFA
regulations, whilst taking into account all relevant arrangements, laws, and/or collective
bargaining agreements that exist at national level, as well as the specificity of sport”.
53. The Chamber stressed that, while national law and any relevant arrangements or collective
bargaining agreements may be taken into account when resolving a dispute before the
Football Tribunal, the FIFA Regulations prevail over any national law that the parties may
have chosen. The Chamber underlined that the primary objective of the FIFA Regulations is
to establish a uniform set of rules to which all actors within the football community are
subject and on which they can rely.
54. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the FIFA Regulations are applicable
to the present matter.
55. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
56. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
57. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19162
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
58. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract.
59. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player maintained that he terminated the
Contract with just cause to due outstanding salaries.
60. The Chamber further noted that, for its part, the Club argued that no remuneration
remained outstanding, as the amounts claimed by the Player should be reduced by (i)
alleged overpayments resulting from the purported payment of salaries on a net basis
instead of the agreed gross basis, and (ii) a disciplinary fine allegedly imposed on the Player
due to unjustified absences.
61. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine: (i) the
outstanding amount, if any, in favour of the Player; (ii) whether the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract; and, if so, (iii) the legal consequences thereof.
62. In order to determine the amount outstanding, the Chamber first addressed the Club’s
arguments regarding the alleged deductions.
i.
Alleged overpayments
63. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player submitted that the remuneration agreed
in the Contract had to be understood as amounts effectively payable to him and that the
Club could not reduce the outstanding amounts by invoking alleged tax deductions at this
stage.
64. The Chamber further observed that the Club, for its part, argued that the Contract
expressly referred to a monthly gross salary and that, accordingly, the contractual amounts
had to be subject to mandatory tax deductions under national Moroccan law. On this basis,
the Club contended that the Player’s claim was overstated and that various overpayments
had occurred.
65. In assessing this matter, the Chamber noted that the contractual wording relied upon by
the Club could support the position that the relevant figures had been agreed on a gross
basis.
66. However, the Chamber considered that the interpretation of the Contract could not be
carried out in isolation from the parties’ conduct during its execution.
67. In this regard, the Chamber observed from the documentation on file that, throughout the
2023/24 season and part of the 2024/25 season, the Club consistently paid the Player the
agreed monthly amounts without raising any reservation as to their gross nature, and
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19162
without contemporaneously asserting that the Player had been receiving excessive sums
due to the absence of deductions. In other words, the Club’s conduct during the execution
of the Contract indicated that the amounts were treated in practice as net amounts payable
to the Player.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had only advanced the “gross vs net”
argument and the alleged overpayment after the Player had sent the default notice on 14
November 2024.
69. In such circumstances, the Chamber considered that, having executed the Contract over
an entire season by paying the agreed amounts without applying deductions, the Club
could not subsequently invoke the gross character of the salary in order to justify a
retroactive recalculation of remuneration already due.
70. Moreover, even assuming that statutory deductions could in principle apply to gross
remuneration, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Club’s reliance on such deductions
would, at a minimum, have required specific and contemporaneous evidence that (i) the
relevant withholdings had been calculated in accordance with applicable law; (ii) they had
actually been withheld from the Player at the time of payment; and (iii) they had been
remitted to the competent authorities. In the absence of such substantiation, the Chamber
found that deductions could not be applied merely on the basis of a general assertion that
salaries were gross.
71. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Club could not reduce the outstanding
amounts claimed by the Player by means of a retroactive gross-to-net recalculation and
alleged set-off based on purported overpayments.
ii.
Disciplinary fine
72. The Chamber observed that the Club submitted that it was entitled to reduce the Player’s
outstanding financial entitlements by offsetting a disciplinary fine in the amount of MAD
130,000, allegedly imposed due to the Player’s unjustified absences between 22 and 29 July
2024.
73. The Chamber further noted that the Player contested both the validity of the fine and the
Club’s alleged entitlement to deduct or offset such fine against amounts due under the
Contract.
74. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that any deduction from remuneration based on a
disciplinary fine constituted an exception to the general rule that contractual remuneration
had to be paid in full when due. As such, the Club bore the burden of proof to demonstrate
that it had a clear legal and/or contractual basis to impose the fine and that the fine had
been imposed through a procedure respecting minimum procedural safeguards, in
particular the Player’s right to be heard.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19162
75. In the present matter, the Chamber noted that the fine had been issued on 28 November
2024, whereas the alleged misconduct dated back to 22–29 July 2024.
76. The Chamber further observed that the Player had put the Club in default on 14 November
2024 and that the fine had been imposed two weeks thereafter. In its reply of 29 November
2024, the Club relied on said fine as a basis to deny the amounts claimed by the Player and
to assert that the Player allegedly remained indebted to the Club.
77. In the absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Player had been granted the
right to be heard and that a proper disciplinary procedure had been followed, the Chamber
considered that the Club was not entitled to reduce the outstanding amounts due to the
Player by offsetting the alleged disciplinary fine.
iii.
Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
78. The Chamber observed that the Player had terminated the Contract on 2 December 2024,
invoking just cause due to the Club’s failure to pay overdue remuneration despite having
been formally put in default and granted a deadline to remedy the breach.
79. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly
salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
80. In the present matter, the Chamber noted that the Player had sent a written default notice
on 14 November 2024, requesting payment of specific overdue amounts and granting the
Club 15 days to comply.
81. Furthermore, at the time of termination of the Contract, the Player maintained that MAD
190,000 had remained outstanding, corresponding to (i) MAD 60,000 as the sign-on fee
instalment due on 30 April 2024; (ii) MAD 100,000 as the Promotion Bonus due on 30 June
2024; (iii) MAD 15,000 as the salary for October 2024; and (iv) MAD 15,000 as the salary for
November 2024.
82. Therefore, considering (i) the existence of overdue payables corresponding at least to two
monthly salaries by the termination date and (ii) the Player’s compliance with the written
default notice requirement and the 15-day period, the Chamber considered that the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract on 2 December 2024 in accordance with art. 14bis
of the Regulations.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19162
iv. Consequences
83. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
84. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounted to MAD 190,000,
broken down as follows:
-
MAD 30,000 as two monthly salaries;
MAD 60,000 as a sign-on fee instalment; and
MAD 100,000 as the Promotion Bonus.
85. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club was liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the time of its termination, i.e., MAD 190,000.
86. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until
the date of effective payment.
87. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
88. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
89. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19162
90. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of MAD 345,000 serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
-
7 monthly salaries of MAD 15,000 for the remaining part of the 2024/25
season, totalling MAD 105,000; and
12 monthly salaries of MAD 20,000 for the 2025/26 season, totalling MAD
240,000.
91. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
92. Indeed, the Player found employment with Albanian club Bylis, from August to December
2025. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to a
total remuneration USD 5,000, which is equivalent to MAD 45,425.
93. Subsequently, the Player found employment with Indian club Sreenidi Deccan Football
Club, from January 2026 to 31 May 2026. In accordance with the pertinent employment
contract, the Player was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 15,000, which is equivalent
to MAD 136,850.
94. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of MAD 182,275, that is, MAD 45,425 plus MAD 136,850.
95. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
96. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of MAD
75,000, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player under the Contract.
97. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of MAD
237,725 to the Player (i.e., MAD 345,000 minus MAD 182,275 plus MAD 75,000), which was
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19162
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
98. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 2 December 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
v. Compliance with monetary decisions
99. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
100. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
101. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
102. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
103. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
104. 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.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19162
105. 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.
106. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-19162
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Hadi Idrissou.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Hadi Idrissou, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, DHJ (DIFAA HASSANI EL JADIDI), must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- MAD 190,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MAD 60,000 as from 1 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MAD 100,000 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MAD 15,000 as from 1 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MAD 15,000 as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- MAD 237,725 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-19162
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-19162
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. 22