Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19822
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Patric Friday Eze
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairperson
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Patric Friday Eze, Nigeria
Represented by Drazen Nikolic
RESPONDENT:
Mladost, Serbia
Represented by Mico Petkovic
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19822
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 August 2023, the Nigerian player Patric Friday Eze (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Serbian club Mladost (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature
until 15 June 2025.
2.
Clause 3.1 of the Contract stipulated:
“Article 3
1) In consideration for the Player's obligations towards the Club, the parties hereto have
agreed upon a net monthly salary in the amount of RSD 40.000,00 (which may not be
lower than the minimum net wage per employee in the Republic of Serbia according to
the latest official data published by the relevant authority) payable into the Player's
current account , and not subject to changes unless by an annex to this Contract.
Payment of the salary for the previous month shall be effected no later than by 10 of the
current month.”
3.
Clause 3.2 of the Contract established:
“2) The parties hereby also set forth the following special fees: contract execution fee, fee
for player's experience, etc”
4.
Also on 10 August 2023, the parties concluded a document titled “Annex No. 1 to
professional contract on playing” (hereinafter: the Annex).
5.
Clause 1 of the Annex set forth:
“Paragraph 2) of Article 3) of the Professional Contract on Playing (Employment Contract)
no. shall be changed, therefore the new paragraph 2) of Article 3) shall read as follows:
"The Club undertakes to pay the Player for the fee for the concluding of the Contracttransfer, according to financial possibilities, successively, through an unspecified
number of payments (tranches) -weekly, monthly, semi-annually and annually, the total
amount 10.720.000,00 RSD, whereby for each individual payment (tranche) a
corresponding Decision shall be issued by the Managing Board of the Club, whereas, if:
(…)
The transfer installment will be paid if the player during the Contract validity period,
achieves 50% of playing according to the club regulations.”
6.
On 7 August 2023, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to the
Club for RSD 83,737 for the service “Air transport ESB BEG EZE”. The flight reservation was
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19822
forwarded to the Player for his travel from Ankara (Türkiye) to Belgrade (Serbia) with a
stopover in Istanbul (Türkiye).
7.
On 15 August 2023, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to the
Club for RSD 101,092 for the service “Air transport BEG ABV EZE”. The flight reservation was
forwarded to the Player for his travel from Belgrade (Serbia) to Abuja (Nigeria) with a
stopover in Istanbul (Türkiye).
8.
On 21 August 2023, the Player received EUR 4,000 from the Club.
9.
On 31 August 2023, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to the
Club for RSD 397,500 for the service “Air transport ABV BEG EZE”.
10. On 13 September 2023, the Player received EUR 500 from the Club, equivalent to RSD
60,000.
11. On 20 September 2023, the Club paid the Player RSD 1,290,300.
12. On 9 October 2023, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
13. On 19 October 2023, the Club paid the Player RSD 120,000.
14. On 14 November 2023, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
15. On 23 November 2023, the Club paid the Player RSD 1,290,300.
16. Also on 23 November 2023, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice
to the Club for RSD 105,356 for the service “Air transport BEG YUL BEG EZE”. The flight
reservation was forwarded to the Player for his travel from Belgrade (Serbia) to Montreal
(Canada) with a stopover in Zurich (Switzerland) on 26 December 2023, and from Montreal
(Canada) to Belgrade (Serbia) with a stopover in Zurich (Switzerland) on 12 January 2024.
17. On 8 December 2023, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to
the Club for RSD 76,000 for the service “Change of reservation EZE”. The flight reservation
was forwarded to the Player for his travel from Belgrade (Serbia) to Montreal (Canada) with
a stopover in Zurich (Switzerland) on 23 December 2023, and from Montreal (Canada) to
Belgrade (Serbia) with a stopover in Zurich (Switzerland) on 12 January 2024.
18. On 12 December 2023, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
19. On 12 January 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
20. On 13 February 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19822
21. On 20 February 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 1,292,500.
22. On 12 March 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
23. On 12 April 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
24. On 23 April 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 822,500.
25. On 25 April 2024, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to the
Club for RSD 128,800 for the service “Air transport BEG YUL BEG EZE”.
26. On 13 May 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
27. On 5 June 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 235,000.
28. On 11 June 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
29. During the 2023-2024 season, the Club played 37 matches in the league, including the
preliminary phase and the playoffs, obtaining 46 points. During this season, the Player
played 27 out of 37 matches in the league, 19 as part of the starting eleven. Additionally,
he played one match in the Kup Srbije.
