Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19858
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player William
Wilson
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
William Wilson, Australia
Represented by Greg Griffin
RESPONDENT:
Grobiņas SC, Latvia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19858
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 June 2025, the Australian Player William Wilson (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Latvian club Grobinas SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature
until 30 November 2026.
2.
In accordance with clause 4.2 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the
Claimant a monthly salary of EUR 2,850 net.
3.
Between 24 June and 1 July 2025, the Claimant’s agent, Mr. Adrian Griffin (hereinafter: the
Agent), and another person named, Vjaceslavs “Slava” Kopitovs (hereinafter: Mr. Slava
Kopitov), exchanged multiple WhatsApp messages concerning the Club’s refusal to proceed
with the Claimant’s registration. In these conversations, Mr. Slava Kopitov stated that the
Club’s head coach did not want the Claimant and suggested that the Claimant should either
return to Australia or attend a trial with another club, while also proposing to arrange
flights or assist in finding a new club. The Agent insisted that the Club was contractually
obliged to register the Claimant given that a valid employment contract had been executed.
The Agent further alleged that the Club had cancelled the Claimant’s hotel reservation.
4.
Meanwhile, on 25 June 2025, a person named Grebis Kristap contacted the Claimant via
WhatsApp to inform him that he would collect him at 11:20 a.m. on the same day. In this
context, WhatsApp exchanges between the agent and Slava suggest that the Claimant was
offered the opportunity to attend a trial with the Lithuanian club Dainava Alytus. However,
the Claimant did not attend the trial and instead remained in his accommodation.
5.
Afterwards, on 26 June 2025, the Claimant, through his legal representatives, sent an email
to the Club (hereinafter: the Default Notice), in which he requested that the Club proceed
with his registration with the Latvian Football Federation by 30 June 2025 and reaffirmed
that the Claimant was ready and willing to render his services under the employment
contract. In the same communication, the Claimant asserted that the Club’s conduct—
namely the failure to register him, as well as the cancellation or non-extension of his
accommodation and the proposal for him to attend a trial with another club, amounted to
an attempt to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship. Through the Default
Notice, the Claimant informed the Club that, should it fail to remedy the situation within
the stipulated deadline, he reserved the right to terminate the contract for just cause in
accordance with the applicable laws.
6.
During the same timeline, between 25 June 2025 and 1 July 2025 the Agent informed the
Claimant that the Respondent had lamented excessive costs with regard to the Player’s visa
and registration costs. Additionally, according to the Agent, the Club would not want to
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19858
register the Claimant and instead proposed to pay the latter a total of EUR 2,500 on top of
covering the Claimant’s flight tickets back to Australia. In this context, the Agent further
informed Mr. Slava that he would consult the Claimant’s parents about the
abovementioned offer by the Club. Ultimately, the Claimant’s parents did not accept the
proposed settlement.
7.
Meanwhile, on 26 June 2025, the Claimant’s legal representative contacted the Australian
Football Federation (Football Australia) in order to verify whether an International Transfer
Certificate (ITC) request had been submitted by the Latvian Football Federation for the
Claimant’s registration.
8.
On 1 July 2025, Football Australia informed the Claimant that no such ITC request had been
received, which, according to the Claimant, demonstrated that no steps had been taken by
the Club to register him during the relevant period.
9.
Also on 1 July 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract based on art. 14 par, 2 of the
RSTP.
10. On 2 July 2025, the Claimant travelled to London (England) from Riga (Latvia).
11. On 8 October 2025, the Claimant informed FIFA that on 15 July 2025 he signed a new
employment contract (hereinafter: the New Employment Contract) with the club Vasaan
Palloseura from Finland valid as from the date of its signature until 31 October 2025 and
an option to extend the duration of this contract until 31 October 2026.
12. According to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 2,800 net.
13. However, on 24 February 2026 the Claimant informed the FIFA general secretariat that as
from 31 December 2025 he remained unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 10 July 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
15. In his claim, the Player lamented the Club’s failure to fulfil its first fundamental contractual
obligation by not proceeding with his registration with the Latvian Football Federation,
whereas the Player had duly executed the employment contract with the Club as of 20 June
2025 and thus complied with all duties arising therefrom, including travelling to Latvia at
his own expense, attending training sessions, and remaining at the Club’s disposal at all
times. In this respect, the Player held that such failure by the Respondent prevented him
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19858
from exercising his professional activity and constituted a material breach under the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
16. The Player further submitted that the Club’s conduct, including the alleged cancellation or
non‑extension of his accommodation and the absence of any training schedules or
administrative guidance, demonstrated a clear intention by the Club not to honor the
employment relationship.
