Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19622
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Arquímides Rafael Zacarías Ordóñez
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Arquímides Rafael Zacarías Ordóñez, Guatemala & USA
Represented by Pauline Mbanza
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FC Zimbru, Moldova
Represented by Berlin Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19622
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 January 2025, the Guatemalan-American player Arquímides Rafael Zacarías Ordóñez
(hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Moldovan club FC
Zimbru (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent / Counter-Claiamant) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 2 January 2025 until 31 May
2026.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 9.1 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly gross salary of MDL 16,100, payable in arrears
by the 25th day of the following month.
3.
Also on 2 January 2025, the Parties concluded the so-called “Additional Agreement to the
Employment Contract of the Football Player Nr. 08/25/02.01.2025” (hereinafter, the Additional
Agreement), which stipulates, inter alia, the following:
“The Parties, by mutual consent, have agreed to the following terms:
1.1. Contract conditions for the 2024/2025 season:
a. In addition to the salary stipulated in [the Contract] the Player will be paid monthly
the amount of EUR 4,325 net. The net remuneration according to this agreement per
season is EUR 21,625 (EUR 4,325 x 5 months, starting from 02.01.2025 until
31.05.2025).
b. Performance bonuses will be paid in accordance with the following achievements:
o Team Championship Victory — EUR 10,000.
o Goal/Assist Bonus — EUR 250 per goal/assist (if the team wins the game).
o European Competition Bonus — EUR 2,000 per qualified round in European
tournaments.
c. The player will receive the following benefits:
o Flight tickets during the contract period.
o The club will provide apartment accommodation.
1.2. Contract conditions for the 2025/2026 season:
a. In addition to the salary stipulated in [the Contract] the Player will be paid monthly
the amount of EUR 4,325 net. The net remuneration according to this agreement per
season is EUR 51,900 (EUR 4,325 x 12 months, starting from 02.06.2025 until
31.05.2026).
b. The performance bonuses and additional benefits will remain the same as they are
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19622
for the 2024/2025 season”.
4.
Clause 3 of the Additional Agreement provides:
“This Additional Agreement shall enter into force on the date of signing and is an integral
part of the player’s [Contract]”.
5.
On 19 May 2025, the Player travelled from Moldova to the U.S. by plane for holidays. The
flight ticket was provided by the Club.
6.
On 24 May 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to pay
EUR 9,840, after deducting what he referred to as two partial payments of EUR 660 and
EUR 1,000, broken down as follows:
o EUR 5,000 as March 2025 salary;
o EUR 5,000 as April 2025 salary;
o EUR 1,500 as goal bonuses.
7.
On 3 June 2025, the Club responded to the default notice and instructed the Player to
resume duties no later than 6 June 2025, stating inter alia:
“Upon your arrival, the outstanding payments, including the March and April salaries and
the goal bonus, will be addressed and settled”.
8.
On 4 June 2025, the Player sent a second default notice to the Club, requesting immediate
payment of EUR 9,840 under the same terms as the notice of 24 May 2025.
9.
On 5 June 2025, the Club replied referring the Player to its correspondence dated 3 June
2025, stating inter alia:
“We wish to clarify that the club has not refused to settle your outstanding payments. On
the contrary, we invited you to report to the club to receive the full payment of your
outstanding amounts and to continue your training sessions in accordance with your valid
employment contract with [the Club]. As a professional football player, you are required to
fulfill your duties, including attending scheduled training sessions.
We look forward to your prompt response and presence at the club to continue your
professional duties and to receive your outstanding salaries, no later than June 9, 2025”.
10. On 9 June 2025, the Player notified the Club of the unilateral termination of the Contract,
citing overdue payables; namely, the March and April 2025 salaries. In his termination
letter, the Player additionally stated, inter alia:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19622
“In a meeting on 16 May 2025 between the Player, (accompanied with his representative,
and the player’s father) and [the Club]’s President and his assistant, Muzzi Özcan, the Club
stated that “they did not have future plans for the player with the Club.” The Club had also
excluded the player from the last five games of the season prior to the meeting and
demanded that the Player train alone and at his own expense (transportation to and from
Zimbru facilities).
