Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20074
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Hasan Hamdan Habib Al-Enezi
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Arabi SC, Kuwait
Represented by Georgi Gradev
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Hasan Hamdan Habib Al-Enezi, Kuwait
Represented by Fahmi Belhadj Mohamed
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Al Ahli SC, Jordan
THIRD RESPONDENT:
Kuwait SC, Kuwait
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20074
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
o The Kuwaiti club Arabi SC (hereinafter, Arabi SC or the Claimant), affiliated to the
Kuwait Football Association (KFA);
o The Kuwaiti player Hasan Hamdan Habib Al-Enezi (hereinafter, the Player or the First
Respondent), born on 1 September 2000;
o The Jordanian club Al Ahli SC (hereinafter, Al Ahli SC or the Second Respondent),
affiliated to the Jordan Football Association (JFA); and
o The Kuwaiti club Kuwait SC (hereinafter, Kuwait SC or the Third Respondent) affiliated
to KFA.
2.
On 26 June 2022, Arabi SC and the Player concluded an employment contract (hereinafter,
the First Contract), valid as from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2027.
3.
Pursuant to Clause 3 of the First Contract, Arabi SC undertook to pay the Player a total
fixed remuneration of KWD 90,000, payable in monthly instalments of KWD 1,500 on the
28th day of each month.
4.
According to Arabi SC, on 1 June 2025, Arabi SC and the Player concluded a new
employment contract (hereinafter, the Second Contract), valid for five sporting seasons.
The validity of the Second Contract is disputed by the Player.
5.
Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Second Contract, Arabi SC undertook to pay the Player a total
fixed remuneration of KWD 90,000, payable in monthly instalments of KWD 1,500, without
specifying a due date for payment.
6.
On 18 June 2025, the Player sent an email to Arabi SC unilaterally terminating the First
Contract. In his communication, the Player stated the following:
“I, [the Player], hereby notify you of the termination of [the First Contract] concluded on
26 June 2022, valid for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2027.
This termination is based on the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Kuwait Football
Association’s Regulations on Professionalism and Article 17(3) of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, which allow a player to terminate his contract without just
cause after the expiration of the protected period (i.e., after 3 years), provided that a formal
written notice is given to the club at least 15 days in advance.
Accordingly, I hereby formally notify you of the termination of [the First Contract], effective
from 30 June 2025”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20074
7.
On 19 June 2025, in response to the Player’s termination notice, Arabi SC replied to the
Player stating that the termination was legally moot, as the parties had signed the Second
Contract, which replaced the First Contract. Arabi SC remarked that the Player had not
contested the validity of the Second Contract and instructed him to report back for preseason.
8.
Also on 19 June 2025, Arabi SC contacted the Jordanian club Al Ramtha SC warning it
against inducing the Player to breach his employment contract. Arabi SC stated that Al
Ramtha SC had made public statements on social media linking the Player to the club, and
instructed Al Ramtha SC to immediately cease and desist from any contact with the Player
and to remove all public statements or social media content referring to his alleged
transfer.
9.
Also on 19 June 2025, Arabi SC contacted Kuwait SC, informing it that Arabi SC had reason
to believe that Kuwait SC may have actively encouraged or induced the Player to
unilaterally terminate his employment contract despite being aware that he had singed
the Second Contract on 1 June 2025. Arabi SC instructed Kuwait SC to immediately cease
any activity that may interfere with its contractual relationship with the Player.
10.
On 20 June 2025, the Player replied to Arabi SC’s email of 19 June 2025, stating that he
had not signed any contract other than the First Contract, and requested to be provided
with a copy of the Second Contract.
11.
On 21 June 2025, Arabi SC sent the Player a copy of the Second Contract via email, pointing
out that it bore the Player’s signature and fingerprint and that it had been duly registered
with KFA.
12.
On 22 June 2025, the Player contacted KFA, asserting that he had not signed the Second
Contract and that the only valid agreement was the First Contract, which he had
unilaterally terminated based on art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) and art. 45 par. 2 of the KFA
Professionalism Regulations.
13.
On 1 July 2025, the Player concluded a new employment contract with Al Ahli SC, valid
until the end of the 2025/2026 season.
14.
Pursuant to Clause 19 of this employment contract, the Player is entitled to a total fixed
remuneration of USD 10,000.
15.
According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 2 July
2025 Al Ahli SC initiated the transfer instruction “Engage out of contract free of payment
professional” for the Player’s transfer from Arabi SC.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20074
16.
On 3 July 2025, Arabi SC contacted Al Ahli SC stating, inter alia, the following:
“We have been informed by the Kuwait Football Association (“KFA”) that your club, Al Ahli SC,
requested the International Transfer Certificate (“ITC”) of [the Player].
We must remind you that [the Player] is currently bound by a valid and enforceable
employment contract with Al-Arabi Sporting Club, signed on 1 June 2025 and effective for
five sporting seasons, until the end of the 2029–2030 season. The player is therefore not a
free agent, nor is h authorized to negotiate or conclude any agreement with another club.
Any attempt by your club to negotiate with, induce, or register [the Player] constitutes a
violation of Article 17(4) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP),
which explicitly prohibits third-party inducement to breach contract within the protected
period.
Please also be advised that any public statement (via social media or otherwise) by Al Ahli
SC will amount to public interference with our contractual relationship and may be used as
prima facie evidence of bad faith and tampering”.
17.
In its communication, Arabi SC urged Al Ahli SC to immediately cease and desist from any
contact with the Player and to immediately revoke its ITC request, informing that its
issuance had been rejected.
18.
Pursuant to the information retrieved from TMS, and in the context of the transfer
instruction initiated by Al Ahli SC, on 6 July 2025, KFA uploaded a letter from Arabi SC
stating that the Player was bound by a valid contract with Arabi SC; namely, the Second
Contract.
19.
On 28 August 2025, KFA replied to the Player’s communication dated 22 June 2025,
informing him that it had decided not to ratify the Second Contract because (i) the Second
Contract overlapped with the First Contract; (ii) it exceeded the maximum duration of five
years specified in art. 20 of KFA Professional Regulations; and (iii) no settlement between
Arabi SC and the Player proving the termination of the First Contract had been submitted.
20.
On an unspecified date, the Player filed a criminal complaint against Arabi SC before the
General Attorney of Kuwait, alleging that Arabi SC had forged the Second Contract. The
Player’s criminal complaint is currently pending.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20074
II.
Proceedings before FIFA
21.
On 24 July 2025, Arabi SC filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Arabi SC’s claim
22.
In its claim, Arabi SC first submitted that FIFA is competent to adjudicate the dispute
pursuant to art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations.
23.
As to the merits, Arabi SC argued that the Second Contract is a valid and binding
employment contract with the Player, as it contains all essentialia negotii of an
employment contract. According to Arabi SC, any unsubstantiated denial or insinuation of
forgery regarding the conclusion of the Second Contract cannot overcome the strong
presumption of validity attached to a duly executed contract. Relying on the jurisprudence
of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Arabi SC contended that “where a contract is
signed by the player (even with a fingerprint), it is deemed authentic unless the challenging
party proves otherwise”.
24.