17. Furthermore, the Player affirmed that the Club attempted to induce him to abandon the
employment relationship by proposing either the Player’s return to Australia or a trial with
another club based in Lithuania, namely Dainava Alytus. In this respect, the Player argued
that such proposals were incompatible with the existence of a valid employment contract
and amounted to the Club’s attempt to circumvent its contractual obligations.
18. The Player stated that the conversations with the Club’s alleged Assistant Coach would
suggest that the Club lacked the financial means to honor the Contract, as he was allegedly
informed that the Club could not afford to pay his monthly salary or cover the alleged EUR
9,000 registration fee required for foreign players.
19. In this context, the Player referred of an unsigned letter dated 25 June 2025, allegedly
addressed to the Agent and attributed to Mr. Slava, in which it was proposed that the
Claimant and another player, Mr. Kur Kur (hereinafter: Mr. Kur would each receive EUR
2,500 by 31 July 2025 as well as flight tickets (hereinafter: the Letter).
20. Moreover, the Player declared that, on 29 June 2025, another unsigned letter attributed to
Mr. Slava was shared (hereinafter: the Second Letter) by the Agent, in which it was proposed
that the Claimant and Mr. Kur would each receive EUR 2,500 by 31 August 2025 as well as
flight tickets. This Second Letter contained terms similar to the Letter 2025, with the only
difference being the extended payment due date.
21. In addition, the Player provided a statement relating to a conversation he allegedly held on
28 June 2025 with a person named Oskar Klava (hereinafter: Mr. Klava), who, according to
the same Player, was the Club’s Assistant Coach. In this statement, the Player asserted that
Mr. Klava had informed him that Mr. Slava and another person named “Alek” had signed
the Claimant and Mr. Kur without the knowledge of the coaching staff. According to the
Player, Mr. Klava further stated that he and Mr. Kur were the highest-paid players in the
team and the Club could not afford the alleged EUR 9,000 registration fees nor the EUR
2,500 monthly salary.
22. The Player stated therefore that, faced with the Club’s refusal to register him and to respect
the employment contract, he would have no alternative but to issue a Default Notice on 26
June 2025, granting the Club five days to remedy the situation. According to the Player, the
Club did not respond to the notice nor take any action to comply with its obligations.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19858
23. The Player further alleged that the situation worsened on 30 June 2025, when the
registration deadline set under the Default Notice expired without any steps being taken
by the Club to integrate the Player into the squad, nor to provide accommodation and/or
complete his registration.
24. The Player further affirmed that, given the Club’s continued inaction and the lack of any
remedial measures within the deadline, he was forced to terminate the employment
contract with immediate effect on 1 July 2025 for just cause, in accordance with article 14
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
25. Also, the Player sustained having received confirmation from Football Australia on 1 July
2025, stating that no ITC request had been lodged on his behalf, would also corroborate
the Player’s position that the Club had never intended to register him.
26. Lastly, the Player held that the Club’s behavior amounted to a clear and unjustified refusal
to honor the employment relationship and therefore constituted just cause for
termination, entitling him to the relief sought.
27. The Player submitted the following requests for relief:
1. Damages in the sum of €48,450.00 being the Claimant’s agreed contract value (the
Contract) with the Respondent for the 2025 and 2026 seasons to play in the Virsliga for the
Respondent being for the period of the contract commencing on 20 June 2025 and ending
on 30 November 2026 (the Contract period);
2. Additional compensation pursuant to Article 17 paragraph 1 (ii) of the RSTP in the sum of
€17,100.00 due to the egregious circumstances of the Respondent’s conduct leading to the
termination of the Contract;
3. An amount for €1,396.22 being the cost of the flight from Adelaide to Riga WW18;
4. The amount of €990.90 the cost of the flight from Riga to London (to return to Australia, post
termination) WW19;
5. Interest to be calculated on the damages awarded at the maximum allowable interest per
annum under Swiss law of 18%; and
6. An order that the Respondent pay the Claimant’s costs of these proceedings in accordance
with Rule 18 of the Procedural Rules, up to the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 as referred
to in the Procedural Rules.”
b. Reply of the Club
28. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19858
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 10 July 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.
30. 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
an Australian player and a Latvian club.
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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-19858
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
Claimant prematurely terminated the employment relationship with the Respondent,
arguing having suffered an unjust breach of the contract by the latter, who allegedly failed
to execute the relevant agreement between the parties since the beginning.
35. Before entering the analysis of this specific case, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind
the parties that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the
termination of a contract without prior warning. 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 for an employer to
assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
36. In line with the above, the Chamber also referred to the specific wording of art. 14 par. 2
of the Regulations, according to which “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the
counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a
player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause”.