It is also important to detail the Xenophobia expressed by the coach towards the player,
belittling him for being an “American”, and forcing him to “apologize” to the team for his
“cultural” attitude. This continued with a form of “punishment” when it was demanded by
the coach that the player be excluded from team training, train alone and pay for his
transportation to and from the Zimbru training center [sic]. (Transportation costs €40).
[The Club]’s general manager has expressed that they have no future interest in the player
at the Club and he acknowledged that there existed an openly hostile environment towards
the Player.
Subsequent to these statements and actions by [the Club], the Club declined to allow the
Player to participate during a FIFA International window with his national team. ([The
Club]’s letter 05/06/2025 letter to FFG, FFG to [the Club]’s request 03/06/2025). Further
demonstrating a hostility and harassment towards allowing the player to advance his
professional career. FIFA will most likely view this type of impertinence most unfavourably
and choose to sanction the Club additionally.
Note that the Player has no means, without his salary and transportation coverage
according to the contract, to return to the Club activities. More importantly there is not any
assurance that any salaries could be or would be paid.
Following the refusal of the Club to pay the player his outstanding salaries and breach of
his fundamental right to play football, the Club clearly indicates no interest of keeping the
player and maintaining his services”.
11. Also on 9 June 2025, the Club replied denying all allegations of xenophobia or hostile
conduct. Regarding the Player’s participation in the FIFA International Window, the Club
asserted that its request was made in good faith and based on strategic considerations.
The Club reiterated that it had been ready to pay the outstanding amounts in person, but
the Player failed to appear. It also explained that, due to the Player’s U.S. nationality, the
bank required additional information to complete the transfer and asked for confirmation
of the currency (EUR or USD). The Club added that a new head coach had been appointed
and instructed the Player to return to training once payment was made.
12. On 12 and 13 June 2025, the Club made two payments totalling USD 10,302.65.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19622
13. On 16 June 2025, the Club sent a letter to the Player informing him as follows:
“We are pleased to confirm that [the Club] has transferred the outstanding salaries for [the
Player] to the designated bank account provided in your correspondence dated May 25,
2025. The funds, totaling $10,302.65, have been converted to US Dollars ($) and paid as
follows:
o March 2025 salary: remaining balance of €3,340, equivalent to $3,823, paid in full.
o April 2025 salary: €5,000, equivalent to $5,724, paid in full.
o May 2025 salary: Official salary as stipulated in the employment contract, €660,
equivalent to $755.65, paid.
The remaining salary of the May 2025 will be paid on June 25, 2025. Attached to this letter,
you will find the proof of payment for the completed transactions. We kindly request that
[the Player] confirm receipt of the $10,302.65 in his designated bank account at his earliest
convenience.
Please note that the performance bonus referenced in prior communications has not been
paid, as the team has not yet received the corresponding funds.
Furthermore, in accordance with the terms of the contract signed on January 2, 2025, [the
Club] requests that [the Player] return to the Club’s facilities to resume training sessions
without delay. The Club expects the player to fulfill his contractual obligations by
participating in all scheduled training and team activities”.
14. On 9 July 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 400.90 under the concept “Salary Payment For
June 2025”.
15. On 23 July 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the American club
Loudoun United FC, valid as from 22 July 2025 until 30 November 2026.
16. In accordance with this contract, the Player is entitled to a monthly salary of USD 10,393
from July 2025 to November 2025.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19622
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 17 June 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
18. In his claim, the Player first asserted that, on 13 April 2025, the Club unjustifiably instructed
him to train alone, despite being physically fit. Furthermore, according to the Player, on 16
and 17 May 2025, he met with the Club’s President and Sporting Director, who allegedly
informed him that the Club had no future sporting plans for him. The Player contended
that before and following the meetings of 16 and 17 May 2025, he was excluded from the
playing squad, not permitted to train or participate in three league matches, and left out
of the squad for two cup matches played between 26 April and 18 May 2025. According to
the Player, the Club clearly had no intention of retaining him —something he claimed was
expressly communicated during the aforementioned meetings— amounting to a breach of
his fundamental right to train and play football.
