Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20117
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Ricardo Alves Coelho da Silva
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Tractorsazi, Iran
Represented by PVBT Law
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Ricardo Alves Coelho da Silva, Portugal
Represented by Mário Santos Paiva
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20117
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
o The Iranian club Tractorsazi (hereinafter, the Club or the Claimant / CounterRespondent), affiliated to the Islamic Republic of Iran Football Federation (IRIFF); and
o The Portuguese player Ricardo Alves Coelho da Silva (hereinafter, the Player or the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant), born on 25 March 1993.
2.
The Club and the Player are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties.
3.
On 15 July 2022, the Parties concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the First
Contract) valid as from 15 July 2022 until 30 June 2024.
4.
On 25 January 2023, the Parties renewed the First Contract by concluding a new
employment contract (hereinafter, the Second Contract) valid until the end of the
2024/2025 season. According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching
System (TMS), the 2023/2024 season in Iran ended on 10 June 2024.
5.
Under the Second Contract, the Player was entitled to, inter alia, (i) a USD 50,000 net bonus
if the Club finished first in the Persian Gulf Pro League and (ii) a USD 25,000 net bonus if
he played at least 70% of the official matches.
6.
According to the Club, on 11 January 2025, the Parties exchanged WhatsApp messages
concerning the conclusion of a new employment contract. According to these alleged
WhatsApp messages, the Player requested the inclusion of certain performance bonuses.
7.
Also according to the Club, on 13 February 2025, the Parties concluded a third
employment contract (hereinafter, the Third Contract) valid as from 22 June 2025 until 30
June 2028. The Third Contract was submitted to the file by the Club and appears to bear
the Player’s signature and fingerprint. The validity of the Third Contract is disputed by the
Player.
8.
Pursuant to the Third Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a fixed remuneration
of USD 400,000 per season. The Third Contract’s total value amounts to USD 1,200,000.
9.
On 30 May 2025, the Portuguese Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto summoned the
Player to a hearing on 9 September 2025 in connection with a family-law matter.
10.
On 21 June 2025, the Player travelled by plane from Istanbul to Madrid, departing at 06:55
and arriving at 10:25.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20117
11.
On 23 June 2025, the Player travelled by plane from Madrid to Porto, departing at 11:25
and arriving at 11:40.
12.
On 29 and 30 June 2025, the Club allegedly called the Player several times via WhatsApp.
The Player did not answer and, according to the screenshots provided, the Club left three
audio messages.
13.
On 1 July 2025, the Player’s legal representative. Mr. Mário Santos Paiva (hereinafter, Mr.
Paiva) contacted the Club via email requesting written confirmation that the employment
contract between the Parties “has been duly terminated” and documentary evidence of the
termination date and of the absence of any outstanding obligations on the Player’s part.
14.
On 2 July 2025, the Club allegedly contacted the Player via WhatsApp, informing him that
he was required to be in Istanbul (Türkiye) for pre-season by 7 July 2025, and asking for
his location to arrange flight tickets.
15.
Also on 2 July 2025, the Club replied to Mr. Paiva stating that the Player had a valid contract
for three more seasons and was expected to comply with it, including attending the preseason at the date and place notified via WhatsApp.
16.
On 5 July 2025, the Club allegedly contacted the Player via WhatsApp again, insisting that
he was not answering phone calls and reiterating that he was expected in Türkiye for preseason by 7 July 2025.
17.
On 7 July 2025, the Club allegedly sent the Player a flight itinerary via WhatsApp.
18.
On 9 July 2025, the Club emailed the Player at ri************[email protected] stating:
“Dear (…),
Please find attached an official notice from the club regarding your absence in training.
Regards,
[The Club]”
19.
The Club received the following reply from ri************[email protected]:
“Please be advised that our mailbox was full at the time your message was sent. As a result,
your email was automatically discarded without notification and could not be recovered.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your
understanding”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20117
20.
According to the Club, after receiving the above automatic reply, it resent the default
notice via WhatsApp and emailed it to Mr. Paiva as well.
21.
On 9 July 2025, the Club paid USD 36,500 to the Player.
22.
Also on 9 July 2025, the Club sent a second default notice, asserting that, despite multiple
notifications and the provision of a flight ticket, the Player had failed to attend the start of
pre-season. In its communication, the Club stated, inter alia, the following:
“(…) please explain your actions and reason for your absence since these actions represent
and unjustified termination of contract without just cause.
We expect to see you in training tomorrow, otherwise and against our desire we will be
forced to take legal actions against you”.
23.
On 10 July 2025, Mr. Paiva sent an email to the Club in reply to its previous communication
with a letter signed by the Player stating that he rejected the Club’s unlawful attempts to
bind him through fabricated documents. The Player stated that the employment
relationship had ended on 30 May 2025 and denied being instructed to report anywhere
or having been provided with any flight ticket. He acknowledged signing blank pages at
the request of the Club’s owner, Mr. Mohammad Reza Zonouzi Motlagh (hereinafter, Mr.
Zonouzi), allegedly under assurances they would not be misused. The Player added that
discussions were ongoing for a possible renewal with a salary between USD 1,300,000 –
USD 1,400,000 per season plus bonuses, and invited the Club to send a draft on that basis.
24.
According to the Player, on 11 July 2025, he texted Mr. Zonouzi via WhatsApp expressing
concern about the lack of response in previous messages and stating, inter alia:
“(…) you asked me more than once to sign the blank sheets and I did so. Now, I find myself
at your mercy, unsure about my future (…). I think the best thing to do is to sit down, you
return the blank sheets I singed, and we sign an agreement stating that neither of us owes
the other — and that each can go his own way”.