On this basis, Arabi SC asserted that the Second Contract governed the employment
relationship as from 1 June 2025. Consequently, “The Player’s purported termination of the
First Contract on 18 June 2025, was legally inoperative, as that contract had already been
superseded by mutual agreement”.
25.
According to Arabi SC, the Player unilaterally terminated the Second Contract without just
cause by signing a new employment contract with Al Ahli SC on 3 July 2025. Furthermore,
the breach occurred within the protected period. In the alternative, Arabi SC argued that,
should the Second Contract be found invalid or unenforceable, the Player’s actions
nonetheless amount to a breach of the First Contract, which was valid until 30 June 2027.
Although the breach would in that scenario fall outside the protected period, “this does
not absolve [the Player] of liability”.
26.
According to Arabi SC, the Player’s reliance on art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations is
misguided, as said provision does not grant a right to terminate but addresses the legal
consequences of the breach. Moreover, the Player failed to comply with the requirement
that any termination notice be sent within 15 days of the last official match of the season
which —according to Arabi SC— took place on 30 May 2025. In casu, the Player sent his
termination notice on 18 June 2025, i.e., 19 days later. According to Arabi SC, this
procedural failure renders the termination without just cause and, even under the
alternative claim, leaves the Player liable for breach of contract without just cause.
27.
Regarding the legal consequences of the breach, Arabi SC submitted that FIFA and CAS
jurisprudence apply the “positive interest” principle, aiming to place the injured party in
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20074
the position it would have been in had the contract been fulfilled. In this regard, Arabi SC
contended that the residual value of the Second Contract “provides the basis for this claim”,
and therefore claimed the alleged residual value of the Second Contract or, in the
alternative, the First Contract, in the amount of KWD 450,000 and KWD 180,000,
respectively.
28.
Arabi SC further asserted that the Player’s new employment contract with Al Ahli SC
reportedly offers significantly lower remuneration than his agreement with Arabi SC.
According to Arabi SC, based on FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, artificially reduced
remuneration in subsequent contracts should not negatively impact the calculation of
compensation due to the previous club, and adjudicating bodies may disregard such
values or calculate compensation based on the average between the breached and new
contract to more accurately reflect the player’s market value.
29.
Accordingly, Arabi SC maintained that its claim for the residual value of the Second
Contract —or, in the alternative, the First Contract— appropriately reflects the Player’s
true market value, bearing in mind demonstrable demand from other clubs, including Al
Ramtha SC and Kuwait SC. Therefore, Arabi SC considered its primary and alternative
claims to be reasonable, proportionate and consistent with FIFA regulations and FIFA and
CAS jurisprudence.
30.
Arabi SC submitted that, under art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, when a player breaches
a contract without just cause and is liable to pay compensation, the player’s new club shall
be held jointly and severally liable, unless it can prove it did not induce the breach.
31.
In this respect, Arabi SC asserted that, in casu, Al Ahli SC qualifies as the Player’s new club.
It signed the Player on 3 July 2025 and submitted an ITC request on the same date, despite
Arabi SC’s formal notice. Arabi SC argued that CAS jurisprudence confirms that
inducement can be inferred when a club signs a player shortly after his unilateral
termination, especially where the club is aware of a contractual dispute. According to
Arabi SC, Al Ahli SC’s actions constitute inducement —or, at least, facilitation of breach—
and the new club is therefore jointly and severally liable for the full amount of
compensation awarded.
32.
Arabi SC also named Kuwait SC as a co-respondent “due to its suspect involvement in
orchestrating what appears to be a bridge transfer”. According to Arabi SC, Kuwait SC had
been in contact with the Player prior to his breach. Arabi SC further claimed that “The fact
that the Player chose to move to a Jordanian club with expected significantly lower financial
terms than his existing contract with [Arabi SC], combined with the prior interest of Kuwait SC,
supports the inference that Al Ahli SC may be acting as an intermediary club”. According to
Arabi SC, CAS jurisprudence confirms that clubs that orchestrate or materially contribute
to a breach —regardless of whether they ultimately register the player— can be held
jointly liable and sanctioned.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20074
33.
Based on the above, Arabi SC requested the following relief:
“In view of the above, [Arabi SC] respectfully requests the DRC to:
1. Confirm its jurisdiction over the present dispute.
2. Declare that the Player breached the Second Contract without just cause during the
protected period.
3. Alternatively, declare that the Player breached the First Contract without just cause
outside the protected period by failing to respect the 15-day post-season notice
period.
4. Order the Player to pay compensation to [Arabi SC] as follows:
a) Primarily, KWD 450,000 plus interest at 5% per annum from July 3, 2025, until the
date of full and effective payment; or
b) In the alternative, KWD 180,000 plus interest at 5% per annum from June 18, 2025,
until the date of full and effective payment.
5. Hold Al Ahli SC jointly and severally liable for the awarded compensation.
6. Hold Kuwait SC jointly and severally liable under Articles 17(2) and 17(5) RSTP for
inducing and orchestrating the Player’s breach.
7. Imposing sporting sanctions on the Player, specifically a restriction of four to six
months from participating in official matches, in accordance with Article 17(3) RSTP.
8. Imposing sporting sanctions on Al Ahli SC and Kuwait SC, specifically a ban from
registering new players for two entire and consecutive registration periods, in
accordance with Articles 17(4) and 17(5) RSTP”.
b. Player’s reply to the claim
34.
In his reply, the Player stated that he signed the First Contract on 26 June 2022, valid from
1 July 2022 until 30 June 2027. He further asserted that, on the same date, Arabi SC
presented multiple copies “for administrative formalities” to be sent to KFA, which he signed
in good faith without cross-checking each copy, as it never occurred to him that Arabi SC
was hiding malicious intentions and would later engage in fraud.
35.
According to the Player, on 18 June 2025, he sent a termination notice after the end of the
protected period, relying on art. 17 para. 3 of the Regulations and art. 45 para. 2 of KFA
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20074
Professional Regulations. He added that the decision to terminate was taken
independently and without any influence or inducement.
36.
The Player categorically denied having signed any other contract with Arabi SC other than
the First Contract. In this regard, the Player alleged that the Second Contract is forged. He
claimed it includes a handwritten date added on the first page and maintained that the
First Contract is the only valid agreement concluded with Arabi SC.
37.
The Player stated that he notified the KFA of the alleged manipulation of the Second
Contract and filed a criminal complaint for forgery, which he said is ongoing. Beyond the
handwritten date, he argued the Second Contract lacks start and end dates and merely
states “valid for five seasons”, reproduces the same salary and conditions as the First
Contract, uses a different font for personal details, and contains no reference to the First
Contract. According to the Player, this shows “that the document presented is not a new
contract concluded in 2025, but rather the very same contract that the player had signed in
2022”.
38.
The Player added that Arabi SC never announced that he had signed the Second Contract
and that only after he informed Arabi SC of his decision to terminate did the Club invent
this incorrect and malicious situation.
39.
The Player further stated that the KFA rejected the homologation and/or registration of
the Second Contract and that Arabi SC withheld this refusal from FIFA, which, according
to him, evidences bad faith. Accordingly, the Player contended that the Secon Contract is
invalid.
40.
The Player submitted that art. 17 para. 3 of the Regulations allows a player to terminate a
contract after the protected period within 15 days of the last official match of the season.
