Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19748
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Anjila
Tumbapo Subba
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Anjila Tumbapo Subba, Nepal
Represented by Antonis Vogiatzakis
RESPONDENT:
NEES ATROMITOU 2018, Greece
Represented by Paraskevas Atlamazoglou
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19748
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 August 2024, the Nepalese player, Anjila Tumbapo Subba (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Greek club, NEES ATROMITOU 2018 (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
29 August 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a monthly salary
of EUR 900.
3.
On 10 June 2025, the Player put the Club in default of payment of EUR 7,300, granting it 15
days in order to remedy the default.
4.
On 26 June 2025, the Player terminated the Contract invoking just cause due to outstanding
salaries.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 30 June 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
6.
In her claim, the Player argued that, although the Contract described her status as an
amateur, she qualified as a professional under the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
7.
The Player further argued that the Club failed to fulfil its financial obligations and that she
therefore had just cause to terminate the Contract.
8.
The Player submitted that, as of the date of the default notice, the Club failed to pay her
EUR 7,300 corresponding to her monthly salaries from September 2024 to May 2025, minus
EUR 800 paid in cash.
9.
The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“In light of the abovementioned, the Player hereby requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber
of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
- Uphold the present claim;
- Determine that the player Tumbapo Subba Anjila terminated the Employment Agreement
with just cause;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19748
- Order the football club “Nees Atromitou 2018” to pay to the player Tumbapo Subba Anjila
the total net amount of seven thousand three hundred euro (7,300€) against outstanding
salaries under the Employment Agreement, with the applicable interest, at the rate of 5% p.a.,
starting accrued as of the next day since each respective sum fell due until the date of effective
payment;
- Order the professional football club “Nees Atromitou 2018” to pay to the player Tumbapo
Subba Anjila the total net amount of nine hundred euro (900€) as compensation for the
unilateral termination of the Employment Agreement with just cause, with the applicable
interest, at the rate of 5% p.a., starting accrued as of 26 June 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- Impose the appropriate sporting sanctions on “Nees Atromitou 2018”, pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the FIFA RSTP;
- Order “Nees Atromitou 2018” to bear the entire procedural costs of the present proceedings,
if any;”
b. Position of the Club
10. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club failed to provide its position on the claim
within the deadline granted by the FIFA general secretariat, i.e., no later than 30 July 2025.
11. On 31 July 2025 at 13:39 hrs (local time in Greece), the Club requested an extension of the
deadline to provide its position on the claim.
12. On 1 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the above
correspondence, informed the Club that its correspondence would be disregarded based
on art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) and informed the parties of the closure of the submission phase (cf. art.
23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
13. On 4 and 14 August 2025, the Club filed a late response to the claim.
14. On 26 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the above
correspondence and informed the Club that its submission would be disregarded, based
on art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19748
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 30 June 2025 and submitted for decision on
30 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
16. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Nepalese player and a Greek club.
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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. 5
REF. FPSD-19748
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. 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.
21. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player maintained to have terminated the
Contract with just cause due to outstanding salaries.
22. The Chamber also observed that the Club failed to provide its position within the deadline
granted by the FIFA general secretariat and, therefore, determined that the decision will be
made based on the arguments and evidence on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
23. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse whether the Player
had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract and, if so, to determine the legal
consequences thereof.
24. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber determined that, before entering into the
analysis of the termination of the Contract, it must be analysed ex officio the status of the
Player.
25. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates
that a professional is “a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his
footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be
amateurs”. The Chamber also referred to its well-established jurisprudence, according to
which the financial threshold arising out of the art. 2 par. 2 criteria is relatively low, as it
does not require a player to make a living from their footballing activity in order to qualify
as a professional.
26. In this sense, and based on the documentation on file, the Chamber held that, in
accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, the monthly salary of EUR 900
established in the Contract, does in fact constitute a higher amount than the expenses the
Player effectively incurred for playing football.
27. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the Player held professional status.
28. Having established the above, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine,
based on the evidence presented on file, whether the claimed amounts had in fact
remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of
the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
29. The Chamber 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,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19748
provided that she 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).
30. The Chamber noted that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay her EUR 7,300
corresponding to her monthly salaries from September 2024 to May 2025, minus EUR 800
paid in cash.
31. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player has provided written evidence of having
put the Club in default on 10 June 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating
the Contract on 26 June 2025.
32. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the Contract. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that
no evidence was provided in this regard.
33. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate
the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
34. 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.
35. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is equivalent to one partial
monthly salary and nine full monthly salaries under the Contract, amounting to EUR 8,200.
36. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of its termination, i.e., EUR 8,200 (i.e., nine
times EUR 900 plus EUR 100).
37. 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 corresponding due dates
until the date of effective payment.
38. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19748
39. 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.
40. 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).
41. 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.
42. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that, since the Contract end date was 30 June 2025
and the termination was made on 26 June 2025, no sum was considered as residual value
of the Contract.
43. In this context, the Chamber wished to point out that the salary corresponding to June 2025
was determined to be an outstanding salary and, therefore, included in the outstanding
remuneration of EUR 8,200 under the Contract.
44. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club had no obligation to pay
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
45. 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.
46. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19748
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19748
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Anjila Tumbapo Subba, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, NEES ATROMITOU 2018, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 8,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 100 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 February 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 900 as from 26 June 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19748
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. 11
REF. FPSD-19748
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. 12