Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20105
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Santiago Gabriel Ormeno Zayas
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Santiago Gabriel Ormeno Zayas, Mexico
Represented by Juan Manuel Lopez Ruiz
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Qingdao Hainiu FC, China PR
Represented by Kiera Zhuang
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20105
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2025, the Mexican player Santiago Gabriel Ormeno Zayas (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Chinese club Qingdao Hainiu FC
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December
2025.
2.
Clause 2 of the Contract provided as follows:
“ARTICLE 2: Scope of the Contract
In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, [the Player] accepts the
employment by [the Club] as a professional football player of [the Club], and [the Player]
will participate in the game of Chinese Super League, the CFA Cup and friendly match
for [the Club].”
3.
Clause 3 of the Contract established:
“ARTICLE 3: Salary and Bonuses
3.1. The Parties agree to calculate the salary on an annual basis (the whole season of
2025). During the term of this Contract, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] the annual (the
whole season of 2025) salaries as follows (the Parties may agree on currency unit):
The first calendar year (season 2025)
From 01/ 01/ 2025 (day/month/year) until 31/12/2025 (day/month/year) which shall
amount to 676,884 EUR (SIX HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY-FOUR EURO) before tax, 400,000 EUR (FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND EURO)
after tax for reference; the monthly salary is 56,407 EUR (FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED AND SEVEN EURO) before tax, 33,333 EUR (THIRTY THREE THOUSAND AND
THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE EURO) after tax for reference.
3.2 The annual salaries shall be paid to [the Player] in equal monthly installments. [The
Club] shall pay the salary for the last month on the 28th day of every month. In the event
the above-mentioned payment due date falls on a statutory holiday, the payment due
date shall be extended to the first working day following the holiday. Unless otherwise
agreed by the Parties, the method of calculating the average daily salary is as follows:
the amount of monthly salary divided by the number of calendar days in the month.
(…)”
4.
Clause 9.7.6 of the Contract provided as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20105
“9.7.6 The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that, in accordance Art. 17 of
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the event [the Player]
terminates the contract without just cause, or [the Club] terminates the contract with
just cause due to a breach of contract of [the Player], [the Player] will be liable to
compensate [the Club] with the amount of 250000 USD as liquidated damages. In the
above case, [the Club] should give the notice to [the Player] 10 days before to correct
[the Player]'s breach and ask [the Player] to compensate the breach. If [the Player] fails
to correct, [the Club] will have the right to terminate the contract immediately and ask
[the Player] for the compensation according to this article.”
5.
On 28 March 2025, the Player suffered a left ankle injury while playing for the Club. The
Player underwent an MRI, which indicated ligament damage.
6.
Between 31 March 2025 and 11 July 2025, the Player and a person named “Qin”, who,
according to the Club, was the rehabilitation therapist, had several chat conversations
regarding his injury and treatment.
7.
On 31 March 2025, the Player underwent an MRI, with the following diagnosis:
“Imaging Diagnosis:
Injury to the anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament of the left ankle
(partial tear possible), clinical correlation needed: injury to the posterior tibial muscle
and long toe extensor muscle on the left side, with small amounts of fluid in the muscle
interstice; thickening of the tendon sheaths of the flexor hallucis longus tendon,
posterior tibial tendon, and long flexor of the toe:
Injury to the long and short fibular muscles tendons on the left side (edema);
Bone marrow edema of the left talus;
Small amounts of fluid in the left ankle joint cavity and surrounding bursa;
Soft tissue swelling in the left ankle.”
8.
On 8 April 2025, the Player underwent a new MRI, with the following diagnosis:
“Imaging Diagnosis:
Injury to the anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament of the left ankle
(partial tear possible), clinical correlation needed: injury to the posterior tibial muscle
and long toe extensor muscle on the left side, with small amounts of fluid in the muscle
interstice;
Injury to the posterior tibial muscle and long toe extensor muscle on the left side, with
small amounts of fluid in the muscle interstice; fluid accumulation around the tendon
sheaths of the flexor hallucis longus tendon, posterior tibial tendon, and long toe
extensor tendon;
Injury to the long and short fibular muscles tendons on the left side (edema):
Cartilage damage of the left talus joint, with bone marrow edema:
Bone marrow edema of the medial malleolus of the left tibia:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20105
Small amounts of fluid in the left ankle joint cavity and surrounding bursa:
Soft tissue swelling in the left ankle.
Compared to the image from March 31, 2025, there is cartilage damage in the talar
joint: slight increase in fluid in the long toe extensor tendon;
bone marrow edema appears in the medial malleolus.”
9.
On 19 April 2025, the Club paid the Player CNY 86,797.80 as the salary for January 2025 and
CNY 160,322.77.
10. On 23 April 2025, the Player underwent a new MRI, with the following diagnosis:
“Imaging Diagnosis:
Injury to the anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament of the left ankle
(partial tear possible), clinical correlation needed: injury
to the medial collateral ligament of the left ankle joint:
Injury to the posterior tibial muscle and long toe extensor muscle on the left side, with
small amounts of fluid in the muscle interstice; fluid accumulation around the tendon
sheaths of the flexor hallucis longus tendon, posterior tibial tendon, and long toe
extensor tendon:
Injury to the long and short fibular muscles tendons on the left side (edema):
Cartilage damage of the left talus joint, with bone marrow edema; bone marrow
edema of the medial malleolus of the left tibia:
Small amounts of fluid in the left ankle joint cavity and surrounding bursa: Soft tissue
swelling in the left ankle.
Compared to the image from April 8, 2025, the area of bone marrow edema in the talus
has slightly increased; soft tissue swelling has slightly.”