He added that the same rule is reproduced in art. 45 para. 2 of KFA Professional
Regulations.
41.
In this regard, the Player stated that the First Contract began in July 2022 and that, by June
2025, three full seasons had been already completed. Accordingly, the protected period
had expired. Moreover, he argued that the official match played by Arabi SC on 30 May
2025 was the semifinal of the National Cup, which Arabi SC won, thereby qualifying for
the final scheduled by the KFA for 16 June 2025. According to the Player, this was the Club’s
last official match of the season, and therefore his termination complied with art. 17 para.
3 of the Regulations.
42.
The Player further argued that, on 15 June 2025, the KFA announced the cancellation of
the National Cup final. Therefore, until 15 June 2025, the sporting season had not
concluded, as Arabi SC remained officially engaged in a national competition. The Player
contended that the 15-day deadline should be counted from 16 June 2025 (the scheduled
final) or, at least, 15 June 2025 (the cancellation date).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20074
43.
Regarding compensation, the Player contended that Arabi SC failed to prove damage as
required by art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations and cannot base compensation on a forged,
invalid, and not homologated contract.
44.
Moreover, the Player argued that no sporting sanction is warranted because termination
occurred outside the protected period and within the deadline stipulated in art. 17 par. 3
of the Regulations.
45.
Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“The player request from the Honorable FIFA DRC to reject the Claim of the Claimant in its
entirety”.
c. Al Ahli SC’s reply to the claim
46.
In its reply to the claim, Al Ahli SC categorically denied having induced the Player to
terminate his employment contract with Arabi SC and argued that Arabi SC has failed to
discharge its burden of proof in this regard.
47.
Al Ahli SC asserted that, on 18 June 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated his
employment contract with Arabi SC independently and without any contact with Al Ahli
SC. Furthermore, Al Ahli SC contended that, on 19 June 2025, Arabi SC issued warning
letters to Al Ramtha SC and Kuwait SC, which demonstrates that Arabi SC did not attribute
any responsibility to Al Ahli SC at that time.
48.
According to Al Ahli SC, the Player immediately entered negotiations with Al Ramtha SC
following the termination, which negates any causal link with Al Ahli SC.
49.
Al Ahli SC submitted that it only concluded a contract with the Player on 1 July 2025, well
after the termination, acting in good faith. On 2 July 2025, it submitted the ITC request via
TMS and, on the same date, received Arabi SC’s first communication.
50.
Al Ahli SC stated that, pursuant to art. 17 of the Regulations, a player’s new club may only
be held jointly and severally liable for compensation if there is clear evidence that it
induced the player to breach his contract. Al Ahli SC added that the same principle applies
to sporting sanctions, emphasizing that it is Arabi SC’s burden to prove inducement.
51.
In this regard, Al Ahli SC contended that Arabi SC failed to meet the required burden, as
there is no evidence that Al Ahli SC contacted, negotiated with, or influenced the Player
prior to his unilateral termination on 18 June 2025.
52.
Based on the above, Al Ahli SC requested the following relief:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20074
“For the reasons set forth above, Al Ahli SC respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
1. Dismiss the allegation of inducement in its entirety, as the Claimant has failed to
discharge its burden of proof under Article 12(3) FIFA Procedural Rules.
2. Reject any request for joint and several liability against Al Ahli SC, as the conditions of
Article 17”) RSTP are not fulfilled in the absence of proven inducement.
3. Reject the imposition of sporting sanctions against Al Ahli SC, as the requirements of
Article 17(4) RSTP are not met. The chronology of events and absence of inducement
preclude the application of this provision.
4. Order the Claimant to bear the procedural costs of these proceedings, in accordance
with Article 18(1) FIFA Procedural Rules, given the unfounded and contradictory
nature of its claim”.
d. Kuwait SC’s reply to the claim
53.
In its reply to the claim, Kuwait SC asserted that it has no contractual relationship with the
Player and played no role in the disputed transfer. Kuwait SC emphasized that it never
negotiated with or signed any contract with the Player and never induced him to
terminate his contract with Arabi SC. On this basis, Kuwait SC argued that Arabi SC lacks
standing to proceed against Kuwait SC.
54.
Kuwait SC further contended that Arabi SC submitted no evidence proving that Kuwait SC
induced the Player to terminate the contract, relying instead on mere “suspected
involvement.” According to Kuwait SC, Arabi SC’s own conduct confirms the absence of
evidence, as its allegations were based solely on a speculative warning letter, which was
also sent to other clubs.
55.
Based on the above, Kuwait SC requested the following relief:
“Kuwait SC respectfully requests from the honorable FIFA Football Tribunal that any claims
against it be dismissed”.
e. Arabi SC’s replica
56.
In its replica, Arabi SC maintained that the Second Contract was valid and reiterated that
the Player terminated it without just cause.
57.
In particular, Arabi SC first asserted that the Player did not dispute the authenticity of his
signatures or fingerprints on the Second Contract and, therefore, the contract must be
presumed authentic. Arabi SC added that CAS jurisprudence confirms that the burden of
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20074
proof lies with the party alleging forgery. Consequently, the Player bore the burden of
proving that the handwritten date “June 1, 2025” was added without his knowledge or
consent and that both contracts were signed simultaneously. Arabi SC emphasized that
“A mere denial is insufficient; objections to authenticity must be substantiated with credible
evidence”.
58.
Arabi SC argued that the Player also failed to prove that he filed a criminal complaint
against it, and therefore the Football Tribunal must presume the authenticity of the
Second Contract.
59.
Arabi SC pointed out that the First Contract and the Second Contract indeed differ in both
form and substance. The only identical terms are the duration (five years) and monthly
remuneration (KWD 1,500), which, according to Arabi SC, is not unusual, does not indicate
manipulation or bad faith, and does not establish falsification. Furthermore, Arabi SC
argued that, based on FIFA jurisprudence, a party signing a document of legal importance
without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own
responsibility.
60.
Arabi SC maintained that the absence of a pre-printed date does not imply simultaneous
signing, and the Player provided no evidence of fraudulent conduct in this regard.
61.
Moreover, Arabi SC argued that the commencement date of the Second Contract is clearly
indicated at the top of the first page as “June 1, 2025”. Likewise, the expiry date is stated
in Clause 1.3 of the Second Contract, which specifies that “this contract is for five sports
seasons starting from the date of signature”. According to Arabi SC, this allows for a clearly
determinable end date based on the association’s season schedule.
62.
Arabi SC also claimed that neither FIFA regulations nor the Second Contract impose a
public announcement of the Player’s renewal as a condition for validity. Similarly, there is
no obligation for a new contract to reference a previous contract as a precondition for
validity.
63.
Regarding the KFA’s refusal to register the Second Contract, Arabi SC argued that the
validity of an employment contract is not contingent upon administrative formalities. In
any event, Arabi SC noted that the KFA’s letter contains no finding of forgery or invalidity,
and that the Second Contract complies with art. 18 par. 2 of the Regulations regarding
duration. In this regard, Arabi SC asserted that the First Contract was effectively
terminated with the signature of the Second Contract. Arabi SC added that, by refusing to
register the Second Contract, the KFA acted ultra vires and contrary to the applicable
regulations.
