Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19372
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Daouda
Sylla
BY:
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina)
CLAIMANT:
Daouda Sylla, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Mahmoud Osman
RESPONDENT:
Alrawdhah Club, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19372
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 August 2024, the Ivorian player Daouda Sylla (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Saudi Arabian club Alrawdhah Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 August
2024 until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with article 5 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the following remuneration/ benefits:
3.
a.
SAR 20,625 net as monthly salary payable by the last day of each month for a
total of SAR 206,250;
b.
SAR 112,500 net as fixed financial payment payable in one payment on 15 August
2024;
c.
Adequate housing for the duration of the Contract; and
d.
Insurance coverage and transportation.
Further, article 12 of the Contract provided the following:
“1. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this Contract,
provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15
days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause, following amount will have to be paid:
(…………….). If there is no agreement on the amount, compensation for breach of contract is
payable in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations. […]”
4.
On 25 April 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment requesting USD
165,000 corresponding to the outstanding salaries for the months of September 2024 to
April 2025, setting a time limit of fifteen (15) days in order to remedy the default.
5.
On 17 May 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club unilaterally terminating the Contract
under art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) mentioning the Club’s continued failure to make the payments due under the
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19372
6.
On 24 May 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Claimant requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
8.
The Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14bis of
the Regulations as the Club had failed to pay the salaries due for the months of September
2024 to April 2025, despite being sent a notice of default providing a fifteen (15) day
deadline to remedy the breach.
9.
According to the Claimant, the Club did not provide adequate medical treatment or
rehabilitation to the Player for the injury suffered by him while performing his duties for
the Club, which prevented the Player from recovering within the normal rehabilitation
period for such an injury and to continue his career in another club. Therefore, the
Claimant argued that he is entitled to additional compensation under art. 17 of the
Regulations amounting to six (6) monthly salaries due to egregious circumstances.
10. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
“14. Finally, the player Daouda Sylla pleads for FIFA’s Tribunal discretion to kindly take what is
necessary to help obtain the player's rights in the matter at hand as follows:
14.1. An amount of S.A.R. 165,000 Saudi Riyals is to be paid by Alrawdhah Club to the player as
the outstanding salaries plus a 5% interest fee.
14.2. An amount of S.A.R. 112,500 Saudi Riyals for the fixed payment due on 15/08/2024 plus a
5% interest fee.
14.3. An amount of twenty thousand six hundred and twenty-five S.A.R. 20,625 Saudi Riyals, as
the residual value of the contract.
14.4. An amount of S.A.R. 123,750, as additional Compensation, due to the egregious
circumstances.”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to respond to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19372
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 May 2025 and submitted
for decision on 24 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
13. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Ivorian player and a Saudi Arabian club.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations (July 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
16. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19372
17. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract by
the Player against the Club.
18. The Single Judge noted that according to the Player he terminated the Contract with just
cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations due to the following reasons:
a.
the Club failed to make payments to the Player corresponding to monthly salaries
of September 2024 to April 2025 which is significantly higher than the value of
two (2) monthly salaries under the Contract; and
b.
the Club failed to remedy its breach despite being sent a notice of default on 25
April 2025 and being granted a fifteen (15) day deadline to comply with its
financial obligations.
19. The Respondent, on the other hand, has failed to respond to the claim and therefore any
award must be made solely on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence provided by the Player (cf., art. 14 par. 1 and art. 21, par. 1 of
the Procedural Rules).
20. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to establish whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause, and whether outstanding remuneration
and compensation must be awarded.
21. Having stated the above, the Single Judge recalled 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
(2) 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 fifteen (15) days for the debtor club to fully comply with
its financial obligation(s).
22. In the present matter, the Single Judge noted that in accordance with article 5.1 of the
Contract, the Player is entitled to receive SAR 20,625 net per month. Further, the Single
Judge observed that as per the default notice dated 25 April 2025 sent by the Player to the
Club, the Player claimed that the Club had failed to make monthly salary payments for the
months of September 2024 to April 2025, thereby exceeding the requirement of two (2)
monthly salaries being due, under art. 14bis of the Regulations.
23. The Single Judge noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the Parties.
The Single Judge also noted that the Club has failed to reply to the claim or provide any
evidence of payment of the outstanding salaries to the Player. Consequently, Single Judge
concluded that the Club was in arrears of more than two (2) monthly salaries.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19372
24. Further, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having
put the Respondent in default on 17 May 2025, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 25 April 2025.
25. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and that the Club is therefore held
liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
26. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
27. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to monthly salaries
corresponding to September 2024 to April 2025 and the fixed financial payment of SAR
112,500 under the Contract, amounting to SAR 277,500.
28. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. SAR
277,500 (i.e. SAR 20,625 times eight plus SAR 112,500).
29. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard and the principle ne ultra petita, the Single Judge
decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts
as from 24 May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
30. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
31. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that while article 12.2 of the Contract addressed a potential premature
termination, the said clause was incomplete.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19372
32. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the provision under article 12.2 of the
Contract be set aside and the amount of compensation payable by the Club to the Player
had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the
Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a general rule, the
compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall be equal to the residual value of
the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the Player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
33. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of SAR 20,625 (i.e., the salary for May 2025)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
34. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
35. Indeed, the Claimant remained unemployed following the contractual termination. As a
result, neither mitigation nor additional compensation were applicable in the case at hand.
Therefore, as in accordance with art. 17 par. ii of the Regulations, the overall compensation
may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract, the Single Judge
rejected the Claimant’s request for an amount of S.A.R. 123,750 (i.e., six (6) monthly
salaries) as additional compensation, due to the egregious circumstances.
36. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
SAR 20,625 to the Claimant (i.e. the residual value of the Contract corresponding to the
salary for May 2025), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
37. Lastly, the Single Judge noted that the Player has not requested for interest on the
compensation for breach of contract in his requests for relief, thus, it was not awarded on
the basis of the principle of ne ultra petita.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
38. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19372
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.
39. In this regard, she 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.
40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within forty-five
(45) days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately
effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
41. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
42. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
43. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
44. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
45. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19372
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Daouda Sylla, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alrawdhah Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- SAR 277,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 May 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- SAR 20,625 as compensation for breach of contract.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19372
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. 11