25.
On 12 July 2025, the Club issued a third default notice insisting on the validity of the Third
Contract and ordering the Player to join pre-season. The Club also referred to a meeting
held the previous day in Istanbul between its representative and the Player’s legal
representative, during which the latter allegedly acknowledged the Third Contract but
made new demands.
26.
On 14 July 2025, Mr. Paiva replied that the Player disagreed with the Club’s position but
remained open to an amicable settlement. He noted that the Player had not yet received
a copy of the Third Contract and explained why he had been unable to attend the meeting
on 11 July 2025. He confirmed willingness to meet on 17 July 2025 and stated, inter alia,
the following:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20117
“Nonetheless, in light of good faith, we would like to confirm that the Player received
USD 36,500 in his bank account. After reviewing the origin and nature of this transfer —and
in the absence of any clarification from the Club at the time— he understood that the
payment likely corresponded to unpaid match bonuses from the previous season.
Acting in good faith, he therefore returned approximately USD 11,504 to the Club, as the
amount appeared to exceed what was due for that period.
Accordingly, the payment referred to by the Club as relating to salaries was not made.
However, we believe this matter can be resolved during the meeting scheduled for July 17.
In line with recent discussions and as mutually agreed, our client expects the payment of
USD 300,000 (three hundred thousand United States dollars) to be made without further
delay, in order to allow him to settle pressing personal debts and secure his travel to
Istanbul. For the avoidance of doubt, this amount is, as the Club is aware, additional to and
independent from the value of any employment contract. We expect this issue to be
addressed and resolved as part of the overall settlement, and that the payment be made
promptly to enable the Player’s travel. Our client reiterates his firm intention to fully comply
with everything that was verbally agreed with Mr. Zonouzi, in a spirit of good faith and
mutual trust.
Upon receipt of the above-mentioned payment, he will immediately travel to Istanbul, where
he is scheduled to meet with his legal counsel and representatives of the Club on Thursday,
July 17. Following this meeting, and subject to the continued good faith of all parties, he will
join the team’s training camp and begin his professional activities, placing his trust in Mr.
Zonouzi and [the Club]”.
27.
On 16 July 2025, the Club rejected the Player’s position, asserted that he had
acknowledged the validity of the Third Contract, and issued a fourth default notice
demanding he attend training by 17 July 2025, or it would initiate FIFA proceedings seeking
a declaration of termination with just cause, financial compensation and sporting
sanctions.
28.
On 18 July 2025, Mr. Paiva replied that the Player rejected all allegations of breach,
reiterated that no signed copy of the Third Contract had been provided, and referred to
meetings held on 17 and 18 July 2025. He expressed willingness to attend a final meeting
by 21 July 2025.
29.
On 19 July 2025, the Club replied that the Player’s claim of not having received the Third
Contract was “surprising”, asserting he had been given a signed copy in person. The Club
again summoned the Player to training on 20 July 2025 and requested his location to
provide a flight ticket.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20117
30.
On 21 July 2025, Mr. Paiva reiterated the Player’s wish for an amicable settlement and
again requested a signed copy of the Third Contract.
31.
On 22 July 2025, the Club issued a final default notice granting the Player one last
opportunity to return to Istanbul. It reiterated its willingness to provide a flight ticket and
warned that failure to comply would constitute termination without just cause under FIFA
regulations.
32.
On 24 July 2025, the Player informed the Club that he was cancelling the meeting
scheduled for 25 July 2025 in Istanbul, citing the Club’s failure to propose any effective or
constructive solution despite the Player’s efforts to resolve the situation amicably. He
reiterated that he had still not received a signed copy of the Third Contract and again
raised concerns regarding the blank pages bearing his signature and fingerprint that
remained in the Club’s possession. The Player requested that the Club immediately
withdraw or cancel any registration with IRIFF and refrain from obstructing his registration
with another club. The Player further stated that he did not recognise the existence or
validity of the Third Contract.
33.
On an unspecified date, the Player posted a farewell message on Instagram stating, inter
alia:
“Time to say goodbye. After three unforgettable years, my journey with [the Club] has come
to an end. This is not the farewell I imagined or hoped for but life in football isn’t always fair
or simple.
I gave everything for this club. I fought with pride for the shirt and always respected what
[the Club] stands for. Unfortunately, not everyone showed the same respect back and
staying was made impossible by the unwillingness of certain individuals (…)”.
34.
On 6 August 2025, the Player signed a new contract with the Iranian club Sepahan FC,
valid as from 6 August 2025 until the end of the 2026/2027 season.
35.
Under this new contract, the Player is entitled to a total fixed remuneration of
EUR 1,800,000.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20117
II.
Proceedings before FIFA
36.
On 28 July 2025, the Club lodged the claim at hand before FIFA.
37.
On 14 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Player and
granted him a time limit until 3 September 2025 to provide his position.
38.
On 29 August 2025, the Club submitted an amended claim together with additional
evidence.
39.
On 3 September 2025, the Player replied to the claim and filed a counterclaim against the
Club. The Player also submitted a request for provisional measures seeking his immediate
provisional registration with a new club.
40.
On 12 September 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Parties’
correspondences. It informed the Parties that the Club’s unsolicited correspondence of
29 August 2025 had been disregarded pursuant to art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules
Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules). It further informed the
Parties that the Player’s request for provisional measures lacked any regulatory basis and
could not be entertained, referring the Player to art. 10 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations), which governs the
process for transferring a player. The Club was invited to provide its position on the
Player’s counterclaim by 2 October 2025, a time limit which was subsequently extended
until 13 October 2025 upon substantiated request.