30. On 17 July 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
31. On 22 August 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
32. On 29 August 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 1,289,200.
33. On 12 September 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
34. On 14 October 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
35. On 24 October 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 1,289,200.
36. On 8 November 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
37. On 25 November 2024, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to
the Club for RSD 47,490 for the service “Air transport BEG AYT BEG/EZE Patrick Friday”.
38. On 6 December 2024, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to
the Club for RSD 176,088 for the service “Air transport BEG YUL/EZE”. The flight reservation
was forwarded to the Player for his travel from Belgrade (Serbia) to Montreal (Canada) with
a stopover in Zurich (Switzerland) on 22 December 2024, and from Montreal (Canada) to
Belgrade (Serbia) with a stopover in Zurich (Switzerland) on 3 January 2025.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19822
39. On 11 December 2024, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
40. On 9 January 2025, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
41. On 15 January 2025, the Club sent a communication to the Player informing him that,
during the winter term of 2024/2025, it terminated the Contract with him and that he was
free to look for a new club.
42. On 11 February 2025, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
43. On 12 March 2025, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
44. On 10 April 2025, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
45. On 9 May 2025, the Club paid the Player RSD 60,000.
46. On 16 May 2025, the travel agency “Natasa – Travel doo Cacak” issued an invoice to the
Club for RSD 122,867 for the service “Air transport BEG YUL BEG/EZE”.
47. During the 2024–2025 season, the Club played 37 matches in the league, including the
preliminary phase and the playoffs, obtaining 47 points. During this season, the Player
played 13 out of 37 matches in the league, one as part of the starting eleven, and one out
of two matches in the Kup Srbije as part of the starting eleven. Since 1 February 2025, the
Player was not included in the squad for any of the Club’s matches except one, in which he
was on the bench.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
48. On 7 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
49. According to the Player, the parties concluded a Contract under which he was entitled to a
monthly salary of RSD 40,000, equivalent to EUR 342. In addition, the Player stated that
under clause 1 of the Annex, he was entitled to receive RSD 10,720,000, equivalent to EUR
91,624, as a signing fee, through an unspecified number of payments. The Player explained
that this signing fee was subject to a condition: transfer instalments would be paid if the
Player achieved 50% participation according to Club regulations during the validity of the
Contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19822
50. The Player alleged that the Club failed to pay EUR 342 for May 2025 and EUR 171 for June
2025, and only paid him EUR 43,000 of the signing fee: EUR 11,000 after concluding the
Contract in August 2023, EUR 11,000 in December 2023, EUR 11,000 in March 2024, and
EUR 10,000 in June 2024. Therefore, the Player argued that the Club owes him EUR 48,624
for this fee.
51. The Player asserted that, during the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 seasons, he could have
played in 74 official games. In 2023/2024, he played in 27 games in the Serbian
championship and one in the Serbian Cup, totalling 28 games out of 35. In the 2024/2025
season, he played in 13 league games and one Cup game, totalling 14 games out of 37.
According to the Player, he made 42 appearances in 74 games, representing 56.75%
participation. Therefore, he argued that he fulfilled the condition and is entitled to the
signing fee.
52. Moreover, the Player claimed that he was excluded from the first team during the second
part of the 2024/2025 season, as he did not train with the professionals since February
2025. Out of the 17 games since that month, he was included in the match protocol only
once, without making an appearance, despite not being injured. The Player stated that the
Club even allegedly terminated the Contract unilaterally but ultimately did not follow
through, continuing to partially execute the Contract until 15 June 2025.
53. The Player argued that the Club denied him the opportunity to play for half of the year,
while tying the signing fee to performance criteria that were entirely under the Club’s
control. He stated that this clause was not based on objective criteria and was determined
at the Club’s subjective discretion. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the Club had a duty
to ensure that players engage in the activity for which they were employed and that it
prevented him from being eligible.
54. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“Respondent is ordered to pay to Claimant amount of 513,00 EUR on the name of
monthly wage for months May and June 2025 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as
follows:
• For monthly wage for May 2025 interest on the amount of342,00 EUR as of 1st June
2025 until the full payment;
• For month of June 2025 interest on the amount of 171,00 EUR as of 1st July 2025 until
the full payment.
Respondent is ordered to pay to Claimant amount of 48.624,00 EUR on the name of the
fee for the signing of the Contract plus interest at the rate of5% p.a. as of 16th June 2025
until the Juli payment.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19822
b. Reply of the Respondent
55. In its reply, the Club acknowledged that the parties concluded the Contract and the Annex,
which were valid from 10 August 2023 until 15 June 2025. According to the Club, the Player
was entitled to a net monthly salary of RSD 40,000 and, during the entire period, he was
entitled to receive salaries totalling RSD 886,873.71. The Club stated that it fully executed
its obligations and paid him RSD 1,380,000.