64.
Based on the foregoing, Arabi SC reiterated that the Second Contract —signed and
fingerprinted by the Player— is valid and binding, replacing the First Contract as of 1 June
2025.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20074
65.
Arabi SC insisted that the Player implicitly terminated the Second Contract without just
cause by signing a new employment contract with Al Ahli SC on 1 July 2025, in accordance
with art. 18 par. 5 of the Regulations, and that art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations does not
grant a right to terminate a contract; rather, it merely defines the disciplinary
consequences applicable when a player terminates a contract without just cause.
Accordingly, the Player had no valid legal basis to terminate the First Contract either.
66.
As to the legal consequences of the alleged breach, Arabi SC stated that art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations clearly provides that in all cases, the party that has suffered as a result of
a breach of contract shall be entitled to receive compensation. Arabi SC asserted that “The
phrase “in all cases” means without exception, and “shall” denotes a mandatory obligation,
leaving no discretion to deny compensation where a breach has occurred”.
67.
According to Arabi SC, the Player’s position that it suffered no loss is legally and factually
unsustainable, as it continues to suffer harm from the Player’s absence and loss of
sporting contribution.
68.
Arabi SC contended that, following the Player’s unjustified termination, it was forced to
sign three centre-backs as replacements, as this was the Player’s position:
o Kenneth Semakula, who was released six weeks after signing through a
termination agreement with a payment of USD 100,000 (approximately
KWD 30,700);
o Nabil Marmouk, recruited from Wydad AC at an estimated market value of
KWD 138,000 and with a contractual salary of KWD 110,000 for the 2025/2025
season; and
o Nasser Saeed, hired on 20 September 2025 for two seasons with a total salary of
KWD 25,000.
69.
Based on the above, Arabi SC claimed that it incurred in total replacement costs of
KWD 303,700.
70.
Arabi SC also claimed entitlement to KWD 450,000 in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations. According to Arabi SC, this amount reflects the Player’s market value based
on the residual value of the Second Contract.
71.
Therefore, Arabi SC contended that its total compensable damage amounts to KWD
753,700, in line with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations and the “positive interest” principle,
which reflects actual, documented financial losses and sporting disruption directly
attributable to the Player’s unjustified breach.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20074
72.
In the alternative, Arabi SC reiterated that, should the Football Tribunal consider the
Second Contract invalid or unenforceable, the Player nevertheless breached the First
Contract and is therefore liable to pay compensation. Arabi SC argued that, in this
scenario, damages amount to KWD 339,700, comprising the aforementioned replacement
costs of KWD 303,700 plus the residual value of the First Contract (KWD 36,000).
73.
Arabi SC maintained its request for sporting sanctions against the Player, Al Ahli SC and
Kuwait SC.
74.
Regarding Al Ahli SC, Arabi SC stated that, on 3 July 2025 (prior to the issuance of the ITC),
it formally warned Al Ahli SC that the Player was still bound to it and expressly demanded
that it revoke the ITC request and cease all contact with the Player. Arabi SC also alleged
that its president contacted via WhatsApp Al Ahli SC, which shows that the latter was
expressly warned.
75.
Moreover, Arabi SC argued that the circumstances strongly indicate pre-arranged
inducement by Al Ahli SC, as the Player signed his new contract only 13 days after allegedly
terminating his contract with Arabi SC, with a salary four to five times lower and when
most summer transfer registration periods had just opened. According to Arabi SC, “by
pursuing the ITC request after being expressly warned, the club knowingly facilitated and
benefited from the Player’s contractual breach”.
76.
Regarding Kuwait SC, Arabi SC insisted that the evidence shows prior contact with the
Player before his unilateral termination and that it was likewise expressly warned not to
engage with him.
77.
Furthermore, Arabi SC asserted that it has received information confirming that Kuwait
SC has signed a contract with the Player, which will take effect during the next registration
period. Arabi SC stated that “If confirmed, this would establish Kuwait’s SC direct participation
in a coordinated transfer plan designed to circumvent the Player’s contractual obligations
through indirect means, in clear violation of Articles 17(2) and 17(5) RSTP”.
78.
Based on the above, Arabi SC amended his request for relief as follows:
“For all the foregoing reasons, [Arabi SC] respectfully amends its requests for relief and now
requests that the DRC:
1. Declare that the Player breached the Second Contract without just cause during the
Protected Period.
2. Alternatively, declare that the Player breached the First Contract without just cause
outside the Protected Period and failed to respect the 15-day post-season notice
period.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20074
3. Order the Player to pay compensation to [Arabi SC] as follows:
1. Primarily, KWD 753,500 plus interest at 5% per annum from July 1, 2025, until the
date of full and effective payment; or
2. In the alternative, KWD 563,000 plus interest at 5% per annum from June 18, 2025,
until the date of full and effective payment.
4. Hold Al Ahli jointly and severally liable for the awarded compensation.
5. Hold Kuwait SC jointly and severally liable for inducing and orchestrating the Player’s
breach.
6. Imposing sporting sanctions on the Player, specifically a restriction of four to six
months from participating in official matches.
7. Imposing sporting sanctions on Al Ahli and Kuwait SC, specifically a ban from
registering new players for two entire and consecutive registration periods”.
f. Player’s duplica
79.
In his duplica, the Player reaffirmed his initial position regarding the invalidity of the
Second Contract. Specifically, the Player maintained that he did not sign the Second
Contract on 1 June 2025 and that the only contract he signed was the First Contract on 26
June 2022.
80.
The Player further asserted that it was only after he informed Arabi SC of his decision to
unilaterally terminate the First Contract that Arabi SC, acting in bad faith, added the date
1 June 2025 by hand to a copy of the contract originally signed on 26 June 2022 and falsely
claimed that it had been concluded on 1 June 2025, despite his existing engagement under
the First Contract.
81.
The Player emphasized the formatting inconsistencies in the Second Contract, noting that
his name and address appear in a different font from the rest of the document. In
addition, he reiterated that the commencement date of the Second Contract was
handwritten.
82.
The Player highlighted that, in its replica, Arabi SC submitted three contracts concluded
with other players (i.e., the alleged replacements), none of which contain any handwritten
provisions. Furthermore, these contracts clearly specify start and end dates. The Player
argued that the Second Contract differs significantly from the template used by Arabi SC
in 2025, which allegedly proves that he signed it in 2022 together with the First Contract.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20074
83.
The Player contended that Arabi SC did not appeal the KFA’s refusal to register the Second
Contract and, therefore, this decision became final and binding. He reiterated that he
cannot be registered with Arabi SC or participate in any official competitions, pursuant to
art. 18 of the Regulations and art. 36.1 of the KFA Professional Regulations.
84.
Finally, the Player stated that he maintains his previous arguments and observations
regarding art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the compensation claimed, and the sporting
sanctions requested.
85.
The Player reiterated his request for relief.
g. Al Ahli SC’s duplica
86.
In its duplica, Al Ahli SC reaffirmed that the sequence of events demonstrates it had
already completed the Player’s transfer process before receiving any communication or
warning from Arabi SC.
87.
Al Ahli SC reiterated that no contact existed between the club and the Player prior to the
termination of his contract with Arabi SC.