11. On 25 April 2025, the Club paid the Player CNY 159,029.39.
12. On 12 May 2025, the Player underwent a new MRI, with the following diagnosis:
“Imaging Diagnosis:
Injury to the anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament of the left ankle
(partial tear possible), clinical correlation needed: injury to the medial collateral
ligament of the left ankle joint;
Injury to the posterior tibial muscle and long toe extensor muscle on the left side, with
small amounts of fluid in the muscle interstice; fluid accumulation around the tendon
sheaths of the flexor hallucis longus tendon, posterior tibial tendon, and long toe
extensor tendon;
Injury to the long and short fibular muscles tendons on the left side (edema);
Cartilage damage of the left talus joint, with bone marrow edema; bone marrow edema
of the medial malleolus of the left tibia;
Small amounts of fluid in the left ankle joint cavity and surrounding bursa: Soft tissue
swelling in the left ankle.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20105
Compared to the image from April 23,2025, it is similar.”
13. Also on 12 May 2025, the Club paid the Player CNY 115,161.20 as the salary for February
2025.
14. On 3 and 5 June 2025, the Player underwent a new MRI, with the following diagnosis:
“Imaging diagnosis:
Indicates bone marrow edema in the left talus and medial malleolus, injury to the
medial triangular ligament, ankle joint effusion, and swelling of the surrounding soft
tissues”
“Imaging diagnosis:
Bone marrow edema in the left talus and medial malleolus, injury to the medial
triangular ligament, ankle joint effusion, and swelling of the surrounding soft tissues,
generally consistent with previous findings. Clinical correlation is recommended.”
15. On 10 June 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of EUR 99,999,
corresponding to the salaries for March, April and May 2025. The Player granted the Club
15 days to comply with the payment and referred to art. 12bis of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
16. On 12 June 2025, the Club paid the Player CNY 115,655.40 as the salary for March 2025 and
CNY 159,711.85; CNY 115,655 as the salary for April 2025 and CNY 159,712; and CNY
115,655 as the salary for May 2025 and CNY 159,712.
17. On 23 June 2025, the following medical report was issued by Dr. Qi Chao of The Affiliated
Hospital of Qingdao University concerning the Player’s injury:
“Chief Complaint: Pain in the left ankle joint for 3 months after injury
Present Illness: The patient injured the left ankle 6 weeks ago, immediately experiencing
pain in the ankle joint. The patient seeks further diagnosis and treatment and came to
our outpatient clinic. Since the onset of the condition, the patient has been alert, in good
spirits, with normal appetite, sleep, and no abnormal bowel or urinary movements. No
significant weight loss. The history of trauma is clear.
Past Medical History: Generally healthy
Personal History: Has lived in the local area for a long time, with no exposure to
epidemic areas, epidemics, or epidemic waters, no history of living in pastoral areas,
mines, high-fluoride, or low-iodine areas, no contact with chemical substances,
radioactive materials, or toxic substances, and no history of taking special medications.
Family History: Denies family history of hereditary diseases
Physical Examination: Swelling of the ankle joint, tenderness on the medial side, no
muscle atrophy around the joint, normal skin color, dorsal artery of the foot palpable
Auxiliary Examination: MR
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20105
Preliminary Diagnosis: Ankle joint pain, talus cartilage injury, medial collateral ligament
injury
Treatment Plan: 1. Pain relief and symptomatic treatment; 2. Local physiotherapy
(shockwave therapy suggested); 3. Limit physical activities; 4. If symptoms do not
improve, surgical treatment may be considered, with follow-up.”
18. On 27 June 2025, the Club addressed a letter to the Player titled “Notice on Withdrawal of
Chinese Super League Registration” (hereinafter: the Withdrawal Notice), which established:
“Notice on Withdrawal of Chinese Super League
Registration
Dear Mr. Ormeno Zayas Santiago Gabriel,
On March 28, 2025, you suffered a left ankle sprain during training, and the injury
worsened during your return to training on May 15, resulting in persistent ankle pain
for three months. According to the diagnosis from Qingdao University Affiliated
Hospital, you are suffering from ankle pain, talar cartilage damage, and medial deltoid
ligament injury. The doctor’s treatment advice includes pain relief, localized
physiotherapy (shockwave therapy recommended), and restricted sports activities. If
symptoms persist, surgical intervention may be considered. Therefore, your
subsequent treatment and recovery will require a significant amount of time. After
multiple discussions with you, you have confirmed that you are unable to play due to
the injury.
After careful consideration, the Club has decided to withdraw your registration for the
current season of the Chinese Super League and replace you with another foreign
player, based on the following factors:
1. This decision prioritizes your health and recovery, ensuring a smooth rehabilitation
process and avoiding any adverse impact on your career.
2. Given that the Club is currently in the relegation zone and faces a challenging battle
to avoid relegation in the second half of this season, the team needs a suitable forward
to secure our position and strive for better results.
3. According to the 2025 Chinese Super League registration rules, a club can register a
maximum of five foreign players, with no more than five named in the league roster
and a maximum of six foreign players registered cumulatively throughout the season.
As the foreign player slots are fully occupied and you are unable to play due to injury,
the Club has no choice but to replace you with a new foreign player signing.
We hope you can understand the Club’s decision. Upon completion of your treatment,
the club will arrange a dedicated rehabilitation coach to guide your training. If you
recover ahead of schedule before the closure of the summer international transfer
window, the Club will make every effort to explore loan opportunities or other feasible
options to help you return to the field as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely.”
19. On 30 June 2025, the Player sent a notice to the Club in response to the Withdrawal Notice.
The Player first argued that since the time of his injury he had acted with diligence and in
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20105
accordance with the Club’s instructions, and that even the Club’s doctor had indicated that,
despite his injury, he would be available to return to training and competitions before the
end of the Chinese Super League 2025. The Player remarked that the withdrawal of his
registration constituted a breach and a justified cause for the unilateral termination of the
contractual relationship. In this regard, the Player expressed his disagreement with the
withdrawal and requested the Club to cease and desist with respect to it. The Player
granted the Club 5 days to comply with his effective registration.