56. Therefore, the Club argued that not only did it pay all the salaries due, but it also paid an
amount exceeding its contractual obligation, i.e., RSD 493,126.29 in excess.
57. Additionally, regarding the signing fee, the Club alleged that the Player was conditionally
entitled to receive the fee only if the stipulated conditions were met. In this regard, the Club
provided its internal regulations and stated that art. 6 of it regulated the conditions
required for payment of the signing-on fee. The Club argued that, for this bonus to be
triggered, the Player had to appear during a competition season in 50% of the total official
matches played by the Club in those competitions. The condition was considered fulfilled
if the Player participated in at least 50% of the matches in both competitions as a starter
and/or played at least 45 minutes.
58. In this context, the Club stated that in the 2023/2024 season, the Player played 19 out of
35 matches and, therefore, was entitled to receive half of the amount from the Annex for
that season. However, it mentioned that the conditions prescribed by the regulations in
the 2024/2025 season were only met in two matches and, consequently, the Player was not
entitled to receive half of the amount from the Annex for the 2024/2025 season.
59. The Club affirmed that even if the regulations were disregarded, the claim would still be
incorrect, as the Club paid him RSD 7,509,000 by bank transfer and RSD 528,842.40 in cash.
Moreover, the Club stated that it paid several expenses for flight tickets for the Player, even
though it was not obliged to do so under the Contract. The Club argued that the travel
agency invoiced the Club a total amount of RSD 1,242,930.
60. Therefore, the Club mentioned that although the Player was only entitled to receive half
the amount from the Annex, the Club paid him RSD 9,773,898.69 out of RSD 10,720,000.
61. Based on the above, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
62. In his replica, the Player argued that the Contract did not stipulate that he had to fulfil 50%
appearances in 50% of the total official matches based on mathematical calculations or
conditions set out elsewhere by the Club. The Player alleged that if such detailed and clearly
explained conditions were intended, they should have been expressly stated in the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19822
Contract’s provisions. In addition, the Player contended that the Club’s regulations can be
widely interpreted and were created solely for the Club’s purposes.
63. In any event, the Player argued that the Club did not provide him with the opportunity to
play for half a year and reiterated that he participated in 56.75% of the games in which he
was eligible. Therefore, he claimed that the condition prescribed in the Annex was fulfilled.
64. The Player also stated that it was absurd and outrageous for the Club to claim that it spent
the Player’s salary on his travel expenses. First, the Player argued that the employer cannot
and could not unilaterally decide how to use his salary or apply it to cover alleged expenses
as a form of compensation. The Player asserted that the employer must arrange certain
conditions for the employee, and if the employer fails to take the necessary steps to
provide good working conditions - such as enabling the Player to enter the country where
he is employed - this could constitute an unjustified breach of contract. The Player argued
that by not covering the travel costs necessary for him to access the team, the Club
effectively barred his participation in competition and violated one of his fundamental
rights.
65. Based on the above, the Player argued that the Respondent did not fulfil its obligations and
still owes him the requested amounts.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
66. In its duplica, the Club first highlighted that the Player did not object to any payments made
to him during the term of the employment contract. The Club then referred to clause 1 of
the Annex, stating that its wording explicitly referred to the Club’s regulations. Therefore,
the Club argued that it should be undisputed that the Player accepted these regulations as
decisive in determining the full scope of the provision.
67. Moreover, the Club alleged that it was not true that the Claimant was unjustifiably excluded
from training and matches despite being fit to play. According to the Club, the Player
underperformed compared to his previous season, which is why he did not appear in the
majority of matches during the 2024/2025 season.
68. The Club also stated that it was not true that part of the Player’s salary was used for travel
expenses, as the Club not only paid all the salaries but also paid an amount exceeding the
total salary the Player was entitled to receive. Therefore, the Club asserted that it did not
deduct salaries to cover travel expenses.
69. Notwithstanding, the Club noted that the Player did not object to traveling to the
destinations indicated in the e-tickets provided by the Club and failed to demonstrate that
these e-tickets were paid by himself. Hence, the Club argued that it was undisputed that
the Club covered these expenses for the Player. The Club alleged that, given there was no
provision in the Contract obliging the Respondent to cover these expenses, the only logical
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19822
explanation for the Club to do so was that the Player requested the Club to cover them
from the financial resources he was entitled to under the Contract.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
70. 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 7 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 4
December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
71. 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 Nigerian player and a Serbian club.