88.
Al Ahli SC further asserted that the WhatsApp messages submitted by Arabi SC, allegedly
exchanged between 2 and 4 July 2025, are forged. Al Ahli SC argued that these messages
contradict Arabi SC’s own timeline and documentary evidence, specifically its letter dated
3 July 2025.
89.
Consequently, Al Ahli SC categorically denied any involvement in the Player’s termination
and reiterated that the Player had been in negotiations with Kuwait SC and Ramtha SC.
90.
Based on the above, Al Ahli SC amended his request for relief as follows
“For the foregoing reasons, Al Ahli SC respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
1. Dismiss in their entirety all allegations of inducement, interference, or bad faith under
Articles 17(2) and 17/4) RSTP;
2. Acknowledge that Al Ahli SC acted in full good faith, relying on the Player’s declared
free-agent status and the absence of any contrary notice at the time of contract
execution;
3. Reject the Claimant’s reliance on Exhibit C19 as fabricated, chronologically
inconsistent, and legally inadmissible.
4. Confirm that no liability, sporting sanction, or transfer ban is applicable against Al
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20074
Ahli SC; and
5. Recognize that Al Ahli SC cannot, under any factual or legal interpretation, be deemed
the cause of the Player’s termination or to have induced such termination, particularly
in light of the Player’s documented prior negotiations with Kuwait SC and Al Ramtha
FS, both of which were similarly and baselessly accused by [Arabi SC] of inducement”.
h. Kuwait SC’s duplica
91.
In its duplica, Kuwait SC reiterated that it had no relationship regarding any dispute
between Arabi SC and the Player.
92.
Kuwait SC emphasised in its duplica that Arabi SC has provided no evidence to
demonstrate that Kuwait SC induced the Player to terminate his contract, and reiterated
the arguments previously submitted in its reply to Arabi SC’s claim.
93.
Kuwait SC reiterated its request for relief.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20074
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
94.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 15 January 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.
95.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and underlined
that, pursuant to art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations
(July 2025 edition), the DRC is competent to hear “disputes between clubs and players in
relation to the maintenance of contractual stability (articles 13-18) where there has been an
ITC request and a claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC request, in particular
regarding the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation for breach of contract”.
96.
At this point, the Chamber wished to emphasise that, in spite of the literal wording of art.
22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations, the most recent evolution of the regulatory framework
implies that the key factor in determining whether FIFA has jurisdiction over a labour
dispute involving a player and a former club of the same nationality is the involvement of
a new club affiliated to a different member association, leading to an ITC request and a
subsequent related claim concerning inter alia compensation for breach of contract.
97.
In other words, the existence of and connection to an ITC request (or a dispute related
thereto) must be interpreted broadly, particularly since the current Regulations no longer
allow a party or federation to reject the delivery of an ITC in order to safeguard the player’s
contractual freedom (cf., art 11 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations).
98.
With the above in mind, the DRC noted that Arabi SC’s claim is also directed, inter alia,
against Al Ahli SC, a Jordanian club affiliated with JFA as the Player’s new club.
Furthermore, said claim is related to (i) the maintenance of contractual stability, (ii) the ITC
request and its issuance and (iii) compensation for breach of contract and the imposition
of sporting sanctions.
99.
Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Arabi
SC’s claim, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations.
100. 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.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-20074
b. Burden of proof
101. 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
102. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
103. The Chamber moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a claim
by Arabi SC against the Player, Al Ahli SC and Kuwait SC for breach of contract and the
legal consequences arising therefrom.
104. For the sake of clarity, the members of the Chamber considered it appropriate to begin
the analysis of the case by briefly recalling Arabi SC’s and the Player’s position.
105. On one hand, Arabi SC essentially argued the following:
o On 26 June 2022, Arabi SC and the Player concluded the First Contract, valid until 30
June 2027, under which the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of KWD 1,500.
o On 1 June 2025, the parties concluded the Second Contract, valid for five sporting
seasons and containing the same provisions regarding remuneration.
o By signing a new employment contract with Al Ahli SC, the Player unilaterally
terminated the Second Contract without just cause.
o The Player’s reliance on art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations is unfounded, as this
provision does not grant a right to terminate a contract but rather governs the
consequences of a breach.
o Al Ahli SC is jointly and severally liable for the consequences of the Player’s breach
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-20074
of contract, as the circumstances allegedly indicate inducement by Al Ahli SC.
o Kuwait SC is also jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned consequences,
as it may have been involved in what allegedly appears to be a bridge transfer.
o Based on the above, in its amended request for relief submitted in its replica, Arabi
SC sought compensation for breach of contract in the amount of KWD 753,500 or,
alternatively, KWD 563,000, as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions against
the Player, Al Ahli SC and Kuwait SC.
106. On the other hand, the Player’s position can be summarised as follows:
o In the context of signing the First Contract, Arabi SC presented multiple copies to be
sent to KFA, which he signed in good faith without verifying each of them.
o The only valid agreement concluded with Arabi SC is the First Contract; the Second
Contract is allegedly forged.
o He denied having signed the Second Contract on 1 June 2025.
o According to art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations and art. 45 par. 2 of KFA Professional
Regulations, a player is entitled to terminate a contract after the protected period
within 15 days of the last official match.
o He unilaterally terminated the First Contract on 18 June 2025 in accordance with the
aforementioned provisions.
o Arabi SC failed to prove any damage as required under art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, and no sporting sanctions are warranted because termination occurred
outside the protected period.
o Based on the above, the Player requested that Arabi SC’s claim be dismissed in its
entirety.
107. After briefly recalling the parties’ respective positions, the members of the Chamber first
noted that it was undisputed that, on 26 June 2022, the parties concluded the First
Contract, that it was agreed to run until 30 June 2027 and that, under its terms, the Player
was entitled to a monthly remuneration of KWD 1,500. Furthermore, although Arabi SC
and the Player disagreed on the exact termination date, it was also undisputed that the
Player unilaterally terminated the employment relationship between the parties.
108. What the parties strongly disputed was whether the Second Contract constitutes a valid
and binding employment contract between the parties, the lawfulness of the Player’s
termination and the legal consequences arising therefrom.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-20074
109. Accordingly, the DRC acknowledged that its task was to address the following questions:
I.
Is the Second Contract a valid and binding employment contract?
II.
Did the Player have just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract?
III. If not, what are the legal consequences arising from the Player’s unilateral
termination without just cause?
***
I.
Is the Second Contract a valid and binding employment contract?
110. While Arabi SC relied on the presumption of validity of the Second Contract, arguing that
it contains the essentialia negotii of an employment contract —particularly emphasising
that it bears the Player’s signature and fingerprint— the Player contended that, when he
signed the First Contract on 26 June 2022, Arabi SC presented multiple copies “for
administrative formalities” to be sent to the KFA. According to the Player, he never signed
the Second Contract on 1 June 2025, and the fact that the start date was handwritten,
together with the formatting discrepancies of the Second Contract, demonstrate that it
was forged.