20. On 4 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player, arguing that the reason for the Club’s decision
was his injury and that the Club had no intention or deliberate action to obstruct his
fundamental rights to training and official matches. The Club remarked that it still reserved
the Player’s registration quota and that, according to the diagnosis and the requirements
of the hospital doctor, he would require an extended period of treatment and rehabilitation
and that the timing of his return to the field remained undetermined. The Club alleged that
the Club’s doctor had never determined an exact timetable for his return and stated that
the Club was open to friendly negotiations.
21. On 5 July 2025, a medical report was issued to the Player by Dr. Zhao Xiao Dong of the
Qingdao United Family Hospital with the following diagnosis:
“Recommendation: Continue rehabilitation therapy for 4 weeks. Depending on the
situation, attempt to resume training gradually, increasing the training load. Follow up
at a specialty clinic for further evaluation. If necessary, repeat MRI.”
22. On 9 July 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, arguing that the Club had full
knowledge that his injury did not render him unfit for the remainder of the season. He
asserted that, as proven by two independent medical reports issued by recognized
hospitals, he would be fully recovered within a maximum of one month, confirming that
the deregistration could not be justified by his physical condition. The Player remarked that
the Club’s medical staff had failed to issue any new opinion or updated medical
documentation, evidencing the baselessness of the Club’s claim. Moreover, the Player
argued that the Club had failed to pay him several salaries and was impeding his
fundamental rights. The Player reiterated that the Club’s conduct would constitute just
cause for unilateral termination and granted the Club an additional five days, until 12 July
2025 (sic), to fully reactivate his registration with the Chinese Super League and ensure his
eligibility to participate in official competitions. The Player stated that failure to do so would
result in the termination of the Contract and attached a medical report.
23. Also on 9 July 2025, an unidentified person who, according to the Player, was the Club’s
translator, informed him that the team would travel “on the 11th" and return “on the 20th".
24. On 14 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter, stating that it did not reflect accurate
facts. The Club alleged that it had consistently worked to provide him with medical
examinations and treatment, and that neither the hospital doctors nor the Club’s medical
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20105
staff could determine an exact timeline for his recovery. The Club argued that the Player
had to refrain from training and matches for at least one month, after which a gradual
return could be attempted. The Club asserted that otherwise it would not have been
needed to incur additional costs to sign a new foreign player. In addition, the Club affirmed
that it had paid all salaries from January to May 2025 and stated that the salary for June
would be paid no later than 28 July 2025, further alleging that the delays had been at the
request of the Player’s agent. Lastly, the Club rejected that the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract, insisting that the withdrawal was based on his inability to
participate in matches due to injury.
25. Also on 14 July 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, alleging that the salary for June
2025 remained unpaid, constituting a breach of contract. The Player further alleged that
the Club’s justification for his deregistration was totally unfounded and contrary to the
conclusions of two medical specialists. The Player also remarked that the Club had changed
the location of the team training sessions to a different city without prior notice, isolating
him from team activities. The Player insisted that the deregistration constituted just cause
for termination and granted a final period of 48 hours to reactivate his registration, failure
to which would result in the exercise of termination.
26. On 17 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter, rejecting his intention to terminate
the Contract. The Club stated that there were no outstanding unpaid salaries and alleged
that the request for an advance payment for June was not in compliance with the Contract
and lacked contractual basis. The Club denied any change of location, arguing that the team
had only travelled for a friendly match and that the Player was not in medical condition to
join them. The Club rejected the unilateral request for termination and affirmed that, if he
terminated the Contract, it would hold him liable for breach.
27. On 17 July 2025, the Player sent a new letter stating that, as of that date, he remained
unregistered with the Chinese Football Association (CFA) and asserting that this omission
constituted a serious and unjustified contractual breach. The Player informed the Club that
the registration period closed on 21 July 2025 and that this deadline was final and
non-negotiable for purposes of his registration. Hence, the Player granted the Club until 21
July 2025 to proceed with his immediate and effective registration before the CFA, under
prejudice of terminating the Contract.
28. Also on 17 July 2025, the Club paid the Player CNY 116,377.80 and CNY 160,709.43 as the
salary for June 2025.
29. On 18 July 2025, the Club argued that the Player was still a registered player during the
Contract period. The Club further requested the Player to fulfil his contractual obligations
and complete the rehabilitation training plan formulated by the Club until 20 July 2025, and
to return to the team on time.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20105
30. Also on 18 July 2025, the Player sent a notice to the CFA, requesting confirmation as to
whether he was still registered with the Club and whether he remained eligible to play in
official competitions organized under the jurisdiction of the CFA.
31. On 19 July 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, alleging that its content was
contradictory, as he had been expressly informed by the Club that his registration to play
in the Chinese Super League would be withdrawn. The Player also stated that, to his
knowledge, the Club had already filled the foreign player spots allowed by the Chinese
Super League. The Player requested that the Club demonstrate that he was duly registered
in the Chinese Super League, that he could participate in the Club’s official matches, and
that he had not been deregistered or made ineligible to play. Lastly, the Player referred to
his previous letters and granted the Club an additional two days to comply with his
requests.
32. On 21 July 2025, the Player terminated the Contract, citing just cause based on art. 14 of
the Regulations. The Player alleged that the termination was due to the fact that (i) the Club
had informed him that he would not be registered with the team, (ii) it had informed him
that it would register someone in his place, (iii) it had not demonstrated that he had been
effectively registered or was eligible to play despite multiple requests, (iv) it had failed to
pay multiple salaries on time, and (v) he had been separated from the rest of the team
during the previous month, being removed from his professional activity. The Player stated
that the withdrawal of his registration constituted a serious breach and reserved his rights
to initiate legal action.
33. On 22 July 2025, the Club issued a warning to the Player based on his unauthorized absence
from training and rehabilitation sessions. The Club requested him to provide an immediate
written explanation for his absence within 24 hours of receiving the notice.
34. Also on 22 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter, reiterating the grounds for the
withdrawal. The Club also stated that it had paid all salaries and rejected the Player’s
termination. Lastly, the Club provided several exhibits to support its allegations.