72. 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
73. 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
74. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19822
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
75. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
76. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him the salaries
for May and June 2025, in addition to half of the signing fee.
77. The Club, conversely, argued that the Player was paid in excess of his salary entitlement
and was not entitled to the remaining balance of the signing fee he is claiming. In any event,
the Chamber noted that the Club stated that, if it is considered that the Player is entitled
to the signing fee, the amount paid in excess and several travel costs incurred by the Club
on behalf of the Player should be deducted.
78. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player is entitled to the amounts claimed.
a. Salaries for May and June 2025
79. The Player argued that the Club failed to pay him EUR 342 for May 2025 and EUR 171 for
June 2025. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Player mentioned that EUR 342 was
equivalent to RSD 40,000, the salary agreed upon in the Contract. Therefore, the Chamber
pointed out that the Player is requesting the full salary for May 2025 and a prorated salary
for June 2025, considering that the Contract ended on 15 June 2025.
80. First, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a
monthly salary of RSD 40,000 net, which may not be lower than the minimum net wage per
employee in Serbia. This salary was to be paid no later than the 10th of the following month.
Therefore, considering that the Contract ended on 15 June 2025, the Chamber concluded
that the Player was indeed entitled to RSD 40,000 for May 2025 and RSD 20,000 for June
2025.
81. The Chamber noted that the Club provided several proofs of payment, arguing that it paid
all the amounts to the Player and, in fact, overpaid him. While the Club argued that it paid
the Player RSD 1,380,000 in salaries, the Chamber highlighted that the evidence provided
actually demonstrates that the Club paid him RSD 1,320,000. Considering that the Contract
was valid from 10 August 2023 until 15 June 2025, the Chamber was of the opinion that the
Player was entitled to RSD 40,000 for 21 months and a prorated salary for August 2023
(RSD 28,000) and June 2025 (RSD 20,000), totalling RSD 888,000. Therefore, based on the
evidence provided by the Club, the Chamber determined that the Club paid the Player RSD
432,000 in excess.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19822
82. While the Chamber considered it unusual that the Club overpaid the Player throughout the
employment relationship - since the evidence suggests that the Club appeared to consider
the Player’s monthly salary as RSD 60,000 instead of RSD 40,000 – the Chamber remarked
that the Player, in his replica, did not dispute any of the evidence provided by the Club, nor
did he argue that he was not overpaid. The Chamber pointed out that the Player did not
even submit an argument to explain why he was not overpaid, such as claiming that the
RSD 60,000 was subject to deductions or that the minimum salary in Serbia amounted to
RSD 60,000 and therefore the Club paid that amount. In the absence of any argument or
evidence, the Chamber concluded that the Player was paid RSD 1,320,000, while he was
entitled to RSD 888,000.
83. In this sense, even if the Club did not make any payment in June 2025 for the salary of May
2025 or in July 2025 for the salary of June 2025, the Chamber considered that the Player
has already received more than what he was entitled to for salaries. Therefore, the
Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for the salaries for May and June 2025.
b. Signing fee
84. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber remarked that the Player is also requesting half
of the signing fee, which he argues amounts to EUR 48,624. Conversely, the Club alleged
that the Player was not entitled to the amount claimed, as the condition to trigger the
payment of the signing fee was not met.
85. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the relevant clause of the Annex stipulated the
following:
"The Club undertakes to pay the Player for the fee for the concluding of the Contracttransfer, according to financial possibilities, successively, through an unspecified
number of payments (tranches) -weekly, monthly, semi-annually and annually, the total
amount 10.720.000,00 RSD, whereby for each individual payment (tranche) a
corresponding Decision shall be issued by the Managing Board of the Club, whereas, if:
(…)
The transfer installment will be paid if the player during the Contract validity period,
achieves 50% of playing according to the club regulations.”
86. First, the Chamber considered that the wording of the clause is unclear and ambiguous.
While the first part of the clause suggests that the Club undertook to pay the Player a fee
for concluding the Contract (i.e., a signing fee), the second part appears to refer to a
conditional bonus that depends on the Player’s participation for the Club and, therefore, is
not directly related to the signature of the Contract.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19822
87. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the payment of the fee appears to be discretionary,
as it was supposed to be paid through “an unspecified number of payments” without clearly
defining the due dates. This wording leaves room for interpretation, as the payment could
be weekly, monthly, semi-annual, or annual. Moreover, the Chamber observed that this fee
was more than 10 times the Player’s annual salary.