41.
On 10 October 2025, the Club submitted its position on the Player’s counterclaim.
42.
On 31 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to provide his final
comments on the matter by 7 November 2025.
43.
On 7 November 2025, the Player submitted his final comments.
44.
A summary of the Parties’ respective position is detailed below.
a. Club’s claim
45.
In its claim, the Club asserted that, on 22 June 2025, the Parties concluded the Third
Contract, valid until the end of the 2027/2028 season. According to the Club, the Player
received a signed hard copy of the Third Contract in person, as had been the case with
the First and Second Contracts. The Club therefore considered that there was no
obligation to provide a signed copy via email. The Club argued that the Player is
deliberately denying receipt of the Third Contract in an attempt to evade his contractual
obligations or to manufacture procedural defects. The Club added that, pursuant to FIFA
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20117
and CAS jurisprudence, a player’s signature on a contract creates a presumption of valid
consent, unless the player provides compelling and credible evidence to rebut such
presumption.
46.
The Club emphasised that the Third Contract contains the Player’s signature and
fingerprint on every page, which in its view demonstrates the Player’s conscious and
voluntary intention to enter into the agreement and renders the “blank signed
documents” allegation baseless.
47.
The Club further stated that one week before the beginning of pre-season in Istanbul,
specifically on 29 and 30 June 2025, its Executive Director made several unsuccessful
attempts to call the Player and also sent multiple WhatsApp voice messages informing
him about the pre-season schedule.
48.
The Club explained that it subsequently attempted to contact the Player via email, but
received an automatic response indicating that the Player’s inbox was full. According to
the Club, it appeared that the Player had deliberately blocked its communications, thereby
preventing receipt of formal notices. As a result, the Club resent its communications via
WhatsApp and emailed them to Mr. Paiva. In the Club’s view, the Player consistently
avoided communication, ignored formal notices, blocked email correspondence, and
refused to disclose his location despite the Club’s attempts to arrange travel and ensure
his attendance at pre-season training.
49.
The Club additionally submitted that it provided the Player with a flight ticket to attend
pre-season in Istanbul, and that it paid USD 36,500 on 9 July 2025 as the first instalment
under the Third Contract — not as a bonus relating to the previous season. The Club
argued that, as the payer, it retains the legal right to determine the purpose of a payment,
and that the Player cannot unilaterally recharacterise that payment as relating to a
different obligation. The Club added that the refund of USD 11,504 is immaterial and that
the Player’s acceptance of the remaining amount without protest reinforces the binding
nature of the Third Contract.
50.
The Club argued that, in response to its second default notice, the Player did not mention
the alleged blank signed documents but instead shifted his position and demanded
payment of USD 300,000 based on an alleged verbal understanding. According to the
Club, this demonstrates the inconsistency of the Player’s narrative. The Club maintained
that, although there was no contractual basis for such demand, the request implicitly
acknowledges the existence of a valid contract. The Club characterised the Player’s
shifting explanations —from denying the contract, to alleging blank signatures, to
requesting extra-contractual payments— as evidence of a strategy to evade contractual
obligations and justify an unjustified departure.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20117
51.
The Club stated that the Player himself confirmed that meetings between the Parties took
place, and that he repeatedly advanced unfounded and contradictory excuses for not
returning to Türkiye. Despite this, the Club claimed to have remained patient and acted in
good faith, repeatedly asking the Player to confirm his whereabouts so that it could issue
a flight ticket. The Club considered the excuses invoked by the Player —such as alleged
visa difficulties, security concerns, and a future-dated court hearing— as inconsistent,
unfounded, and irrelevant, particularly given that all foreign players and staff joined the
training camp without issue.
52.
According to the Club, the Player’s inconsistent statements, shifting tactics, refusal to
train, and explicit concern that the Club might block his registration with another club
clearly reveal his intention to unilaterally depart the valid contract in order to join another
team offering higher compensation.
53.
The Club added that the Player’s farewell post on Instagram constitutes a clear and
deliberate expression of his intention to sever ties with the Club, without any legal
justification or mutual agreement.
54.
In light of the above, the Club claimed that the Player unilaterally terminated the Third
Contract without just cause on 24 July 2025, based on his absence from training,
inconsistent statements, unfounded allegations, and demands for non-contractual
payments.
55.
On this basis, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing factual and legal arguments, the Claimant respectfully requests the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to consider the following claims
and grant relief accordingly:
Based on the foregoing, the Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
1. Confirm the validity and enforceability of the Employment Contract signed on 22 June
2025 between the Claimant and the Respondent.
2. Declare that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause.
3. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of USD
1,200,000, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the FIFA RSTP.
4. Impose a four-month restriction on the Respondent’s eligibility to participate in official
matches, pursuant to Article 17(3) RSTP.
5. Order the Respondent to bear the full costs of these proceedings, including legal and
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20117
administrative expenses
6. Refer the case to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for additional review under the FIFA
Disciplinary Code.
7. Issue a fully reasoned decision to facilitate enforcement by national or international
authorities”.
b. Player’s reply & counterclaim
56.
In his first submission, the Player categorically denied signing the Third Contract on 22
June 2025 in Tabriz, as well as any allegation that he terminated such contract on 24 July
2025. According to the Player, the Third Contract “is a fabrication, probably produced by
inserting pre-signed blank sheets previously obtained from the Player by the Club’s owner, Mr.