19. The Player further alleged that the Club breached the Contract by failing to comply with its
financial obligations. In particular, he claimed that, under the Contract and the Additional
Agreement, he was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 4,325 plus MDL 16,100. However,
despite repeated requests, the Club refused to pay his salaries for March and April 2025,
insisting that he present himself at the Club’s premises, even though it had sent him on
holiday during the international break and did not provide him with a flight ticket to return
and collect his salary.
20. The Player acknowledged that, on 12 and 13 June 2025, the Club made two partial
payments totalling USD 9,547, which he considered equivalent to EUR 8,254, toward the
outstanding March and April 2025 salaries, which he acknowledged were due on 25 April
and 25 May 2025, respectively. He further contended that the Club failed to pay match
bonuses totalling EUR 1,500, also due on 25 May 2025, alleging lack of funds. The Player
provided the following breakdown of the unpaid bonuses:
o EUR 750 for scoring three goals in a match played on 1 March 2025 in the Moldovan
Cup;
o EUR 250 for scoring one goal in a match played on 30 March 2025 in the Moldovan
League; and
o EUR 500 for scoring two goals in a match played on 2 April 2025 in the Moldovan
Cup.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19622
21. On this basis, the Player argued that the Club violated art. 12bis of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations), by failing to pay the
aforementioned salaries after having been placed in default.
22. Invoking art. 14bis of the Regulations, the Player further asserted that he had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract on 9 June 2025, due to outstanding salaries and the
Club’s failure to remedy the default.
23. The Player additionally claimed that he was prevented from playing in any match from 26
April 2025 until the termination of the Contract. According to him, “[t]hese reasons were
serious and the claimant could no longer expect to maintain the contractual relationship with
the respondent. Consequently. The claimant terminated the contract with just cause”.
24. On this basis, the Player claimed entitlement to EUR 31,641 net, consisting of:
o EUR 1,500 plus 5% interest p.a., corresponding to unpaid match bonuses due on 25
May 2025;
o 5% interest p.a. for the late payment of the March and April 2025 salaries, as from
25 March and 25 April 2025, respectively, until the date of payment; and
o The residual value of the Contract, without specifying a precise amount.
25. Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of all of the above, [the Player] respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Tribunal to:
i.
Determine that the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations established
under the Employment Agreement and, consequently, order the Respondent to the
payment of the outstanding monthly salaries’ and bonuses’ interests, and residual value
of the contract in the total amount of EUR 31,641 (Thirty One Thousand Six hundred Forty
One Euros) net;
ii.
Order the Respondent to pay 5% interest p.a. calculated over the outstanding amount,
as of the day after such amount became due, i.e., 25 April 2025, 25 May 2025, until the
dates of effective payment.
iii.
Impose a fine upon the Respondent as outlined under Article 12bis par. 4 FIFA RSTP”.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
26. On 28 July 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the claim and also lodged a counterclaim
against the Player.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19622
Reply to the claim
27. In its reply, the Club argued that the Player’s calculations in his request for relief were
“blatantly incorrect”. The Club maintained that, as allegedly acknowledged by the Player, it
paid USD 10,302.65 on 12 June 2025, covering the full salaries for March and April 2025 as
well as a partial payment for May 2025. The Club further stated that it paid an additional
USD 400.90 on 9 July 2025.
28. On this basis, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed.
Counterclaim
29. In its counterclaim, the Club asserted that the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract
without just cause. It submitted that the Player ignored several requests to return and
resume training, and refrained from participating in any scheduled team activities, “despite
the fact that the Club dully fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the Player on 12 June
2025, paying his salaries for March and April 2025 in full”.
