Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19794
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nigel
Benjamin Robertha
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
CLAIMANT:
FK Spartak Subotica, Serbia
Represented by Sila International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
Nigel Benjamin Robertha, Netherlands
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19794
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 January 2025, the Serbian club, FK Spartak Subotica (hereinafter: the Club or the
Claimant) and the Dutch player, Nigel Benjamin Robertha (hereinafter: the Player or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
18 January 2025 until 31 May 2027.
2.
According to art. 3 of the Contract, the parties agreed on a monthly salary equal to the
“amount of minimum net wage per employee in the Republic of Serbia.”
3.
In addition, the parties agreed on an additional fee of the amount of EUR 6,500 “reduced
for the amount of minimum net wage per employee in the Republic of Serbia according to the
latest official data published by the relevant authority.”
4.
For the season 2025/2026, the Player was entitled to an additional fee of EUR 10,000
“reduced by the amount of the minimum wage.”
5.
For the season 2026/2027, the Player was entitled to an additional fee in the monthly
amount of EUR 11,000.
6.
On 15 June 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club by means of which he informed it that
he decided to formally terminate the Contract. In particular, the Player stated the following
(quoted verbatim):
“I am writing to formally inform you that I have made the decision to retire from
professional football, effective immediately. After much consideration and due to ongoing
physical and mental strain, I have concluded that stepping away from the sport is the right
choice for my health and future. Therefore, I will not report to the club on 17 June 2025
for the start of preseason activities. My decision is final and is not related to any transfer
intentions or involvement with another club.
Having fulfilled my duties under contract up to this point, I respectfully request that the
club proceeds with the payment of any outstanding salary as well as bonuses earned
during the previous season, in accordance with the contractual agreements. I trust that
these payments will be made in good faith and on time.
I remain open to resolving this matter amicably and with mutual respect, and I am willing
to assist in any administrative or procedural steps required to formally terminate the
contract by mutual consent. If documentation requirements must still be completed, I am
available to coordinate accordingly.
I would like to thank FK Spartak Subotica for the opportunity to be part of the club and
wish you continued success in the future.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19794
7.
On 18 June 2025, the Club replied to the Player´s termination letter arguing that it did not
agree with the termination of the Contract and considered the Player´s actions as unlawful
and in breach of the Regulations. In addition, the Club contended that the Contract was still
valid until 31 May 2027 and the Club did not give his consent to terminate it. The Club also
asked the Player to immediately cease breaching the Contract and resume fulfilling his
duties, otherwise it would take legal action.
8.
On the same day, the Player replied to the above letter reiterating that his decision to
terminate his Contract and retire was final. Specifically, the Player argued the following:
“I would like to respectfully clarify that my decision to retire from professional football was
communicated to the Club in writing and in good faith, prior to the reporting date of 17 June.
This decision is final and unrelated to any transfer or intention to continue playing for another
club.
As you are aware, I fulfilled all of my obligations under the employment contract through 31
May 2025. My written communication clearly indicated my permanent retirement, not a
breach of contract.
FIFA jurisprudence acknowledges that a professional player is entitled to end his career for
personal and/or medical reasons, as long as it is not done with the purpose of joining another
club. This is precisely my situation.
Therefore, I consider your threat of legal action unfounded, and I trust the Club will proceed
with the necessary steps to finalize this matter appropriately. I kindly remind the Club that
outstanding contractual obligations, including salary, housing allowance, and earned
bonuses, remain due and must be settled.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 3 July 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
10. The Club argued that the Player did not have just cause to terminate his Contract as the
sole reason invoked for such termination was his decision to retire from professional
football. The Club alleged that the Player could not simply decide to retire 5 months after
having signed a 2,5-year contract with the Club without its previous consent.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19794
11. It further alleged that the Player had never complained about any mental health issues or
any discontent with the Club and the team.
12. Regarding the compensation, the Club requested as the basic amount to be paid as
compensation to be the residual value of the Contract, which equals to EUR 235,000 net
and was calculated as follows:
-
For 2025/2026 season (from June 2025 until May 2026): EUR 10,000 x 15 (days
worked in June 2025) /30 (days in June) + EUR 10,000 x 11 = EUR 115,000.
-
For 2026/2027 season (from June 2026 until May 2027): EUR 10,000 x 12 = EUR
120,000.
13. In addition, considering the individual facts of the case, the Club requested the payment of
the portion of the sign-on fee of EUR 20,000 paid to the Player by the Club.
14. The Club deemed that the sign-on fee shall be taken into account when calculating the
compensation for the Player‘s untimely and unjustified termination, considering part of it
remained ”unamortized.“ In other words, the sign-on fee was a large sum of compensation
paid to the Player at the beginning of the Contract under the reasonable expectation that
he would fulfil the entirety of the Contract, and yet the Player worked 157 days out of a
total of 872 days. In this regard, the Club requested the payment of EUR 16,399 (i.e. EUR
20,000 x 715 (unworked days)/ 872 (days of the Contract’s basic duration.