Zonouzi”.
57.
The Player stated that he acted in good faith and came to regard Mr. Zonouzi as a father
figure. Out of misplaced loyalty, he signed blank sheets of paper on two occasions,
reassured by Mr. Zonouzi that they would never be misused. According to the Player,
these blank sheets are the basis of the document the Club now presents as the Third
Contract.
58.
The Player denied having received any draft employment contract or formal renewal
proposal, asserting that the Club failed to meet its burden of proof in this respect. He
argued that the alleged negotiation took place five months before the purported signing
of the Third Contract, with no subsequent communication evidencing ongoing
negotiations or the transmission of draft agreements. The Player also challenged the
reliability of the WhatsApp screenshots submitted by the Club as proof of contact. He
added that if the Third Contract had indeed been validly concluded on 22 June 2025, the
Club would have immediately objected to his absence from Iran on that date.
59.
The Player further argued that the Club refused to provide him with a signed version of
the Third Contract despite his repeated requests. He did not receive any response from
IRIFF either.
60.
The Player asserted that he was physically present in Madrid on 22 June 2025, and the
Club failed to produce any evidence that the Third Contract was even exchanged digitally
on that date. He further noted that he travelled to Porto on 23 June 2025.
61.
The Player submitted that the Third Contract contains “multiple factual inconsistencies”.
First, its introductory section refers to the “2024–2025 seasons”, whereas a contract
allegedly signed in June 2025 and valid until 2027/2028 should necessarily refer to the
“2025–2028 seasons”. Second, the postal address indicated in the Third Contract
corresponds to the address he used in earlier seasons, and he had not lived there for
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20117
more than two years following his divorce. He noted that the judicial summons he
received was sent to his correct address. The Player also stated that the signatures
appearing on the various pages of the Third Contract display notable irregularities in form
and colour, incompatible with the execution of a single authentic document.
62.
The Player argued that, in the absence of a valid and binding employment contract, no
unilateral termination could have taken place.
63.
The Player asserted that, even if the Third Contract were deemed valid, he would
nevertheless have had just cause to terminate it due to the Club’s repeated and serious
breaches; namely: (i) a salary reduction, (ii) failure to provide a copy of the contract,
(iii) non-payment of remuneration, and (iv) failure to provide flight tickets and
accommodation.
64.
According to the Player, if he had been the “essential and valuable asset” described by the
Club, it would make no sense for him to accept a substantial reduction in salary, receive
gross instead of net amounts, or agree to forgo bonuses. The Player further noted that
the Club never publicly announced the alleged renewal.
65.
Regarding the payment of USD 36,500 made on 9 July 2025, the Player argued that it
corresponded to bonuses from the previous season. Having determined that the payment
exceeded what was due, he returned USD 11,504. Accordingly, the Player maintained that
the Club never made any payment under the alleged Third Contract.
66.
The Player asserted that when he travelled to Istanbul to negotiate with the Club, he did
not sign any document. He also maintained that any renewal would have required a net
salary of USD 110,000 per month plus performance bonuses and a signing bonus of
USD 300,000.
67.
The Player further challenged the Club’s claim that flight tickets were issued. First, he
argued that the document submitted as evidence was in a FIFA non-official language and
therefore inadmissible. Second, he noted that the document simultaneously indicated
both economy and business class, which he argued confirmed the unreliability of the
exhibit.
68.
On the basis of the above, the Player firmly contended that he never signed the Third
Contract on 22 June 2025 and requested that the Club’s claim for breach of contract be
dismissed.
69.
The Player claimed that the Club must be ordered to compensate him for the financial
losses and moral damages caused by its conduct. He argued that the Club:
o Fabricated and misused pre-signed blank documents;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20117
o Publicly disseminated his personal data (including his name, identification, number,
former home address in Portugal, telephone, and email) without consent;
o Made public statements during a prime-time television interview in Iran, triggering
hostility and threats against the Player and his family; and
o Obstructed his registration with other clubs.
70.
According to the Player, he and his family suffered serious psychological distress following
a wave of communications including, death threats.
71.
The Player argued that Swiss law protects personality rights, and that the Club’s conduct
amounted to a violation of such rights. In this respect, he submitted: “The reputational
damage suffered by the player is a relevant factor in determining compensation, noting that
clubs are under an obligation not only to pay salaries but also to respect the dignity of players
as professionals. The principle is directly applicable here: the Club’s conduct aggravated the
Player’s damages beyond the financial sphere. Accordingly, the Player is entitled to moral
damages and costs, in addition to a declaratory finding of no contractual relationship”.
72.
Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“The Respondent therefore requests a decision stating that:
o The Answer, Counterclaim and Request for provisional measures are admissible and wellfounded;
o All prayers for relief of the Claimant are denied;
o Declare that no valid employment contract (“Annex 02”) was ever concluded between the
Claimant and the Respondent;
o Reject any compensation and any sporting sanctions;
o Order the evidentiary/forensic measures request by the Respondent as set out in section;
o Uphold the Counterclaim and condemn the Claimant to pay USD 2.000.000,00 (two
millions US dollars to the Respondent) as moral/reputational damages, plus pecuniary
damages detailed with 5% interest;
o Uphold the provisional measures requested by the Respondent;
o To order the Claimant to pay all costs and be ordered to reimburse the Respondent the
minimum EUR 5.000 (five thousand euros) and any other costs paid to FIFA;
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20117
o To order the Claimant to pay to the Respondent any contribution towards the legal and
other costs incurred and regarding the ongoing proceedings in an amount to be duly
established at discretion of the Panel”.
c. Club’s reply to the counterclaim
73.