30. The Club further argued that the Player’s conduct amounted to a serious breach of art. 14
par. 2 of the Regulations, as he failed to maintain contact with the Club, referring in this
regard to CAS 2016/A/4408 Raja Club Athletic de Casablanca v. Baniyas Football Sports Club &
Ismaili Benlamen. The Club added that, according to CAS jurisprudence, a player’s
prolonged absence may be deemed unjustified when it gives clubs reasonable grounds to
assume that a player does not intend to return. In the present matter, the Club claimed it
repeatedly instructed the Player to resume his duties and to justify his absence, but he
ignored these requests and provided no convincing explanation. The Club also confirmed
that it never authorised or approved the Player’s absence in June 2025.
31. Based on the above, the Club argued that the Player should be liable to pay damages
corresponding to the residual value of the Contract and the Additional Agreement,
amounting to EUR 51,900 net.
32. Accordingly, the Club requested the following relief:
“Based on the factual and legal arguments developed above, the Respondent hereby
submits the present Answer to the Claim, with the petition for the order of the following
prayers for relief:
ON THE MERITS:
a) That the Claimant’s claim be rejected, as the calculations provided in the Statement of
Claim are inconsistent with the factual record and do not reflect actual payments made.
COUNTERCLAIM:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19622
b) That the Respondent’s counterclaim be accepted in full.
c) That the Counter-Respondent be ordered to pay to the Club the compensation for
terminating the contract without just cause, in the amount of EUR 51,900”.
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
33. In his reply to the Club’s counterclaim, the Player acknowledged that the Club paid
USD 10,302.65 corresponding to the salaries for March and April 2025 three days after the
termination of the Contract. The Player reiterated, however, that the Club failed to pay
match bonuses amounting to EUR 1,500, which fell due on 25 May 2025.
34. The Player asserted that, on 17 May 2025, the Club provided him with only a one-way flight
ticket from Moldova to his home country for the international break, but failed to book a
return ticket from the U.S. to Moldova, despite being contractually obliged to do so. The
Player argued that the Club merely speculated that he had no intention of honouring the
Contract simply because he did not purchase his own return ticket, even though the
Additional Agreement clearly provides that the Club must supply all flight tickets during the
contract period. The Player therefore submitted that it was the Club —not him— that
breached the Contract by failing to provide the return ticket and by failing to pay the
outstanding salaries. He further stated that the Parties were in regular contact, and the
Club knew his whereabouts at all relevant times; thus, the Club’s assertion that he was
unreachable is false.
35. The Player further claimed that, on 14 June 2025, he was removed from the Club’s
WhatsApp group without any prior notice, which, in his view, demonstrates that the Club
had no intention of continuing the contractual relationship.
36. The Player reiterated his position regarding the Club’s violation of art. 12bis of the
Regulations, and insisted that he had just cause to terminate the Contract in accordance
with art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations.
37. On this basis, the Player maintained his original request for relief.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19622
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 17 June 2025 and submitted for decision on
12 March 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
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 (July 2025 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Guatemalan and American player and a Moldavian club.
40. 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
41. 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
42. 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. 11
REF. FPSD-19622
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
43. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that the present
matter concerned a claim by the Player against the Club for breach of contract, as well as
a counterclaim lodged by the Club against the Player on the same grounds.
44. After briefly recalling the Parties’ respective submissions, the Chamber first noted that it
was undisputed that, on 2 January 2025, the Parties concluded the Contract and the
Additional Agreement, both valid until 31 May 2026. The Chamber further noted that it was
also undisputed that, on 9 June 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the contractual
relationship, invoking outstanding remuneration and his alleged exclusion from the Club’s
sporting activities.
45. The members of the DRC observed that the core issue in dispute between the Parties was
whether the Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract, and the legal
consequences deriving from such termination.