15. The Club also requested an additional compensation of EUR 3,601 as the Contract was
terminated within the protected period.
16. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“The Respondent, Nigel Benjamin Robertha, has to pay the Claimant, FK Spartak Subotica, the
amount of EUR 255,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 16 June 2025 until the date of the effective payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Player alleged that his decision to retire and terminate the Contract “was
made after a long and careful consideration due to persistent physical and mental strain, which
had significantly affected [his] well-being and ability to perform at the required professional
level”.
18. The Player argued that health concerns and the decision to retire were legitimate reasons
that would justify the premature termination of the Contract in line with art. 14 of the
Regulations.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19794
19. Furthermore, the Player claimed that his decision was final and solely based on persistent
physical injuries and mental exhaustion and he did not intend to continue his career
elsewhere.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19794
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 3 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 26
February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
21. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Serbian player and a Dutch club.
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-19794
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether the Player’s termination of the Contract was with or
without just cause.
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and the consequences thereof.
27. The Chamber recalled that according to art. 14 of the Regulations, “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.”
28. In this context, the Chamber assessed whether the Player’s unilateral termination of the
Contract based on his decision to retire from professional football may be considered as a
measure of ultima ratio capable of justifying the Contract’s premature termination.
29. The Chamber considered that the Player’s decision to retire only five months after having
entered into a contract with a duration of two and a half years cannot, in itself, be
considered a circumstance giving rise to just cause for the unilateral termination of the
Contract.
30. While the Player invoked alleged mental health issues as justification for his decision to
retire, the evidentiary threshold required to establish ultima ratio has not been met. In
addition, the Chamber noted that the player did not provide any further explanation or
supporting documentation to substantiate his claim.
31. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not have just cause to
terminate his Contract and such termination was not a measure of ultima ratio in line with
art. 14 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Player shall be held liable for the consequences
of such an unjustified termination.
ii. Consequences
32. Having established the above, the Chamber moved to the consequences of such an unjust
termination of the Contract. In this regard, the Chamber first recalled that according to 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. According to the principle of positive
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19794
interest, the claiming party must be put in the position it would find itself, had the breach
of the contract not occurred and had the contract been duly performed.
33. Before addressing how the principle of positive interest would apply to this case, the
Chamber had to assess whether the 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 a breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber noted
that the parties did not agree on a compensation clause.
34. Having established the above, the compensation payable by the Player to the Club must
be assessed in application of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, beginning with the
consideration for the damage suffered by the Club guided by the positive interest principle.
35. Bearing in mind the above principle and art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
considered that the Club shall quantify, substantiate and prove the damage that it allegedly
suffered as a result of a breach of a contract.
36. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Club requested the following amounts:
-
EUR 235,000 corresponding to the residual value of the Contract;
EUR 16,399 corresponding to the non-amortized sign-on fee;
EUR 3,601 as additional compensation.
37. The Chamber recalled that according to the new art. 17 of the Regulations, where there is
a dispute, it will always be up to the claimant to quantify, substantiate and prove the
damage that it allegedly suffered as a result of a breach of contract.
38. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the Club did not fully substantiate the entirety
of the damages claimed as having been suffered by the Player’s breach of contract.
39. Specifically, the Chamber deemed that the Club should be entitled to a certain level of
compensation under the particular circumstances of this case, which culminated in the
Player’s abrupt departure a mere handful of months into a multi-year contract. In this
respect, the Chamber was satisfied that the Club established it had incurred a concrete
financial damage in the form of the sign-on fee paid to the Player, which, by its nature and
as argued by the Club, was a significant portion of the Player’s guaranteed compensation
advanced to him at the outset of the employment relationship, in exchange for his services
and based on the reasonable assumption that the Club would receive the benefit of those
services for the agreed term.
40. While the Chamber considered that the claim for the residual value of the Contract was not
sufficiently proven, and considering the unusual circumstance of the Player’s retirement
from professional football as well as the manner and timing of such termination, the
Chamber was nonetheless satisfied that the fraction of the sign-on fee claimed by the Club
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19794
constitutes a direct and objective financial loss suffered by the Club in this particular case.
Therefore, it could be taken into account in this instance when assessing compensation
under art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
41. In light of the foregoing, and in application of the positive interest principle, the Chamber
deemed it appropriate and proportionate to award the Club compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 16,399.
42. Finally, and in line with the Claimant’s request for relief and the constant practice of the
Chamber, the latter decided to award 5% interest over the amount of EUR 16,399 as from
15 June 2025 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. 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.
44. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
45. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Player must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the club within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on playing in official
matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become immediately effective on
the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
46. The Player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the club in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
47. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19794
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19794
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FK Spartak Subotica, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Nigel Benjamin Robertha, must pay the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 16,399 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15
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 restricted on any football-related activity up until the due
amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months.
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 six months.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-19794
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. 13