35. On 23 July 2025, the Club issued a new warning to the Player, stating that he had been
absent on 21 and 22 July 2025 while still under contract with the Club. The Club requested
that the Player return within three days and reply within 48 hours and stated that if the
Player refused to return before 26 July 2025 or insisted on terminating the Contract, the
Club would hold him responsible for the termination.
36. On 24 July 2025, the Club issued a new warning to the Player, stating that he had been
absent on 21, 22 and 23 July 2025 while still under contract with the Club. The Club
reiterated the terms of its previous letter.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20105
37. On 25 July 2025, the Club issued a new warning to the Player, stating that he had been
absent on 21, 22, 23 and 24 July 2025 while still under contract with the Club. The Club
reiterated the terms of its previous letters.
38. The Player has remained unemployed since the termination of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
39. On 26 July 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
40. The Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract, valid as from 1 January 2025
until 31 December 2025. However, the Player argued that on 28 March 2025, while
participating with the Club, he suffered a left ankle sprain, which prevented him from
playing in official matches for a limited period of time.
41. In this context, the Player argued that on 10 June 2025 he had to put the Club in default for
the payment of three salaries, which the Club paid on 15 June 2025. The Player also stated
that, surprisingly, on 27 June 2025 the Club issued the Withdrawal Notice, informing him
that it would withdraw his registration from the Chinese Super League to make room for
another foreign player and because he would be unable to play due to injury.
42. The Player alleged that he was told that the injury would be completed several months
before the end of the Chinese Super League season and therefore he issued a first cease
and desist letter demanding the Club to register him. The Player stated that the Club
argued that the decision was due to his injury, as it would be for an extended period of
time and he would not be able to return before the end of the 2025 season. In this regard,
the Player affirmed that he voluntarily underwent a medical triage, which recommended
that he take a break from training and games for just one month.
43. The Player further contended that he sent new notices requesting the Club to register him
and pay him the outstanding salary at that time, i.e., the salary for June 2025. The Player
acknowledged that he was unable to compete at that time but stated that he would be
eligible to compete once the season had progressed, before the mid-season stage of the
tournament. According to the Player, this demonstrates a deliberate intention by the Club
to breach its obligations and violate the Player’s basic right to perform his profession.
44. The Player referred to the exchange of correspondence and the deadlines he granted to
the Club to proceed with his registration, arguing that failure to do so would constitute just
cause for his termination. The Player remarked that the Club’s response was contradictory,
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20105
as it argued that he was registered with the CFA, although he had been previously notified
that he was not.
45. Based on the Club’s failure to comply and lack of response, the Player argued that he
terminated the Contract with just cause based on art. 14 of the Regulations, since (i) the
Club informed him he would not be registered with the team; (ii) the Club informed him
that it would register someone else to take his place; (iii) the Club had not demonstrated
with evidence or official documents that the Player was registered or eligible to participate
in the relevant competition; (iv) the Club separated him from the rest of the team; (v) the
Club failed to pay salaries on time on multiple occasions; and (vi) the Club failed to comply
with the requests made in his notices.
46. Regarding the salaries, the Player asserted that the Club had failed to pay his salary in a
timely manner, reflecting a pattern of conduct throughout the employment relationship.
47. Regarding his deregistration and separation from the team, the Player insisted that, with
the Withdrawal Notice, the Club expressly informed him that he would not be registered
for the Chinese Super League. In addition, the Player alleged that the Club intentionally
proceeded to unilaterally change the training venue without prior notification or
coordination with him, thereby undermining his rehabilitation. Hence, the Player argued
he had just cause to terminate the Contract since the Club deregistered and separated him
from the team in violation of the employment contract and his personal rights.
48. The Player remarked that he granted the Club multiple opportunities to remedy the
breaches of the Contract and that the Club failed to provide evidence that he was
registered to play in the Chinese Super League.
49. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“54. In view of the above, we request this H. Dispute Resolution Chamber:
i. To admit the claim lodged by SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS in full.
ii. To decide that SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS is entitled to receive the total
amount of €199,998.00 (One Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and NinetyEight Euros 00/100) plus 5% interest p.a. from July 2025 until the date of the
Employment Agreement Term concludes, as the residual value of the Employment
Agreement related as the compensation for breach of contract and outstanding
salaries.
iii. Declare that the Employment Contract entered into between QINGDAO HAINIU FC
and SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS was terminated with just cause according to
Article 14 bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20105
iv. To decide that QINGDAO HAINIU FC did not comply with its financial obligations set
out in the Employment Agreement of SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS and to decide
that QINGDAO HAINIU FC substantially and categorically violated the SANTIAGO
GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS player rights in accordance with FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players article 14.
In any case,
v. We request this H. Chamber to condemn QINGDAO HAINIU FC to pay all the legal and
procedural costs arising from the present procedure.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
50. In its reply, the Club acknowledged that the parties concluded the Contract and that at the
end of March 2025, the Player suffered a left ankle sprain during training. The Club also
stated that the injury worsened during his return to training on 15 May 2025.
51. According to the Club, between 28 March and 11 July 2025, the Player continued to feel
discomfort and was not able to join training, undergoing several imaging examinations as
well as rehabilitation, treatment, and physiotherapy with the doctor at the exercise
rehabilitation centre in Qingdao.
52. The Club acknowledged that the Player sent a notice of default on 9 June 2025 requesting
payment of his salaries and that on 12 June 2025 the Club paid all salaries, even though the
salary for May was not yet due at that time. The Club further contended that on 23 June
2025 the Player did not feel comfortable, went to the hospital and underwent an MRI
examination again, which showed that he had not yet recovered.
53. In this context, the Club stated that, considering his injury, it sent a notice regarding the
drop of his participation from the Chinese Super League list, clarifying that his registration
with the CFA would remain the same without any change. The Club referred to the
exchange of correspondence and remarked that it always informed the Player that he
remained registered with the CFA. In addition, it stated that after the termination, the
Player was absent although he was still registered with the Club and remained silent in
response to its warnings.