46. Against this background, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based
on the arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties, whether the Player had just
cause to terminate the Contract due to outstanding salaries (i.e., pursuant to art. 14bis of
the Regulations) and/or due to his alleged exclusion from the Club’s activities. In any event,
given that the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player, the Chamber will also need
to examine the legal consequences arising from the termination regardless of the existence
of just cause.
47. For the purposes of analysing the lawfulness of the termination, the DRC first referred to
art. 14bis of the Regulations, which provides:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing 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).
Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision coming into force
may be considered”.
48. The Chamber noted that, in accordance with the aforementioned provision, two
cumulative formal requirements must be fulfilled for a player to have just cause to
terminate a contract due to outstanding salaries: (i) the club must be in default of at least
two monthly salaries that are overdue; and (ii) the player must place the club in default in
writing, granting it a period of at least 15 days to remedy the breach.
49. With the above in mind, the Chamber proceeded to analyse whether these requirements
were fulfilled in the present matter.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19622
50. The members of the DRC first noted that the Player issued two default notices on 24 May
and on 4 June 2025 prior to unilaterally terminating the Contract on 9 June 2025.
51. Regarding the first default notice, the Chamber observed that the Player granted the Club
a 15-day deadline to pay, inter alia, the March and April 2025 salaries. Although the Player
stated that he sent the notice on 25 May 2025, the Chamber observed that the evidence
submitted by him confirms a transmission on 24 May 2025. The Chamber therefore
deemed 24 May 2025 as the relevant date for the purposes of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
52. Accordingly, the Chamber found that the first formal requirement —namely, the issuance
of a written default notice granting the Club at least 15 days to remedy the breach— was
fulfilled.
53. However, with regard to the other formal requirement (i.e., the existence of at least two
overdue monthly salaries), the Chamber noted that the Player himself acknowledged that
the March 2025 salary was due on 25 April 2025, and the April 2025 salary was due on 25
May 2025. The DRC confirmed that this interpretation aligned with Clause 9.1 of the
Contract, which stipulates that salaries fall due in arrears by the 25th day of the following
month.
54. Consequently, the Chamber determined that, when the Player put the Club in default on
24 May 2025, only the March 2025 salary was actually overdue, as the April 2025 salary
would fall due only on 25 May 2025, i.e., the day after the default notice.
55. The Chamber therefore concluded that, at the time of the first default notice, the formal
requirement of two overdue monthly salaries was not met.
56. As to the second default notice sent of 4 June 2025, and in line with the aforementioned
considerations, the Chamber determined that, by that date, both the March and April 2025
salaries were overdue, thereby fulfilling the first formal requirement under art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
57. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that this second default notice did not grant the
mandatory 15-day period. Rather, the Player requested immediate payment of, inter alia,
the aforementioned monthly salaries and ultimately terminated the Contract only five days
later, on 9 June 2025.
58. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that the second formal requirement for the
applicability of art. 14bis of the Regulations was not fulfilled with the respect to the second
default notice.
59. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the formal requirements set forth in
art. 14bis of the Regulations were not fulfilled in connection with either the first or the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19622
second default notice. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player did not have
just cause to terminate the Contract pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations.
60. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber emphasized that nothing prevented it from
evaluating whether the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract under art. 14 of the
Regulations and the principle of ultima ratio (in this regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 21
June 2022, Pantilimon; DRC Decision of 19 May 2022 Paurević; DRC Decision of 20 May
2020, Leal Rodrigues).
61. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that art. 14 of the Regulations provides:
“A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause.
In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer
reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship”.
62. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal has repeatedly established that just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which
a party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual
relationship. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably
permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a
contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which
can be taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of an employer’s contractual duties, and vice
versa, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure (in
this regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 24 July 2025, Pedro Oliveira; DRC Decision of 9 July
2025, Loma Porozo; DRC Decision of 14 June 2025, Kokoe Coumbassa).