37. In this context, the Chamber observed that, although duly invited to do so, the Respondent
failed to submit its response to the claim. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21
par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and decided to take a decision upon the basis of the
documents on file.
38. Consequently, the Chamber acknowledged that it is undisputed that the parties concluded
an employment contract on 20 June 2025, valid until 30 November 2026, and that the
Claimant travelled to Latvia and made himself available to the Respondent for the
performance of his contractual obligations.
39. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s allegation, supported by
documentary evidence, that the Respondent failed to initiate his registration with the
Latvian Football Federation. In this regard, the Chamber also took note of the confirmation
provided by Football Australia according to which no request for an ITC had been lodged
on behalf of the Claimant.
40. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that the registration of a player constitutes a
fundamental obligation of the club and a necessary precondition for the player to be able
to perform his sporting activity.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19858
41. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s statement that the Respondent,
through Mr. Slava Kopitov, informed him that the head coach did not wish to retain his
services and encouraged him to either return to Australia or undergo a trial with another
club. Equally, the Chamber noted the Claimant’s allegation that his accommodation was
cancelled or not extended and that, as from 25 June 2025, no training schedule or
administrative guidance was provided.
42. In addition, the Chamber took note of the statements submitted by the Claimant and Mr.
Kur, according to which an assistant coach allegedly indicated that the Respondent was
unable to cover their salaries or the costs related to their registration, and that their
signings had been completed without the knowledge of the coaching staff. In the absence
of any position from the Respondent, the Chamber decided to take these elements into
account in the overall assessment of the matter.
43. Moreover, the Chamber observed that on 26 June 2025 the Claimant put the Respondent
in default, granting it a deadline of five days to remedy the alleged breaches, in particular
to proceed with his registration. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent did not
react to said notice nor remedied the situation within the granted deadline.
44. The Chamber further noted that, on 1 July 2025, the Claimant terminated the employment
contract, invoking the Respondent’s failure to comply with its contractual and regulatory
obligations, in particular with regard to his registration, accommodation and training
conditions.
45. In this respect, the Chamber recalled its well-established jurisprudence, according to which
the unjustified failure of a club to register a player, thereby preventing him from
performing his duties, constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. Furthermore, the
Chamber recalled that conduct demonstrating an intention not to honour a contract may,
in conjunction with other relevant circumstances, amount to just cause.
46. In the case at hand, the Chamber was comfortably satisfied that the Respondent failed to
take the necessary steps to register the Claimant, that no ITC request was initiated, and
that the Respondent did not provide any justification for such inaction.
47. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant submitted documentary evidence in
the form of an email from Football Australia confirming that no ITC request had been
lodged on his behalf, which corroborates his allegations.
48. In addition, the Chamber took note of the existence of unsigned settlement proposals
offering EUR 2,500 and flight tickets, which, in the Chamber’s view, further indicate the
Respondent’s intention to prematurely terminate the contractual relationship.
49. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Claimant remained in Latvia, made himself
available for training when requested, and attempted to resolve the situation by means of
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19858
a default notice prior to terminating the contract, which the Chamber considered to be in
line with the principle of ultima ratio.
50. On account of the above, and considering the totality of the circumstances, the Chamber
concluded that the Respondent seriously breached its contractual obligations.
51. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the
employment contract on 1 July 2025.
ii. Consequences
52. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
53. The Chamber took note that the Claimant requested a total of EUR 2,387.12 for flight
tickets.
54. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Contract did not establish any obligation in
this regard. In addition, the Chamber took note of the existence of unsigned settlement
proposals offering EUR 2,500 and flight tickets.
55. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant did not accept the unsigned settlement
proposals. Therefore, it decided to reject this claim.
56. In this context, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
57. 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.
58. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19858
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).
59. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 48,450 (i.e., EUR 2,850 per 17 months until 30 November
2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
60. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
61. Indeed, on 15 July 2025, the Player found employment with the Finnish club Vasaan
Palloseura, effective until 31 December 2025. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 2,800 per month, for
a total of 5 months. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his
damages in the total amount of EUR 14,000.
62. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, however the Chamber ascertained that the
contract termination did not take place due to overdue payables and therefore decided not
to award any additional compensation to the Claimant.
63. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 34,450 to the Claimant (i.e., EUR 48,450 minus 14,000, which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
64. The Chamber noted that the Claimant did not request the compensation to be awarded as
net, therefore the Chamber decided that no such reference should be included in the
award.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19858
65. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s request for interest over the
compensation at a rate of 18% p.a. In this respect, the Chamber observed that said interest
rate was not agreed between the parties.
66. Therefore, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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
72. 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,
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19858
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19858
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, William Wilson, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Grobiņas SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
-
EUR 34,450 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
July 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. 14
REF. FPSD-19858
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. 15