In its reply to the Player’s counterclaim, the Club maintained that the Third Contract
constitutes a valid and binding employment contract between the Parties.
74.
The Club corrected what it described as a “misinformation” in its initial claim, which it
argued had been maliciously exploited by the Player in his reply and counterclaim. In this
regard, the Club submitted that the Parties actually signed the Third Contract on 13
February 2025, following negotiations conducted in January 2025, and that the contract
was meant to enter into force on 22 June 2025. According to the Club, there were two
reasons why the Third Contract —although signed in February 2025— was drafted to
commence in June 2025: (i) due to the Player’s divorce proceedings, he allegedly requested
the Club to conceal the existence of the contract from his ex-wife in the context of their
litigation, which also explains why the Club did not announce the renewal publicly; and
(ii) as the Parties were mid-season at that time, registering the contract immediately could
have jeopardised the Player’s eligibility to play for the remaining of the season.
75.
The Club submitted several images and a forensic report allegedly demonstrating that the
Player signed the Third Contract.
76.
The Club argued that the forensic report alone is sufficient to dismiss the Player’s
allegations that the Third Contract was fabricated. In any event, it further submitted that:
o The Third Contract submitted to FIFA was a scanned copy of the original. The Player
signed the document in black ink and placed his fingerprint in blue ink. In the
scanned version, the portion of the signature overlapping with the fingerprint
appears blue, while the remaining part appears in black. According to the Club, in
the original hard copy submitted to FIFA, the signature and fingerprint are clearly
identifiable and separate.
o Along with the original of the Third Contract, FIFA received an original copy of the
previous contract (valid until the end of the 2024/2025 season) and a copy of the
Player’s current employment agreement with Sepahan, as provided by the IRIFF.
These documents allegedly show consistent patterns in the Player’s signature,
name, and initials.
o The Third Contract refers to gross amounts because of a new IRIFF rule prohibiting
net amounts or club-paid taxes. The Club argued that the Player’s new contract with
Sepahan also refers to gross amounts, rendering the Player’s allegation that the
Third Contract is fraudulent merely because it uses gross figures completely
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20117
unfounded.
77.
The Club further argued that the photos submitted demonstrate the use of its current
letterhead, which is distinct from that of the previous contract and therefore inconsistent
with the Player’s claim of fabrication.
78.
According to the Club, only after the Third Contract had been signed did the Player request
an additional signing bonus of USD 300,000.
79.
Regarding termination, the Club insisted that the Player unilaterally terminated the Third
Contract on 24 July 2025 by informing it that he did not recognise the existence or validity
of the contract and would not be bound by its terms. The Club asserted that the Player’s
termination was unjustified and therefore without just cause. Consequently, the Club
requested that FIFA award compensation and impose sporting sanctions on the Player.
80.
With regard to compensation, the Club submitted that, in accordance with the principle
of “positive interest”, it should be placed in the financial position it would have occupied
had the contract been properly fulfilled.
81.
The Club stated that the Player was a full-time starter during the most successful season
in the Club’s history, during which it won the Persian Gulf Pro League for the first time.
The Player participated in 28 out of 30 league matches, missing one due to a third yellow
card and one due to a minor injury, and played in eight out of ten AFC Champions League
matches.
82.
Accordingly, the Club submitted that FIFA should consider, for compensation purposes,
the financial elements of the Third Contract, the Player’s new contract with Sepahan, the
expenses incurred by the Club for mitigating the loss of the Player and his market value.
The Club provided the following figures:
o Residual value of the Third Contract: USD 1,200,000 for three seasons;
o Value of the Player’s new contract: EUR 1,800,000 (approx. USD 2,100,000);
o Player’s market value according to the website Transfermarkt: USD 1,150,000; and
o Cost of replacement player (Mr. Tibor Halilović): transfer fee EUR 50,000 plus
contract for two seasons worth USD 1,086,000. According to the Club, the total cost
of the replacement player amounts to approximately USD 1,150,000, with prorates
to USD 1,725,000 over a three-year period.
83.
In this respect, the Club asserted that “Based on the established jurisprudence of FIFA and
the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the information currently available to the Claimant, such
compensation should be calculated based on the objective criteria presented above and be set
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20117
at, at least, USD 1,950,000, which still would be a sum lower than the new contract signed by
the Player, which would prorate to USD 3,150,000 in three seasons. Any compensation lower
than the USD 1,950,000 would benefit the Player and reward his wrongful termination, since
his balance after deducting such compensation (USD 1,950,000) from his prorated new salary
for three seasons (USD 3,150,000) would result in a sum higher than the Contract he terminated
(USD 1,200,000), i.e., unlawfully breaching the Contract would have been profitable to the
Player”.
84.
The Club finally argued that, because the Player terminated the contract during the
protected period, sporting sanctions must be imposed.
85.
Essentially, the Club reiterated that the Third Contract is valid, and that although the
Player may disagree with Mr. Zonouzi’s statements, he failed to demonstrate that the
contract was not concluded or that he did not terminate it himself. Consequently, the Club
submitted that the Player’s counterclaim must be rejected in its entirety.
86.