54. In this regard, the Club contended that the Player unilaterally breached the Contract and
must pay compensation to the Club.
55. The Club further explained that, based on the Chinese Super League regulations, it could
only have six foreign players registered, with a maximum of five foreign players on the
pitch. Since the Player was undergoing recovery and unable to train or play, the Club
alleged that it replaced another foreign player in the Player’s position as a temporary
measure for upcoming matches. Nevertheless, the Club affirmed that the deregistration
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20105
claimed by the Player never occurred, as the number of foreign players registered with the
CFA remained six.
56. The Club asserted that the jurisprudence regarding deregistration aims at protecting the
career development of players when a club wishes to replace them with a new foreign
player due to poor sporting performance. In this case, however, the Club alleged that the
Player was dropped from the list only because of his injury. The Club also contended that
it never separated him from first-team activities and that his right to access training and
the possibility to compete in official matches had never been violated, as he was still eligible
to participate in training and matches at any time upon his recovery, given that he
remained officially registered.
57. Moreover, the Club argued that it did not fail to comply with its financial obligations or
delay the Player’s salary, and that it executed the payments requested in the notice of
default within three days of receiving such notices. The Club also remarked that the salaries
for May and June 2025 had been paid before their due dates.
58. In summary, the Club asserted that the Player, while distorting the meaning of registration,
requesting undue payments, being absent from training, leaving the team without
approval, and terminating the Contract, had engaged in abusive conduct. Hence, the Club
lodged a counterclaim requesting compensation based on the residual value of the
Contract.
59. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“For the Answer
• to reject the Claimant‘s Claim;
• to deny the Claimant’s request for any outstanding remuneration, compensation,
accommodation expense along with the related tax certificate and interest; or, in a
subordinate way, to take into account any new employment contract the Claimant has
entered into following the termination of his employment relationship with the
Respondent, and then mitigate the above-mentioned amount; and
• to consolidate, if considered opportune, the present claim with the one lodged by the
Club against the Player whereby the Respondent asked a compensation of EUR
199,998.00 for its damages suffered.
For the Counter-Claim
• to accept the Counter-Claim;
• to ascertain that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the
Employment Contract without just cause;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20105
• to condemn the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to pay in favour of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant compensation in the sense of the article 17. of the FIFA
RSTP in net total of EUR 199,998.00 (One Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred
and Ninety-Eight Euros) as a residual value of monthly salaries along with 5% per
annum interest; and
• to impose sporting sanctions against the Claimants, all in the light of FIFA RSTP
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
60. The Player first argued that the letters sent by the Club after the termination no longer had
any effect, since the contractual relationship between the parties had already been
dissolved due to the Club’s breaches to his detriment.
61. Regarding the due dates for the salary, the Player stated that the Club made an erroneous
and vague interpretation intended to confuse the literal interpretation of the Contract.
According to the Player, the salaries were to be paid on the 28th day of the same month
worked, as it would be absurd that the Player’s first salary was to be paid on 28 February
2025 while he had signed the Contract on 1 January 2025. The Player contended that
admitting otherwise would result in a systematic delay in direct contradiction with the
Regulations. The Player also stated that, in any event, the principle of contra proferentem
should apply and remarked that the Club, through the so-called “advance payments”,
demonstrated that there was no consistent understanding that the salaries were only
payable the following month.
62. In any event, the Player remarked that even under the Club’s interpretation, it paid the
salary for January 2025 49 days late, the salary for February 2025 28 days late, the salary
for March 2025 45 days late, and the salary for April 2025 15 days late. Thus, the Player
maintained that the Club’s own interpretation confirmed its clear, repeated, and continued
failure to meet its financial obligations, justifying his termination with just cause.
63. Regarding the deregistration, the Player alleged that the Club was attempting to mislead
the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The Player acknowledged that, from a contractual and
federative standpoint, his rights continued to belong to the Club, since he remained
registered with the CFA according to the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS). However,
the Player affirmed that the breach referred instead to his sporting eligibility, as the Club
contravened its essential obligation by removing the Player from the list of registered
participants.
64. The Player stated that the Withdrawal Notice was not a mere temporary substitution due
to injury, but rather a formal administrative act that prevented him from exercising his
profession. The Player alleged that this removal was permanent, constituting a de facto
deregistration for all competitive purposes, notwithstanding his continued formal
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20105
registration with the CFA. Hence, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with
just cause.
65. For the above reasons, the Player rejected the Club’s counterclaim and made the following
requests for relief:
“52. In view of the above, we request this FOOTBALL TRIBUNAL, to:
I. Admit the response of the claim lodged by SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS in full.
II. Decide that SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS terminated the Employment Contract
with just cause.
III. Consequently, decide that SANTIAGO GABRIEL ORMEÑO ZAYAS is entitled to receive
the total amount requested in the claim submitted on July 25th, 2025, concerning on
€199,998.00 (One Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Eight Euros
00/100) plus 5% interest p.a. from July 2025 until the date of the Employment Agreement
Term concludes, as the residual value of the Employment Agreement related as the
compensation for breach of contract and outstanding salaries.
IV. Condemn QINGDAO HAINIU FOOTBALL CLUB to pay in full the amount that THE
PLAYER is entitled to receive.
V. Dismiss in its entirety the counterclaim submitted by QINGDAO HAINIU FOOTBALL
CLUB as well as all the relief and penalties requested by QINGDAO HAINIU FOOTBALL
CLUB on the basis of what is set out in the present Counterclaim Response.
VI Declare that QINGDAO HAINIU FOOTBALL CLUB left us defenseless due to the absence
of translations in THE PLAYER’S communications, conveniently translating only what THE
PLAYEE wrote. Therefore, we request this Chamber to dismiss and disregard any
evidence that has not been duly translated by QINGDAO HAINIU FOOTBALL CLUB, as it
was submitted in evident bad faith and in violation of the procedural duty of
cooperation and good faith that governs proceedings before FIFA.