88. Lastly, the Chamber noted that the condition to allegedly trigger the bonus was that the
Player, during the validity of the Contract, “achieves 50% of playing according to the club
regulations”.
89. Having stated the above, the Chamber recalled that the Club argued that, according to its
internal regulations, for the bonus to be triggered, the Player had to appear in 50% of the
total official matches played by the Club, where the condition would be considered fulfilled
if the Player participated in at least 50% of the matches in both competitions as a starter
and/or played at least 45 minutes. In this regard, the Club alleged that, while the Player
played in more than 50% of matches in the 2023/2024 season, he failed to do so in the
2024/2025 season and is therefore not entitled to the fee.
90. The Chamber pointed out that the Club, to support its position, provided its internal
regulations. Nevertheless, the Chamber stressed that the copy provided by the Club does
not bear the Player’s signature, nor is there any evidence demonstrating that the Player
was actually aware of these regulations. While it is true that the clause of the Annex
referred to the Club’s regulations, the Chamber was of the opinion that it is also true that
there is no indication that the Player was ever presented with such regulations, let alone
agreed to their terms. In this regard, the Chamber considered that, had the Club wanted
to subject the payment of the fee to a rule stipulated in its regulations, it should have
included the wording of the regulations in the clause. On the contrary, the regulations do
not appear to form part of the Contract.
91. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that it paid several amounts to the
Player as part of this signing fee from 13 September 2023 to 23 October 2024 and the
Player did not dispute any of these payments. Therefore, based on the evidence on file, the
Chamber concluded that the Player received RSD 8,037,080 for this fee in several payments
and on different dates.
92. Based on the Club’s own payments, the Chamber considered that the Club’s argument that
the Player was only entitled to half of the signing fee because he failed to play 50% of the
matches in the 2024/2025 season cannot succeed. The Club itself acknowledged, through
these payments, that the fee was not strictly conditional upon the Player playing 50% of
the matches in each season. If that had been the case, the Club would have paid him half
of the fee after the end of the 2023/2024 season and no further amounts. However, the
fact that the Club continued to make payments suggests that the condition was not as the
Club now argues and also created a legitimate expectation for the Player that the bonus
was not subject to such interpretation.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19822
93. In any case, the Chamber observed that the Player proved that, during the validity of the
Contract, he played more than 50% of the matches (42 out of 77). Considering that there is
no evidence that he was presented with the Club’s regulations, let alone that he accepted
them, the Chamber concluded that the condition for this payment to be triggered was that
he just played 50% of the matches during the validity of the Contract.
94. Furthermore, in the Chamber’s view, in the case of any doubt regarding the wording of the
clause, the principle in dubio contra stipulatorem shall apply. Therefore, the Chamber
determined that it should be interpreted that the Player had to play 50% of the matches
during the entire period of the Contract.
95. Hence, the Chamber determined that the Player was entitled to the total amount stipulated
in the clause, i.e., RSD 10,720,000. Since it is undisputed that the Player has already
received RSD 8,037,080 and that the Club overpaid the Player by RSD 432,000, the Chamber
determined that the Player is entitled to RSD 2,250,920 so that he will receive all the
amounts contractually agreed and will not be overpaid.
96. Although the Club also alleged that it paid RSD 1,242,930 for the Player’s travel costs and
that these amounts should be deducted, the Chamber was of the opinion that this amount
shall not be deducted. While it is true that the Player did not dispute that the Club paid for
those flight tickets, he argued that the Club was not entitled to pay them using the amount
of his salaries. In addition, while the Contract did not stipulate that the Club should bear
the travel costs of the Player, the Chamber did not find any document allowing the Club to
set off the amounts paid for flight tickets against the salaries or the signing fee. In this
respect, the Chamber considered that the payments made by the Club for flight tickets
consisted of a liberality of the Club in favour of the Player and cannot act to his detriment.
97. Based on the above, the Chamber decided to award the Player RSD 2,250,920 as
outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 June 2025, as requested.
Although the Player requested this amount in EUR, the Chamber remarked that the Annex
clearly stipulated that the amount was in RSD and, therefore, decided to award the amount
in that currency.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
98. 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.
99. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19822
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.
100. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
101. 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.
102. 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
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19822
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Patric Friday Eze, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Mladost, must pay to the Claimant RSD 2,250,920 as outstanding
remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 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.
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. 16
REF. FPSD-19822
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. 17