Based on the foregoing, the Club amended his request for relief as follows:
“Based on the facts, arguments, legal grounds, and evidence brought herein, Tractor hereby
requests the honorable Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal to admit the
Claim and this Answer and pass a decision:
a) Confirming the validity and enforceability of the Contract;
b) Rejecting the Response in its entirety;
c) Declaring that the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause;
d) Ordering the Player to pay compensation in the amount of US$1,950,000, at minimum,
in accordance with article 17, §1 of the RSTP;
e) Imposing a six-month restriction on the Player’s eligibility to participate in official
matches, pursuant to article 17, §3 of the RSTP; and
f) Ordering the Player to bear the full costs of these proceedings, including legal and
administrative expenses, if any”.
d. Player’s final comments
87.
In his final comments, the Player reiterated that no valid contract existed between the
Parties, and therefore no unilateral termination could have occurred. He submitted that
the Club’s revised narrative —namely, that the Third Contract was allegedly signed on 13
February 2025, rather than 22 June 2025 as consistently maintained in the claim—
constitutes a material alteration of the facts that undermines the Club’s credibility. The
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20117
Player therefore upheld his position that the Third Contract is a fabrication, “most likely
assembled using pre-signed blank sheets previously obtained by the Club’s owner, Mr.
Zonouzi”. He argued that the Club’s conduct violates the legal principle of venire contra
factum proprium.
88.
The Player stated that the Club’s new claim regarding the alleged signing date is
demonstrably false. His contentious divorce proceedings concluded on 15 January 2025
by mutual agreement, duly approved by the competent Portuguese court, making it
impossible for the contract to have been concealed for divorce-related reasons as alleged
by the Club.
89.
The Player further argued that there is no legal basis preventing the registration of a new
employment contract, nor did the Club make any public announcement regarding the
alleged renewal. The Player also submitted that the Club had previously been sanctioned
by IRIFF for document falsification in a case allegedly strikingly similar to the present
matter.
90.
The Player reiterated that he trusted Mr. Zonouzi, signed blank sheets of paper, and that
once he refused to renew, the meetings between the Parties became increasingly hostile
and confrontational. Ultimately, the Club resorted to media outlets to incite public
hostility, hatred, and even violence against him.
91.
The Player also reiterated that he would not have accepted salary reduction exceeding
USD 300,000 per year.
92.
The Player argued that the Third Contract lacks dates and does not include page
numbering, unlike the previous contracts. He further submitted that in the 2023 contract
and in his contract with Sepahan, his initials “RA” appear on every page, while his full
signature reads “Ricardo Alves”. In contrast, certain pages of the Third Contract are
irregularly signed as “RAIves”, a deviation which, in the Player’s view, further indicates
inconsistency and forgery.
93.
The Player reiterated that the Club failed to provide him with a signed copy of the Third
Contract despite his repeated requests. He further noted that the documents submitted
by the Club confirm that he was registered with IRIFF only on 9 August 2025, which he
argued raises obvious doubts about the Club’s version of events.
94.
The Player reiterated the alleged inconsistencies between the Third Contract and the
other documents on file, arguing that they support the conclusion that the document was
falsified. He submitted that, absent a verifiable chain of custody —including the original
recording device, raw metadata, cryptographic hash values, or embedded creation logs—
a video can be easily staged, edited, or artificially back-dated.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20117
95.
The Player further argued that the videos and images submitted by the Club merely depict
a person signing a “piece of paper”, and therefore cannot establish that the document
signed was the alleged employment agreement, nor that it was executed on the date
claimed by the Club. He added that the absence of an original copy prevented him from
conducting an independent and impartial expert analysis, rendering the forensic report
submitted by the Club procedurally defective and legally inadmissible. The Player
requested that FIFA order an independent forensic examination.
96.
The Player also reiterated that the payment received from the Club on 9 July 2025
corresponded to outstanding bonuses from the 2024/2025 season. He stated that, having
reviewed the amount, he reimbursed the excess.
97.
The Player amended his request for relief as follows:
“The Respondent therefore requests a decision stating that:
o This Answer as well as the Answer, Counterclaim and Request for provisional measures
are admissible and well-founded;
o All prayers for relief of [the Club] are denied;
o Declare that no valid employment contract (“Annex 02”) was ever concluded between the
Claimant and the Respondent;
o Reject any compensation and any sporting sanctions;
o Order the evidentiary/forensic measures request by the Respondent as set out in section
H of Answer, Counterclaim and Request;
o Uphold the Counterclaim and condemn the Claimant to pay USD 2.000.000,00 (two
millions US dollars to the Respondent) as moral/reputational damages, plus pecuniary
damages detailed with 5% interest;
o Uphold the provisional measures requested by the Respondent;
o To order the Claimant to pay all costs and be ordered to reimburse the Respondent the
minimum EUR 5.000 (five thousand euros) and any other costs paid to FIFA;
o To order the Claimant to pay to the Respondent any contribution towards the legal and
other costs incurred and regarding the ongoing proceedings in an amount to be duly
established at discretion of the Panel”.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-20117
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
98.
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 28 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 26 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
99.
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 (July 2025 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Portuguese player and an Iranian club.
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.
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 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.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-20117
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
103. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerns a
claim lodged by the Club against the Player and a counterclaim lodged by the Player
against the Club regarding the validity of the Third Contract, its purported termination by
the Player and the legal consequences arising therefrom.
104. At the outset, the members of the DRC first noted that there is no dispute that the Parties
entered into the First Contract on 15 July 2022, which was subsequently renewed by the
Second Contract, concluded on 25 January 2023 and which ran until the end of the
2024/2025 season.
105. What the Parties strongly disputed is whether the Third Contract constitutes a valid and
binding employment contract between them, whether the Player unilaterally terminated
the alleged contract and, in such case, the consequences of the purported termination.