63. With the above in mind, the Chamber acknowledged prior instances in which, under the
circumstances, it had held that less than two overdue salaries, in combination with other
unpaid remuneration, taken together, may still serve to establish just cause under art. 14
of the Regulations if the circumstances are of such severity that they reveal a persistent
and substantial breach of contract (in this regard, DRC Decision of 9 June 2022, Chindriş).
64. In the present matter, the majority of the Chamber observed that, at the date of
termination (9 June 2025), the allegedly outstanding and overdue amounts concerned the
salaries for March and April 2025, as well as EUR 1,500 in performance bonuses. However,
the majority of the Chamber recalled that, on 4 June 2025, the Player demanded immediate
payment of these amounts and proceeded to terminate the Contract merely five days later.
The majority of the DRC considered that such a short timeframe was insufficient to
demonstrate a persistent or substantial failure by the Club to comply with its financial
obligations that would rise to the level of just cause for termination. In particular, the
Chamber highlighted that, according to its jurisprudence, the concept of just cause requires
a material and prolonged breach of contract. Accordingly, and in light of the particular
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19622
circumstances of the case at hand, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Player
did not establish a degree of non-payment capable of justifying the unilateral termination
of the Contract.
65. The majority of the Chamber further noted the Player’s allegations in his termination
notice; namely, (i) that he was informed on 16–17 May 2025 that he was no longer in the
Club’s sporting plans, (ii) that he had been excluded from training and matchday squads,
and (iii) that he had allegedly been subjected to xenophobic treatment by the Club’s coach.
66. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber noted that the Player did not submit any
documentary evidence to substantiate these allegations.
67. In any event, the majority of the Chamber emphasised that these allegations were never
raised in either of the Player’s default notices of 24 May or 4 June 2025, in which the Player
exclusively requested payment of outstanding remuneration. The majority of the DRC
emphasised that, in line with constant jurisprudence, a player invoking just cause is
expected to give the club an opportunity to cure both financial and non-financial breaches
before terminating the contract. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber determined
that, without further elements to consider in this respect, these claims could not
retroactively justify the termination.
68. In light of all the above, the majority of the Chamber determined that the Player’s abrupt
termination was inconsistent with the requirement that a termination must constitute an
ultima ratio measure under art. 14 of the Regulations and the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal. Accordingly, the Chamber, by majority, concluded
that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause.
ii. Consequences
69. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the legal
consequences arising from the Player’s termination without just cause.
Outstanding remuneration due to the Player
70. Without prejudice to the fact that the majority of the DRC established that the Player did
not have just cause to terminate the Contract, the Chamber determined that the Club must
pay the amounts outstanding at the date of termination in accordance with the legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda. In this respect, the Chamber clarified that the Player should
receive his remuneration up until 9 June 2025.
71. The Chamber noted that, in his reply to the Club’s counterclaim, the Player acknowledged
that, on 12 July 2025, the Club paid the March and April 2025 salaries and also paid USD
775.65 toward the May 2025 salary. On this basis, the Player maintained his entitlement to
EUR 1,500 net as performance bonuses plus 5% interest p.a., as well as 5% interest p.a. on
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19622
the late payment of the March and April 2025 salaries, as from their due dates until the
dates of their effective payment, together with compensation representing the residual
value of the Contract, in the total amount of EUR 31,641.
72. On account of the foregoing, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest of 5% per
annum on the March and April 2025 salaries paid late, as from their due dates until the
date of payment (i.e., as from 26 March 2025 until 12 July 2025 and as from 26 April 2025
until 12 July 2025, respectively).
73. In addition, the Chamber decided to award the Player his monthly salary for May 2025 as
well as remuneration corresponding to 9 days of June. In this regard, the Chamber
observed that under the Contract and the Additional Agreement, the Player was entitled to
a monthly salary of MDL 16,100 gross plus EUR 4,325 net.