In any case,
We request this H. Chamber to condemn QINGDAO HAINIU FOOTBALL CLUB to pay all
the legal and procedural costs arising from the present procedure.”
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20105
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
66. 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 26 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 5
February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 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.
67. 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, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Mexican player and a Chinese club.
68. 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
69. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
70. 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. 17
REF. FPSD-20105
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
71. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract and a
counterclaim of the club against the player.
72. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club deregistered him through the
Withdrawal Notice, preventing him from exercising his profession. In addition, the Player
alleged that the Club separated him from the first team and systematically failed to comply
with its financial obligations.
73. The Club, conversely, argued that the Player was still registered with the CFA and that he
was only dropped from the participation list to be replaced due to his injury, based on a
foreign-quota issue. Additionally, the Club contended that the Player had never been
separated from the team and that it had complied with all its financial obligations.
74. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause and the ensuing consequences.
A. Did the Player terminate the Contract with just cause?
75. First, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just
cause based on art. 14 and art. 14bis of the Regulations. Nevertheless, the Chamber
observed that the Player did not request outstanding remuneration but only compensation
and did not argue that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations were met - which,
in fact, were not. In this context, the Chamber deemed it pertinent to clarify that the
analysis of the termination should only be made based on art. 14 of the Regulations, which
establishes the following:
“1. 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.
2. 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.”
76. Additionally, the Chamber recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, according to which 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
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-20105
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 measure.
77. Moreover, the Chamber also deemed important to recall that contractual stability is the
backbone of the entire football season, and employers and employees in the football world
are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship without
a valid reason. In this regard, the early termination of an employment contract without just
cause has consequences – both financial and sporting. The rules allow for the parties to
modulate the effects of such a premature termination, but the jurisprudence also sets
certain boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty and the
legitimate expectation of contractual stability.
78. In this context, the Chamber moved on to analyse in turn whether the alleged breaches
that the Player argued were committed by the Club were in fact sufficiently demonstrated,
giving him just cause to terminate the Contract, and whether such termination was an
ultima ratio measure.
a.1) Purported breaches committed by the Club
a.1.1) Deregistration
79. The Chamber noted that the Player argued that the Club deregistered him through the
Withdrawal Notice, as it expressly informed him that his registration would be withdrawn
from the Chinese Super League. The Club, however, argued that the Player was still
registered with the CFA and that the Player was temporarily excluded from the list because
he could not compete due to his injury.
80. While during the exchange of correspondence and even in the claim the Player initially
affirmed that he had been deregistered with the CFA, in the response to the counterclaim
he finally acknowledged that he remained federatively registered with the CFA but argued
that this was irrelevant, as he was unable to compete in the Chinese Super League. In this
context, it is undisputed that the Player’s registration with the CFA remained active, and
the Chamber concluded that it needed to analysed whether the deregistration from the
Chinese Super League constituted a breach.
81. First, for ease of reference, the Chamber recalled that the Withdrawal Notice established:
“Notice on Withdrawal of Chinese Super League
Registration
Dear Mr. Ormeno Zayas Santiago Gabriel,
On March 28, 2025, you suffered a left ankle sprain during training, and the injury
worsened during your return to training on May 15, resulting in persistent ankle pain
for three months. According to the diagnosis from Qingdao University Affiliated
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-20105
Hospital, you are suffering from ankle pain, talar cartilage damage, and medial deltoid
ligament injury. The doctor’s treatment advice includes pain relief, localized
physiotherapy (shockwave therapy recommended), and restricted sports activities. If
symptoms persist, surgical intervention may be considered. Therefore, your
subsequent treatment and recovery will require a significant amount of time. After
multiple discussions with you, you have confirmed that you are unable to play due to
the injury.
After careful consideration, the Club has decided to withdraw your registration for the
current season of the Chinese Super League and replace you with another foreign
player, based on the following factors:
1. This decision prioritizes your health and recovery, ensuring a smooth rehabilitation
process and avoiding any adverse impact on your career.
2. Given that the Club is currently in the relegation zone and faces a challenging battle
to avoid relegation in the second half of this season, the team needs a suitable forward
to secure our position and strive for better results.
3. According to the 2025 Chinese Super League registration rules, a club can register a
maximum of five foreign players, with no more than five named in the league roster
and a maximum of six foreign players registered cumulatively throughout the season.
As the foreign player slots are fully occupied and you are unable to play due to injury,
the Club has no choice but to replace you with a new foreign player signing.
We hope you can understand the Club’s decision. Upon completion of your treatment,
the club will arrange a dedicated rehabilitation coach to guide your training. If you
recover ahead of schedule before the closure of the summer international transfer
window, the Club will make every effort to explore loan opportunities or other feasible
options to help you return to the field as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely.”
82. The Chamber highlighted that, with this letter, the Club expressly informed the Player that
it had decided to withdraw his registration for the current season of the Chinese Super
League and replace him with another foreign player. While the Club argued in its response
to the claim and counterclaim that this removal from registration was temporary, the
Chamber stressed that in this letter the Club clearly referred to the “current season of the
Chinese Super League”. In this regard, the Chamber was of the opinion that it could not be
inferred or interpreted by the Player - nor by the Chamber - that this removal was
temporary or only for specific games.
83. In addition, the Chamber noted that during the exchange of correspondence - which was
extensive and in which the Player requested clear explanations from the Club - the Club
never informed him that this measure was temporary or that he could be reinstated once
he had recovered from his injury. This also did not appear to be the case, as the Club clearly
expressed that he was going to be replaced by another player and, therefore, the Chamber
assumed that in order to re-register the Player– in the event it was possible -, the Club
would have had to deregister that player or another foreign player due to the foreign-quota
issue.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-20105
84. The Chamber further underscored that the Club - both in the Withdrawal Notice, the
subsequent correspondence, and in the present claim - justified this decision on the
Player’s injury. In fact, the Club also affirmed that the Player’s rights were not violated
because, in any event, he would not have been able to compete due to his injury.