106. Accordingly, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to address the following
questions:
I.
Is the Third Contract a valid and binding employment contract between the
Parties?
II.
If yes, did the Player unilaterally terminate the Third Contract?
III. If yes, did the Player have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Third Contract?
IV. If not, what are the legal consequences arising from the Player’s unilateral
termination without just cause?
***
I.
Is the Third Contract a valid and binding employment contract between the Parties?
107. In order to assess this first question, the Chamber began by briefly recalling the Parties’
opposing positions regarding the alleged conclusion of the Third Contract, noting that said
contract, as submitted by the Club, bears the signatures of both Parties as well as the
Player’s fingerprint.
108. On the one hand, the Chamber took note that the Club initially submitted that the Third
Contract was signed on 22 June 2025, but subsequently corrected what it described as a
“misinformation” in its original claim, asserting instead that the contract was in fact signed
on 13 February 2025. In this respect, the DRC considered that the Club essentially relied
on the presumption of validity attached to a duly signed written contract, arguing that the
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-20117
presence of the Player’s signature and fingerprint unequivocally demonstrates a
concluded and binding agreement between the Parties.
109. On the other hand, the DRC recalled that the Player —while acknowledging having signed
blank sheets of paper allegedly given to him by Mr. Zonouzi, whom he apparently
regarded as a father figure— categorically denied having signed the Third Contract. In
particular, the Chamber took note the Player’s argument that the contract was fabricated
using the alleged presigned blank sheets. The Player further alleged that his signature
appearing in the Third Contract shows irregularities in form and colour and that the Club’s
modification of its position concerning the date of signature materially undermines its
credibility.
110. Having considered the above, the DRC first noted that neither Party’s position is entirely
consistent, as both altered or contradicted their own earlier explanations during the
proceedings.
111. While the Club initially alleged that the Third Contract was signed on 22 June 2025, it later
changed its position and claimed that the contract had actually been executed on 13
February 2025. Conversely, the Player admitted having signed blank sheets provided by
Mr. Zonouzi which, according to him, are the base of the document presented by the Club
as the Third Contract, yet simultaneously argued that the signatures in the document
show “irregularities” as if they were not his own.
112. In this respect, although the Club’s shift in its narrative concerning the signature date is
inconsistent, this does not, in the Chamber’s view, carry the fatal consequences argued
by the Player. Even if the Player demonstrated that he was not in Iran on 22 June 2025
(making it impossible that the Third Contract was signed in person on that date), this does
not relieve him of his burden of proving that his signature and fingerprint were not
lawfully affixed to the Third Contract on 13 February 2025, in accordance with art. 13 par.
5 of the Procedural Rules.
113. By contrast, the Chamber opined that the inconsistencies in the Player’s position have
greater relevance. If, as the Player alleged, the Third Contract was based on blank sheets
he signed for Mr. Zonouzi, it is difficult to reconcile this claim with his allegation that the
signatures in the contract appear irregular or inconsistent with his own.
114. The Chamber considered that, in any event, the Player’s own submissions indicate that he
did sign the document presented as the Third Contract. He did not deny signing that
specific document; rather, he claimed that it was signed out of context and later filled in
by the Club using documents signed by the Player in previous seasons. Indeed, the Player
expressly submitted: “The alleged signature pages contained in Annex 02 [the Third Contract]
were not executed in the context of any contract negotiation or final agreement. Rather, as
explained by the Player, these blank sheets were signed under the undue influence of Mr
Zonouzi”.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-20117
115. Accordingly, the Chamber emphasised that the Player did not deny having signed what
the Club presented as the Third Contract, but rather that it had been signed within the
context described by the Club. In this context, and in application of the principle of burden
of proof as enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Regulations, the Chamber emphasised 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 Third Contract had
not been concluded on 13 February 2025.
116. In this respect, the DRC determined that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of this
Chamber, when a party objects to the authenticity of a document, they must not simply
deny it, but most offer sufficient reasons to cast serious doubts on its authenticity.
117. Moreover, the Chamber pondered that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal also
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).
118. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber noted that the Player provided no
evidence demonstrating that he had been presented blank copies to sign or that he had
signed blank copies during his tenure at the Club.
119. Nevertheless, and in support of his position, the Player maintained that the Third Contract
contained several inconsistencies, namely:
o Its introductory section refers to the “2024–2025 seasons”, whereas a contract
allegedly signed in June 2025 and valid until 2027/2028 should necessarily refer to
the “2025–2028 seasons”.
o The postal address indicated in the Third Contract corresponds to the address he
used in earlier seasons, and he had not lived there for more than two years following
his divorce.
o There is no legal basis preventing the registration of a new employment contract,
and the Club did not make any public announcement regarding the alleged renewal.
o The Third Contract lacks dates and does not include page numbering, unlike the
previous contracts.
120. The DRC considered that, as argued by the Club, none of the aforementioned elements
demonstrate falsification, nor do they meet the threshold required to cast serious and
well-founded doubts on the authenticity of the Third Contract. While acknowledging that
the Club’s refusal to provide the Player with a signed copy of the Third Contract by email
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-20117
appears illogical, this circumstance alone is insufficient to conclude that the Third Contract
is invalid or that it does not constitute a binding agreement.
121. As regards the reference in the introductory section to the “2024–2025 seasons”, the DRC
underscored that the mere use of an existing seasonal template —particularly one
contemporaneous with the alleged signature date— cannot, in and of itself, be regarded
as evidence of fabrication only because it does not reflect the overall duration of the
contract. In fact, the duration of the contract is foreseen in Clause 3.