111. In this regard, the Chamber first noted that the Player did not deny having signed the
Second Contract, but rather that it had been signed on 1 June 2025. In this context, the
DRC referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and underlined that when a party
objects to the authenticity of a document, they must not simply deny it, but must offer
sufficient reasons to cast serious doubts on its authenticity. Accordingly, the DRC
determined that the Player bore the burden of proving that, despite bearing his signature
and fingerprint, and therefore being, prima facie, a validly concluded agreement, the
Second Contract had not been concluded on 1 June 2025.
112. The Chamber further referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal that confirms
the duty of both clubs and players to exercise reasonable diligence in their contractual
dealings. Parties are expected to understand the legal implications of the documents they
sign and to act in good faith throughout the employment relationship (in this regard, inter
alia, DRC Decision of 3 July 2025, Florian Yonsian).
113. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that the Player provided no evidence
demonstrating that the Second Contract had been signed on 26 June 2022 or that Arabi
SC had presented him with multiple copies to be filled in. Nonetheless, and in support of
his allegations, the Player maintained the following:
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-20074
o The start date of the Second Contract (i.e., 1 June 2025) is handwritten and was
included by Arabi SC after he informed Arabi SC about the termination of the
employment relationship.
o The Second Contract reproduces the same salary and conditions as the First
Contract, uses a different font for personal details, and contains no reference to the
First Contract.
o The Second Contract does not include an end date and does not make any reference
to the First Contract.
o The Second Contract is different from the various employment contracts of other
players submitted by Arabi SC. They do not include any handwritten provision and
contain clear start and end dates.
o Arabi SC never announced that the parties had signed the Second Contract.
o The KFA refused the homologation and/or registration of the Second Contract.
o He has filed a criminal complaint against Arabi SC before the competent authorities
in Kuwait.
114. The Chamber went on to analyse the aforementioned arguments. With respect to the
absence of a public announcement, while clubs frequently publicise contract renewals,
there is no regulatory or contractual obligation to do so. In the DRC’s view, the apparent
absence of such an announcement is not indicative of fabrication and cannot reasonably
be interpreted as undermining the validity of the Second Contract.
115. Similarly, the absence of any reference to the First Contract does not constitute evidence
of manipulation. Employment renewals may be formulated as standalone contracts
without explicit cross-referencing. The Chamber considered that the lack of such
reference is, at most, a stylistic or drafting choice and not a clear sign of irregularity.
116. Regarding the differences between the Second Contract and other contracts provided by
Arabi SC, the Chamber emphasised that variations in formatting, layout, or the use of
handwritten entries are not uncommon and do not, in themselves, suggest falsification.
The Player submitted no forensic handwriting analysis, ink dating evidence, metadata, or
expert assessment indicating that any alteration occurred. In the absence of such proof,
formatting discrepancies cannot displace the probative value of a signed and
fingerprinted document.
117. The Chamber also considered that the Player’s immediate denial following Arabi SC’s
reference to the Second Contract, as well as the filing of a criminal complaint, do not
demonstrate forgery. A denial issued within the context of an emerging dispute is
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-20074
inherently self-serving, and a criminal complaint devoid of conclusions or investigative
findings does not carry evidentiary weight in these proceedings.
118. Upon comprehensive examination of the Player’s submissions and the documentary
evidence, the Chamber determined that the Player has not raised serious or substantiated
doubts regarding the authenticity of the Second Contract. The DRC considered that his
allegations are speculative and remain insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity
afforded to a document bearing his signature and fingerprint. Most notably, the DRC
emphasised that the Player did not deny having signed the Second Contract, and
therefore determined that there were no grounds to question the authenticity or validity
of the Second Contract.
119. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that the Second Contract was validly executed on
1 June 2025 and is fully binding upon the parties.
120. Having stated this, the DRC noted that the Second Contract was concluded subsequently
between the same parties and related to the same employment relationship as the First
Contract. It further observed that the contractual terms set out therein differed in certain
respects from those contained in the First Contract. In light of these circumstances, the
Chamber reasoned that, as from its effective date of 1 June 2025, the Second Contract
superseded the First Contract and constitutes the relevant contractual framework for
assessing the parties’ respective rights and obligations.
II. Did the Player have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Second Contract?
121. Having established the foregoing, the next issue to address is whether the Player had just
cause to unilaterally terminate the Second Contract.
122. As a starting point, the members of the DRC acknowledged the parties’ differing positions
regarding the termination date of the employment relationship. In this regard, the
Chamber observed that, although the Player’s termination notice referred to the First
Contract, it was evident that the Player intended to end his employment relationship with
the Club. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player terminated the Second
Contract on 18 June 2025 through his termination notice, rather than on 1 July 2025 upon
signing his new employment contract, as claimed by the Club.
123. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, which provides:
“A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In
general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably
and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship”.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-20074
124. The DRC also recalled that the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
repeatedly established that just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can
no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.
In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to
expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract
may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be
taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of an employer’s contractual duties, such measures
must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of
an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure (in this regard, inter alia, DRC
Decision of 24 July 2025, Pedro Oliveira, DRC Decision of 9 July 2025, Loma Porozo, DRC
Decision of 13 June 2025, Kokoe Coumbassa).
125. With the above in mind, the DRC noted that, in his termination notice, the Player referred
to art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations which, according to him, “allow a player to terminate his
contract without just cause after the expiration of the protected period, provided that a formal
written notice is given to the club at least 15 days in advance”.
126. However, the Chamber emphasised that art. 17 of the Regulations does not allow a party
to unilaterally terminate an employment contract. Instead, it provides the “consequences
of terminating a contract without just cause”.
127. In particular, art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations stipulates that, in addition to the obligation
to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall also be imposed on any player found to be
in breach of contract during the protected period. In other words, the aforementioned
provision addresses the legal consequences of a contractual breach by a player: beyond
the obligation to pay compensation when a contractual breach has been established, the
player shall receive a sporting sanction, provided that the breach occurs during the
protected period.
128. Pursuant to this provision, the only exception to this principle applies when a player
unilaterally terminates a contract without just cause or terminates it with sporting just
cause (in accordance with art. 15 of the Regulations) after the protected period.
129. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously determined that the Player did not
have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Second Contract in accordance with art. 14
par. 1 of the Regulations and the ultima ratio principle.
III. What are the legal consequences?
130. Having established the foregoing, the DRC went on to analyse the legal consequences
arising from the Player’s breach of contract. Bearing in mind that Arabi SC’s claim is also
addressed against Al Ahli SC and Kuwait SC, it will also be necessary to rule on the clubs’
alleged joint liability.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-20074
131. As a preliminary point, the Chamber recalled that this matter is governed by the Interim
Regulatory Framework (IRF) as reflected in the July 2025 edition of the Regulations,
applicable in casu. By way of context, the Chamber underlined that said framework
impacted the following rules:
o The calculation of compensation payable in the event of a breach of contract by a
player or coach;
o The burden of proof in relation to joint and several liability for compensation
payable for a breach of contract;
o The burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract (and the
related sporting sanction against the new club of a player); and
o The procedure regarding the issuance of an ITC.
132. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, for the present purposes, the relevant
rules are those related to (i) the calculation payable by a player in case of a breach of
contract; (ii) the question of the joint and several liability of Al Ahli SC and Kuwait SC; and
(iii) the burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract.
