Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19429
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Samuel
Sarfo
BY:
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Samuel Sarfo, Ghana
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
Najran SC, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Ahmad Alamir
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19429
I. Facts of the case
1.
The Ghanian player, Samuel Sarfo (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the Saudi
Arabian club, Najran SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 August 2024 to 31 May
2025.
2.
Pursuant to clause 5 of the Contract the Player was entitled to :
-
A net monthly salary of USD 6,000;
A net “signing fee” of USD 20,000 payable as follows: USD 10,000 on 1 August 2024 and
USD 10,000 on 31 January 2025; and
A net bonus of USD 5,000 in case the Player “assist[s] team up to next level”.
3.
On 3 May 2025, the Player put the Respondent in default, requesting payment of USD
46,000 within 15 days. This amount corresponded to the salaries due for the period
between November 2024 and April 2025, as well as the second instalment of the “signing
fee”.
4.
On 19 May 2025, the Player issued a termination notice to the Respondent, citing the
continued non-payment of salaries as the reason for termination.
5.
The Player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 30 May 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
7.
The Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with
art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations).
8.
The Claimant requested the following relief:
“The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that the Claimant has terminated the employment
contract with the Respondent with just cause pursuant to the article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that FIFA has jurisdiction to settle the present
dispute.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant as
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19429
outstanding remuneration:
i) Salary of November 2024 in the amount of 6.000 USD net
ii) Salary of December 2024 in the amount of 6.000 USD net
iii) Salary of January 2025 in the amount of 6.000 USD net
iv) Salary of February 2025 in the amount of 6.000 USD net
v) Salary of March 2025 in the amount of 6.000 USD net
vi) Salary of April 2025 in the amount of 6.000 USD net
vii) Sign on fee to be paid on 31/01/2025 in the amount of 10.000 USD net
As compensation:
i) Salary of May 2025 in the amount of 6.000 USD net as compensation
TOTAL DUE = 52.000 USD plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue dates until effective payment.
In the event of the Claimant reaching a new employment contract, article 17.1 par ii) of the FIFA
RSTP shall be taken into account.
according to the employment contract signed by the parties, the FIFA Statutes and regulations, as
well the specificity of sport, and the Swiss Law under penalty of imposition of disciplinary measures
to the Respondent if the above obligation is not observed.”
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
Despite being invited, the Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 30 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 11 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.
11. 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 a Ghanian player and a Saudi Arabian club.
12. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19429
b. Burden of proof
13. 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 he 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
14. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Player requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
16. The Single Judge observed that Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate the
Contract in accordance with art 14bis of the Regulations. The Club, on the other hand, did
not respond to the claim, entailing that the decision must be made on the basis of the
documentation on file, that is, the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line
with art. 14 par. 1 and art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
17. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
18. The Single Judge then 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).
19. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the salaries between November 2024 and April 2025. Furthermore, the
Single Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19429
Respondent in default on 3 May 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating
the contract on 19 May 2025.
20. The Single Judge also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Respondent did not reply to the claim and no evidence was
provided.
21. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
22. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
23. The Single observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the Player, corresponded to USD 10,000 as signing
fee and USD 42,000 as salaries between November 2024 and April 2025.
24. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
52,000.
25. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
- On the amount of USD 6,000 net as from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of USD 6,000 net as from 1 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of USD 16,000 net as from 1 February 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of USD 6,000 net as from 1 March 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- On the amount of USD 6,000 net as from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- On the amount of USD 6,000 net as from 1 May 2025 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19429
- On the amount of USD 6,000 net as from 19 May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
26. 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.
27. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
28. As a consequence, Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to 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)).
29. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge 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. In this respect, the Single Judge
noted that on 19 May 2024 the only payment that could have been considered as the
residual value of the Contract was the salary for May. However, as the termination occurred
on 19 May 2024, this salary was considered outstanding remuneration according to the
standard practice of the Football Tribunal.
30. Therefore, the Single Judge determined that, since the Player terminated the Contract
almost at the end of its term, there was no residual value left. Thus, the Single Judge
concluded that the Player is not entitled to compensation, as following the payment of the
outstanding remuneration, he will receive all the amounts that were contractually agreed
upon.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
31. 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
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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19429
32. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
33. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19429
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Samuel Sarfo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Najran SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 6,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 16,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 May 2025
until the date of effective payment;
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19429
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-19429
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