74. With respect to May 2025, the DRC noted that it was undisputed that, on 12 June 2025, the
Club paid the Player USD 755.65, equivalent to EUR 660 (as undisputed). Accordingly, the
Chamber decided to award the Player MDL 16,100 and EUR 3,665, together with 5% interest
p.a. as from 26 May 2025.
75. Regarding June 2025, and considering that the Player terminated the Contract on 9 June
2025, the Chamber determined that he was, in principle, entitled to MDL 4,830 and EUR
1,297.50 (pro rata). It was also undisputed that, on 9 July 2025, the Club paid EUR 400.90 in
relation to this month. Accordingly, the Chamber decided to award the Player MDL 4,830
and EUR 896.60, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 June 2025 (i.e., the date of termination).
76. Lastly, the Chamber addressed the Player’s claim regarding the amounts due as bonuses.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that these amounts, as claimed, were not contested by
the Club and, therefore, decided to award the requested EUR 1,500 as outstanding
remuneration. As the Additional Agreement did not specify a payment date for these
bonuses, the Chamber decided that default interest should run from the date of
termination —consistent with the established practice of the Football Tribunal— until the
date of effective payment.
Compensation due to the Club
77. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, in its counterclaim, the Club sought
compensation for the Player’s termination without just cause. In this respect, the Chamber
pointed out that, since the Player has been found to have terminated the Contract without
just cause, the Club would, in principle, be entitled to compensation under art. 17 of the
Regulations.
78. However, the Chamber considered that, in view of the specific circumstances of the present
matter, awarding compensation to the Club would not be appropriate. The majority of the
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19622
Chamber held that while the Player’s termination was abrupt, the factual record shows that
the Club itself committed contractual breaches that contributed materially to the situation.
79. In this order of ideas, the Chamber considered as undisputed that, at the time of
termination, part of the Player’s March and April 2025 salaries remained outstanding, as
did the performance-related bonuses. Moreover, although the Club instructed the Player
to return to Moldova and resume his duties, it failed to provide him with a flight ticket
despite having expressly undertaken to do so in the Additional Agreement. In the
Chamber’s view, these combined omissions amount to clear contractual breaches by the
Club. As such, the Chamber opined that the Club substantially contributed to the
circumstances that led to the termination and could not rely on its own conduct to claim
compensation (in this regard, DRC Decision of 14 April 2025, Daniel Mateo Bustos; DRC
Decision of 14 October 2021, Van Lam). The DRC emphasised that this reasoning has also
been adopted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in previous occasions, i.e., inter
alia, CAS 2015/A/3955 & 3956 and CAS 2019/A/6444 & 6445.
80. In light of the above, and taking into account the Club’s contributory behaviour and the
specific circumstances of the case at hand, the Chamber established that no compensation
shall be awarded to the Club.
81. Applying the same reasoning, the Chamber also decided that no sporting sanctions should
be imposed on the Player, taking into account the circumstances demonstrating that both
Parties contributed to the termination of the Contract.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
82. 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.
83. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
84. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19622
85. 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.
86. The Chamber 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
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19622
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Arquímides Rafael Zacarías Ordóñez, is
partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, FC Zimbru, is rejected.
3.
FC Zimbru, must pay to Arquímides Rafael Zacarías Ordóñez the following amount(s):
o MDL 20,930 and EUR 6,061.60 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MDL 16,100 and EUR 3,665 net as from 26 May
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MDL 4,830 and EUR 896.60 net as from 9 June 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,500 net as from 9 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
o 5% interest per annum on the late payments as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 3,823 as from 26 March 2025 until 12 July 2025;
and
- 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 5,724 as from 26 April 2025 until 12 July 2025.
4.
Any further claims of Arquímides Rafael Zacarías Ordóñez 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. FC Zimbru 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. 19
REF. FPSD-19622
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Arquímides Rafael Zacarías
Ordóñez 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. 20
REF. FPSD-19622
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. 21