Compensation
133. Having established the above, the Chamber 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. In this respect, the DRC emphasised that, according to
the principle of “positive interest”, the claiming party must be put in the position it would
find itself in, had the breach of the contract not occurred and had the contract been duly
performed.
134. Therefore, before even addressing how the principle of positive interest would apply to
this case, the Chamber held that it first had to analyse whether the Second Contract
contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an
amount of compensation payable by them in the event of breach of contract. In this
regard, the Chamber observed that no such compensation clause was included in the
Second Contract.
135. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Player to Arabi SC had to be assessed in application of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
beginning with the consideration for the damage suffered by Arabi SC, guided by the
positive interest principle.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-20074
136. Bearing in mind the above principles, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant to the principle
of burden of proof enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, it was incumbent
upon Arabi SC to quantify, substantiate and prove the damage it allegedly suffered as a
result of the Player’s breach.
137. With all the above in mind, the DRC proceeded to examine each of the amounts requested
by Arabi SC as compensation for the alleged damage.
138. First, the Chamber noted that Arabi SC claimed entitlement to compensation representing
the alleged residual value of the Second Contract in the amount of KWD 450,000.
139. In support of this particular claim, Arabi SC contended that when a contract is terminated
without just cause, the injured party is entitled to compensation based on the “positive
interest” principle, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, “including
the residual value of the terminated contract”. Therefore, Arabi SC claimed that “the value of
the Second Contract provides the basis for this claim”. Arabi SC also claimed this amount
under the specificity of sport principle, arguing that it fairly reflects the Player’s market
value based on the residual value of the Second Contract.
140. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, as previously established, the present dispute
is governed by the IRF and, more specifically, by the provisions on compensation payable
by a player to a club in the event of a breach, as set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
which provides:
“(…) unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for the breach shall be
calculated taking into account the damage suffered, according to the “positive interest”
principle, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of each case, and with
due consideration for the law of the country concerned”.
141. The DRC emphasised that this provision requires compensation to be assessed based on
the actual damage suffered, in line with the “positive interest” principle, taking into
account the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable national law. Any claim
for compensation is therefore subject to the principle that a party claiming it bears the
burden of quantifying, substantiating and proving the damage suffered.
142. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber stressed that an amount corresponding to
the amount payable to a player for rendering his services as a football player under an
employment contract can be —and in certain specific cases has been considered (in this
regard, inter alia DRC Decision of 27 March 2025, Esenu— appropriate to establish the
damage suffered by club, due to the loss of the player. The majority of the Chamber
considered that, under a fixed-term employment contract, both parties (player and club)
have a similar and mutual interest and expectation that the term will be respected, subject
to termination by mutual consent or the existence of just cause. In this respect, further
reference is made to the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-20074
agreements must be respected by parties in good faith and is a fundamental principle of
contractual stability and contract law. Indeed, when a player and a club sign an
employment contract, both parties are fully entitled to assume that both parties will
comply with their contractual obligations towards each other; if a different approach were
to be adopted, this could mean disregarding such an essential principle.
143. Having regard to the circumstances of this individual case, the majority of the Chamber
considered that the Player’s remuneration as foreseen in the breached contract (i.e., the
Second Contract), constitutes a reliable basis on which to establish the economic value
that the Player’s services represented for Arabi SC and this remuneration can be
understood as bearing a concrete, predictable and quantifiable correlation to his value as
a player – also a member of the Kuwaiti national football team –, which Arabi SC lost in
light of the breach of contract.
144. However, the Chamber noted that this amount corresponds to KWD 90,000, and not
KWD 450,000, as claimed by Arabi SC. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber
concluded that Arabi SC sufficiently established and proved that it suffered a damage of
KWD 90,000, with the unjustified departure of the Player from its ranks.
145. Second, the Chamber noted that, in its replica, Arabi SC not only claimed that it had
lost the Player as a valuable member of their roster, but also that it incurred replacement
costs in the amount of KWD 303,700 as a further consequence of the Player’s departure
and the need to fill-out his open position. According to Arabi SC, it had to replace the
Player with the following three centre-backs due to his unjustified termination, submitting
the relevant employment contracts:
o Kenneth Semakula who, according to Arabi SC, plays as a defensive midfielder. The
evidence submitted by Arabi SC shows that the player was signed on 14 July 2025
until 30 June 2027 and with a total fixed remuneration of KWD 137,700. Arabi SC and
this player mutually terminated their contract on 29 August 2025, and Arabi SC
undertook to pay the player USD 100,000 which, according to Arabi SC, amounts to
KWD 30,700.
o Nabil Marmouk who, according to Arabi SC, plays as a centre-back. The evidence
submitted by Arabi SC shows that the player was signed on 23 August 2025 until 31
July 2026 and with a total fixed remuneration of KWD 110,000.
o Nasser Saeed, who also plays as a centre-back, hired on 20 September 2025 for two
seasons with a total salary of KWD 25,000.
146. As explained by the DRC in its Decision of 27 March 2025, Esenu:
“The Chamber emphasised that, for compensation to be due in such instances, there must
be a logical nexus between the breach and the replacement costs claimed. Put differently, a
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-20074
club claiming replacement costs as head of damage needs to prove an actual loss flowing
naturally from the unjustified termination of contract. This, in turn, entails that the
replacement player’s profile must be similar to that of the replaced player, that the club
decided to hire the player because of the termination of the other player, and that the costs
arising therefrom are reasonable and foreseeable. Whether the replacement costs claimed
are reasonable and foreseeable depends on the circumstances of each case, for instance
and without limitation, on the time of the unjustified termination (i.e., during the last days
of a registration period), the difficulty in finding a replacement player (i.e., goalkeeper), the
replaced player’s importance on the team analysed on an objective basis (i.e., goals scored)
and the salaries paid to each the replaced and the replacement player”.
147. Following this, the DRC underscored that, in order for Arabi SC to successfully claim
replacement costs, it must substantiate that the aforementioned three players were hired
to replace the Player. This requires that Arabi SC proves (i) that the players played in
largely the same position on the field, and (ii) that there is a causal nexus between the
Player’s premature termination of the Second Contract and the hiring of the new players.
148. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber first found it difficult to follow Arabi SC’s
argumentation that the Player was replaced by three other players. In this regard, Arabi
SC failed to explain why the Player allegedly had to be replaced by three players and not
just one.
149. Regarding the first player, Kenneth Semakula, the evidence submitted by Arabi SC’s itself
does not confirm that he played in the same position as the Player. While according to the
Player’s profile provided by Arabi SC his position is centre-back, the evidence regarding
the alleged replacement confirms that his position is defensive midfielder. Arabi SC failed
to provide any evidence that the Player and his alleged replacement played largely in the
same position, as no statistics or any other documentary evidence was submitted other
than their profiles on the website Transfermarkt.
150. As a result, the Chamber concluded that Arabi SC did not provide convincing evidence that
the alleged replacement player had a sufficiently similar profile as to the Player to be
considered as a true replacement. Therefore, the DRC determined that there were no
sufficient elements to establish that this new player was indeed hired as a replacement
for the Player.