85. In this context, the Chamber recalled that it remained undisputed that, at the end of March
2025, the Player suffered a left ankle injury while playing for the Club. It was also
undisputed that on 27 June 2025, the date the Withdrawal Notice was issued, the Player
was still unable to train or compete for the Club. However, the parties disagree on whether
the Player would have been able to train and compete within a month - as argued by the
Player - or only after a longer period - as argued by the Club. While, based on the
documents on file, the Chamber considered that there was no conclusive evidence
regarding his exact return date - as the report filed by the Player mainly stated that,
“depending on the situation”, he could “attempt” to resume training – the Chamber noted
that there was no evidence demonstrating that the Player’s injury would have caused him
to miss the entire Chinese Super League season.
86. In fact, the Chamber considered it extremely relevant that, in the last paragraph of the
Withdrawal Notice, the Club even admitted that it was possible for the Player to recover
ahead of schedule and before the end of the registration period, which, according to TMS,
was on 21 July 2025.
87. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that, despite the Player’s undisputed injury,
the Club did not have, at that time, certainty that the Player would be unable to compete
that season, as there were no medical reports stating that his injury would prevent him
from participating in matches until the end of the season. In this sense, this led the
Chamber to conclude that the Player’s rights were indeed undermined, as, had he
recovered from the injury, he would have been prevented from competing in the Chinese
Super League, which is the national competition in which the Club participated.
88. The Chamber also emphasized that, in the Withdrawal Notice, the Club “hoped” that the
Player could understand the Club’s decision. In this context, the Chamber considered that,
in any event, if the Club deemed it necessary to deregister him due to his injury, it should
at least have attempted to reach a mutual agreement with the Player or requested his
consent. However, the fact that this decision was unilateral - and especially the fact that
the Club “hoped” he would understand it - demonstrated that the Player was not previously
aware of this measure and that he probably would have rejected it, as he ultimately did.
89. At this point, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition,
p. 136), which established that:
“The issue of just cause may also occur in connection with players being deregistered
or not registered to play for their clubs. Such situations often arise, for example, when
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-20105
a club has already used up its entire quota of foreign players but wishes to register
another foreign player. As it has already used up its quota, the club proceeds to
deregister a foreign player it wishes to replace with a new foreign player without,
however, terminating the deregistered player’s contract.
The jurisprudence provides that the player generally has just cause to terminate their
contract in such cases. As previously mentioned, a club – as an employer – has the duty
to protect the personality rights of the player – as an employee. The career development
of a footballer may be prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty
to allow its players to engage in the activity for which, in principle, they have been
employed and are qualified to perform. The DRC has already confirmed that “among
a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a
timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be
given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official
matches” and that “by “de-registering” a player, even for a limited time period, a club
is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to
competition and, as such, is violating one of his fundamental rights as a football player”
and that therefore “the de-registration of a player could in principle constitute a breach
of contract since it de facto prevents a player from being eligible to play for his club”
90. While the Club argued that this jurisprudence was intended to protect players’ career
development and that, in this case, the Player was unable to compete due to his injury, the
Chamber remarked that there was no evidence demonstrating that the Player would not
have been able to recover before the end of the season, and the Club could not assure that
the Player’s rights were not affected.
91. Moreover, regarding the fact that the Player was still registered with the CFA and that the
deregistration concerned only the Chinese Super League, the Chamber again referred to
the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition, p. 137), which stipulates:
“In line with the well-established approach of the DRC, a 2014 award confirmed that the
deregistration of a player to participate in a national championship entitles the player
to unilaterally terminate their contract with just cause, with no requirement to send a
default notice to the club. The rationale for this is that players have a fundamental right
to train and to be able to play official matches. In order for a player to be eligible to
participate in organised football, they must be registered to participate in
championships for their club. If they are not registered, they will not be able to play
competitive football, irrespective of their commitment, general attitude and
fundamental rights. Even stronger language was used in a 2015 award, where it was
stated that deregistering the player constituted the “factual termination of the
employment contract.
In a 2018 award, CAS confirmed once again that deregistering a player from
participating in national championships is itself enough to justify premature
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-20105
termination of the contract.”
92. In this context, the Chamber interpreted that if the Player was not eligible to play in the
main championship in which the Club was participating, the fact that he remained
registered with the CFA did not make any difference, as he was still unable to compete.
Moreover, the Chamber recalled that clause 2 of the Contract expressly established that
the Player was going to compete in the Chinese Super League.
93. While the Club argued that the Player was still able to compete in official matches, it failed
to provide any explanation as to which competition he would have been able to play in or
how many matches he would have been able to play had he recovered before the end of
the season.
94. In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s deregistration from the
national competition constituted a severe breach by the Club, which was considered to be
a material breach of contract.
a.1.2) Outstanding remuneration
95. In addition to the deregistration, the Player argued that the Club failed to comply with its
financial obligations. In this context, the parties dispute whether the salaries were to be
paid on the 28th day of each month or on the 28th day of the following month.
96. The Chamber observed that the relevant clause stipulated: “[the Club] shall pay the salary
for the last month on the 28th day of every month.”. In the Chamber’s opinion, the Club’s
position here should prevail, as the Contract stated that the salary for the last month, i.e.,
the previous month, would be paid on the 28th day of every month, i.e., the current month.
While it is true that this interpretation implied that the salary for January 2025 was to be
paid on 28 February 2025 i.e., in arrears, the Chamber found that the Contract was clear
enough and did not warrant the application of the principle in dubio contra stipulatorem.
97. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that even considering this literal
interpretation, the Club paid: (i) the salary for January 2025 (due on 28 February 2025) on
19 April 2025; (ii) the salary for February 2025 (due on 28 March 2025) on 12 May 2025; (iii)
the salary for March 2025 (due on 28 April 2025) on 12 June 2025; and (iv) the salary for
April 2025 (due on 28 May 2025) also on 12 June 2025. The Chamber also noted that the
Player sent a notice of default on 10 June 2025 requesting payment of several outstanding
salaries and that, although the Club argued in a letter that the delay was due to a request
of the Player’s agent, it failed to provide any evidence.
98. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Club consistently failed to comply with or
delayed the fulfilment of its financial obligations during the employment relationship. The
Chamber further remarked that the Withdrawal Notice was issued less than 20 days after
the Player sent his notice of default.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-20105
99. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club paid the salaries for
May and June 2025 before their due dates and that, at the time of the termination, the Club
did not owe the Player any salary. Moreover, when the Player put the Club in default, the
Club promptly reacted and fulfilled its obligations.
100. Based on this, while the delays demonstrated that the Club had failed to comply with the
due dates, the Chamber considered that they did not constitute grounds for termination,
especially because at the time of the termination the Club had complied with all its financial
obligations.
a.1.3) Separation from the team
101. The Player argued that he was isolated and separated from the team, and alleged that the
Club deliberately changed the location of the training grounds to prejudice his treatment.
However, the Chamber considered that the Player failed to provide any evidence of this
and, on the contrary, the Club provided evidence demonstrating that the Club’s translator
informed him that the team would travel on the 11th and would return on the 20th of that
month. Moreover, considering that the Player was injured, the Chamber found it logical
that he undertook individual training for his recovery.
a.1.4) Interim conclusion
102. Based on all the above, the Chamber considered that the Player’s deregistration from the
Chinese Super League constituted a severe breach that could, in itself, justify the Player’s
termination.
103. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded to analysed whether the termination was an ultima
ratio act.
b) Ultima ratio
104. The Chamber noted that the Player sent several notices of default, as follows:
•
On 30 June 2025, the Player sent a notice to the Club in response to the
Withdrawal Notice, granting the Club 5 days to comply with his effective
registration;
•
On 9 July 2025, the Player reiterated that the Club’s conduct would constitute just
cause for unilateral termination and granted the Club five additional days, until
12 July 2025 (sic), to fully reintroduce his registration with the Chinese Super
League and ensure his eligibility to participate in official competitions. The Player
stated that failure to do so would result in the termination of the Contract;
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-20105
•
On 14 July 2025, the Player insisted that the deregistration granted him just cause
for termination and granted a final period of 48 hours to reactivate his
registration, failure to which would result in the exercise of the termination;
•
On 17 July 2025, the Player sent a new letter granting the Club until 21 July 2025
to proceed with his immediate and effective registration before the CFA, under
prejudice of terminating the Contract;
•
On 19 July 2025, the Player referred to his previous letters and granted the Club
two additional days to what was requested in the letter;
•
On 21 July 2025, the Player terminated the Contract, citing just cause based on
art. 14 of the Regulations.
105. Based on the above, the Chamber noted that the Player sent five notices of default to the
Club requesting that it register him with the Chinese Super League before terminating the
Contract. In addition, the Chamber observed that 21 days elapsed between the first notice
of default and the termination. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the termination was
an ultima ratio measure.
c) Conclusion
106. In light of all the above findings, the Chamber determined that the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations, as he could no longer
reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue the contractual relationship.
B. What are the consequences of the termination?
107. First, after having established that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause, the
Chamber highlighted that the Club’s counterclaim against the Player should be rejected in
its entirety.
108. Then, having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
109. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed EUR 199,998.00 as the residual
value of the Contract, considering the salaries for July 2025 to December 2025 (EUR 33,333
times 6). The Chamber remarked that the Player only considered his net salary and,
therefore, the Chamber also decided to consider his net salary for the calculation. However,
since the Player did not refer the amounts as “net”, the Chamber stated that no such
reference should be added to its award, based on the legal principle ne ultra petita.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-20105
110. Next, the Chamber underscored that, considering that the termination occurred on 21 July
2025 (i.e., the second half of the month), the salary for July 2025 should be considered as
outstanding remuneration based on the standard practice of the Football Tribunal.
111. Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Player EUR 33,333 as outstanding
remuneration with interest. The Chamber clarified that, although the 5% interest p.a. could
have been granted as of 21 July 2025, the date of the termination, until the date of effective
payment, the Player requested interest as from “July 2025” until “the date of the Employment
Agreement Term concludes”, i.e., 31 December 2025. Thus, the Chamber decided to award
him 5% interest p.a. as from the last day of July, i.e., 31 July 2025 until 31 December 2025,
to avoid ruling ultra petita.
112. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
113. 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 recalled
that clause 9.7.6 of the Contract provided:
“9.7.6 The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that, in accordance Art. 17 of
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the event [the Player]
terminates the contract without just cause, or [the Club] terminates the contract with
just cause due to a breach of contract of [the Player], [the Player] will be liable to
compensate [the Club] with the amount of 250000 USD as liquidated damages. In the
above case, [the Club] should give the notice to [the Player] 10 days before to correct
[the Player]'s breach and ask [the Player] to compensate the breach. If [the Player] fails
to correct, [the Club] will have the right to terminate the contract immediately and ask
[the Player] for the compensation according to this article.”.
114. However, the Chamber noted that the parties did not agree on any clause establishing the
amount payable to the Player in the event of termination by him with just cause. As a
consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art.
17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule,
the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value of
the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-20105
115. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 166,665 (i.e., EUR 33,333 times 5) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
116. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player 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.
117. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
118. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR
166,665 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
119. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request, the principle of ne ultra petita, and the
constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award
him interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 July 2025 until 31
December 2025, based on the reasons stated above.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
120. 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.
121. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-20105
122. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
123. The Club 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.
124. 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
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-20105
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Santiago Gabriel Ormeno Zayas, is
partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Qingdao Hainiu FC, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- EUR 33,333 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2025 until
31 December 2025;
- EUR 166,665 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31
July 2025 until 31 December 2025.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-20105
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-20105
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. 31