151. Regarding the second player, Nabil Marmouk, the Chamber noted that the evidence
provided confirms that he plays in the same position as the Player. The DRC also noted
that Arabi SC signed him on 23 August 2025, i.e., two months after the Player’s departure
and within the registration period that followed the Player’s unilateral termination of the
First Contract, in accordance with the registration periods entered by the KFA in TMS.
152. However, upon review, the Chamber was struck by the significant difference in
remuneration levels between the Player and his alleged replacement. Such a marked
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-20074
difference between the Club’s apparent valuation of the Player’s services compared to its
valuation of the alleged replacement’s services strongly indicated, in the Chamber’s view,
that this was not a true replacement, in the sense of the Regulations. In the Chamber’s
view, this difference in remuneration levels is even more telling in light of Arabi SC’s claim
that Mr. Marmouk on his own was not a full replacement for the Player, but had to be
considered as such together with the player Nasser Saeed. The Chamber was further
convinced of its view when considering that the alleged replacement player had only been
engaged for a single season. All things considered, the Chamber was not satisfied that the
player Nabil Marmouk could be considered as a replacement for the Player such that the
costs associated with his employment could be claimed as damages.
153. Regarding the third player, Nasser Saeed, the evidence provided confirms that he plays in
the same position as the Player. In this case, Arabi SC signed the player on 20 September
2025, i.e., the last day of the first registration period in Kuwait following the Player’s
termination, and agreed with the player a total fixed remuneration of KWD 25,000 for two
sporting seasons. Accordingly, while the Player would have received KWD 18,000 per
season, his alleged replacement is entitled to KWD 25,000 in two seasons.
154. Although in this case there are also differences in terms of duration of the contracts and
amounts payable by Arabi SC, the DRC considered that, if any of the three alleged
replacements is a true replacement to the Player, it is the third, i.e., Nasser Saeed. The
Chamber particularly emphasised that their salary per season was quite similar: the
Player’s amounted to KWD 18,000 and Mr. Saeed to KWD 12,500.
155. In light of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the particularities of the case at hand, the
Chamber was comfortably satisfied that Arabi SC acquired Mr. Saeed to replace the Player
and that, therefore, Arabi SC suffered actual damages in replacement costs. The
replacement costs, therefore, amount to KWD 25,000.
156. Therefore, based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the
Chamber, by majority, decided that the Player is liable to pay Arabi SC compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of KWD 115,000, with 5% interest per annum as from the
date of termination (i.e., 18 June 2025) until the date of effective payment.
Sporting sanctions
157. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Player.
158. Pursuant to art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, in addition to the obligation to pay
compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any player found to be in breach
of contract during the protected period. This sanction shall be a four-month restriction on
playing in official matches.
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-20074
159. The DRC referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the Regulations, which
establishes, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or three
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract
is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two years,
whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
160. Furthermore, art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations establishes that “The protected period starts
again when, while renewing the contract, the duration of the previous contract is extended”.
161. As further clarified in the Commentary to art. 17, “If an existing contract is renewed, the
protected period restarts” (cf. p. 210 of the Commentary, 2023 edition).
162. With the above in mind, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 1 September
2000 and the Second Contract entered into force on 1 June 2025. Furthermore, the Player
terminated the Second Contract without just cause on 18 June 2025. The breach of
contract by the Player therefore occurred within the protected period.
163. Therefore, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 of the Regulations, the Player
had to be sanctioned with a restriction of four months on his eligibility to participate in
official matches.
Joint liability
164. Lastly, the members of the Chamber addressed Arabi SC’s claim against Al Ahli SC and
Kuwait SC regarding their alleged inducement and joint liability.
165. In this respect, art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations establishes:
“(…) A player’s new club shall be held jointly liable to pay compensation if, having regard to
the individual facts and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club
induced the player to breach their contract”.
166. Similarly, art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations provides:
“A sporting sanction shall be imposed (…) (ii) on a player’s new club if, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club
induced the player to breach the contract during the protected period”.
167. Bearing in mind that Arabi SC’s claim for inducement is addressed against both Al Ahli SC
and Kuwait SC, the Chamber first turned to the question of which club qualifies as the
“new club”.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-20074
168. The DRC referred to the definitions section of the Regulations, which define “new club” as
“the club that the player is joining” (cf. definition nº 4).
169. As further clarified in the Commentary to art. 17 of the Regulations (2023 edition):
“When determining which club is to be regarded as the player’s new club for these purposes,
the approach has consistently been to identify the club with which the player was first
registered following the breach of contract”.
170. In view of the above, and based on the evidence submitted to the file as well as the
information retrieved from TMS, the Chamber found that Player’s new club is clearly Al
Ahli SC.
171. The DRC established that Arabi SC failed to prove that Kuwait SC had concluded an
employment contract with the Player, orchestrating a bridge transfer, or engaged in any
of the conduct alleged. Therefore, the DRC determined that Arabi SC’s claim of
inducement against Kuwait SC must be dismissed.
172. Having established this, the DRC proceeded to analyse whether Al Ahli SC, as the Player’s
new club, can be considered as jointly and severally liable for his breach. In this regard,
the members of the Chamber again highlighted that Arabi SC bore the burden of proof to
demonstrate that Al Ahli SC induced the Player to breach his contract.
173. After considering the individual facts and circumstances of the present case, the Chamber
concluded that Arabi SC has failed to discharge its burden of proof and demonstrate that
Al Ahli SC induced the Player to breach his contract.
174. In the DRC’s view, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of this case and
the evidence on file, it is not possible to determine that Al Ahli SC induced the Player,
particularly given that the only evidence presented by Arabi SC in this respect was its
communication sent to Al Ahli SC dated 3 July 2025 (i.e., after the Player and Al Ahli SC had
already concluded their employment contract), but no evidence of prior contact by Al Ahli
SC and the Player was provided.
175. Although a short period between the termination of the contract and the signing of a new
contract (in this case, 13 days) could be indicative of possible inducement, the Chamber
emphasised that it remained the responsibility of Arabi SC to demonstrate such
inducement to the requisite degree of certainty.
176. The DRC therefore considered that Arabi SC failed to discharge its burden of proof in
accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, having not submitted any evidence
to demonstrate any act of inducement from Al Ahli SC. Instead, the Chamber considered
that Arabi SC merely established a temporal connection or proximity between the Player’s
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-20074
termination of the Second Contract and the signing of his new contract — an argument
which, absent further evidence, amounts only to suspicion.
177. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that Al Ahli SC shall not be held jointly
liable for the payment of the amount of compensation due to Arabi SC. For the same
reasons, the Chamber held that no sporting sanctions shall be imposed on Al Ahli SC.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
178. 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.
179. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that, in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of arts. 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
180. Accordingly, the Chamber established that, in casu, art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Player fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts
are paid would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the
enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
181. In view of the above, the DRC decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of Arabi SC, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
182. The Player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by Arabi SC in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
d. Costs
183. 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.
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-20074
184. 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.
185. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-20074
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Arabi SC, is partially accepted.
2.
The First Respondent, Hasan Hamdan Habib Al-Enezi, must pay to the Claimant
KWD 115,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 18 June 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the
First Respondent. This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the date of notification
of the present decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended in the period
between the last official match of the season and the first match of the next season, in
both cases including national cups and international championships for clubs.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-20074
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. 35