122. As for the Player’s argument regarding the outdated postal address, this may reasonably
be attributed to an administrative oversight. In the DRC’s view, the use of a prior address
does not undermine the Player’s signature or fingerprint, nor does it constitute evidence
of tampering.
123. 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
Chamber’s view, absence of such an announcement is not indicative of fabrication and
cannot reasonably be interpreted as undermining the validity of the Third Contract.
124. Regarding the differences in formatting between the Third Contract and previous
agreements, the Chamber stressed that variations in layout, typography, page numbering,
or administrative structure are not uncommon and do not, in themselves, suggest
falsification. Such variations frequently arise from the use of updated templates, different
staff responsible for drafting, or changes in club documentation standards from one
season to another, which is the case here as demonstrated by the Club.
125. Upon comprehensive examination of the Player’s submissions and the documentary
evidence, the Chamber determined that the Player did not raise serious or substantiated
doubts regarding the authenticity of the Third Contract. The Chamber found his
allegations speculative and insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity afforded to a
document bearing his signature and fingerprint. Most notably, the Chamber emphasised
that the Player did not deny having signed the documents that allegedly are the basis of
the Third Contract, and therefore concluded that there were no grounds to question the
authenticity or validity of the Third Contract.
126. For the sake of completeness, the DRC noted that the Club submitted photographs
purporting to show the Player signing the relevant document. The Player did not dispute
that he is the individual shown signing a document; he merely argued that it cannot be
proven which specific document he was signing.
127. While it is true that the photographs cannot irrefutably establish that the Player was
signing the Third Contract, the Chamber observed that the letterhead of the document
visible in the photos matches the letterhead of the Third Contract and clearly differs from
the letterhead used in earlier contracts — a point that the Player did not contest.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-20117
128. Furthermore, the Third Contract submitted to the file is fully typed, contains no blank
spaces, and exhibits no signs of having been completed in handwriting after signature.
129. Based on the foregoing considerations and after careful analysis of the Parties’ positions
and evidence provided, the Chamber unanimously decided that the Third Contract was
validly executed and is fully binding upon the Parties.
II. Did the Player unilaterally terminate the Third Contract?
130. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber moved to the next issue to be addressed
in the case at hand; namely, whether the Player unilaterally terminated the Third Contract.
131. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the Club argued that the Player unequivocally
and unilaterally terminated the Third Contract on 24 July 2025, whereas the Player
contended that, since no valid contract existed, no termination could have taken place. In
essence, the Player’s position rested entirely on his denial of the contract’s validity — an
argument already dismissed based on the evidence and analysis above.
132. In this respect, the DRC noted that, in his correspondence dated 24 July 2025, the Player
expressly stated that he did not recognise the existence or validity of the Third Contract
and that he would not consider himself bound by its terms. In the Chamber’s view, such
a declaration constitutes a clear explicit and definitive refusal to honour the obligations
arising from the contract, amounting to a repudiation of the agreement.
133. The Chamber stressed that, although no formal termination notice was submitted to the
file, termination may be inferred not only from express words but also from conduct that
clearly conveys an intention to abandon the employment relationship. In this respect, the
Chamber underscored that the Player’s explicit refusal to acknowledge a binding contract
—and his statement that he would not comply with its terms— constitutes such conduct.
In other words, through this unequivocal statement, the Club could reasonably and
objectively conclude that the Player no longer intended to fulfil his contractual duties.
Consequently, the Player’s declaration must be regarded as repudiation of the
employment contract, and therefore as a unilateral termination attributable to him (in
this regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 15 May 2024, Barradas Novais).
134. On this basis, the DRC concluded that the Player unilaterally terminated the Third Contract
on 24 July 2025, when he informed the Club in unequivocal terms that he rejected the
contract’s validity and would not be subject to its terms.
III. Did the Player have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Third Contract?
135. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber then proceeded to analyse whether the
Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Third Contract.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-20117
136. First, the Chamber referred to art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates:
“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”.
137. 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.
This jurisprudence clarifies that 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).
138. Accordingly, and considering that the Player did not provide any valid justification for
termination, the Chamber found that he unilaterally terminated the Third Contract
without just cause, and should therefore be liable for the consequences that follow.
IV. What are the legal consequences arising from the Player’s unilateral termination
without just cause?
139. As a preliminary point, the DRC 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.
140. With the above in mind, and for the present purposes, the Chamber went on to address
the calculation of compensation due by the Player to the Club and the question of sporting
sanctions against the Player.
Compensation
141. 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.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-20117
142. 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 Third 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 Third Contract.
143. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Player to the Club had to be assessed in application of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
beginning with the consideration for the damage suffered by the Club, guided by the
positive interest principle.
144. With all the above in mind, the DRC noted that the Club claimed entitlement to
USD 1,950,000 as compensation, providing the following numbers:
o The residual value of the Third Contract amounted to USD 1,200,000 for three
seasons;
o The Player’s fixed remuneration under his new contract with Sepahan amounts to
EUR 1,800,000 (approximately USD 2,100,000) for two seasons;
o The Player’s market value according to Transfermarkt is USD 1,150,000; and
o The Club incurred in costs totalling approximately USD 1,150,000 for the transfer of
Mr. Tibor Halilović (the Player’s alleged replacement) consisting of EUR 50,000 in
transfer fees and USD 1,086,000 in remuneration for two seasons, which the Club
prorated to USD 1,725,000 over three seasons.
145. On that basis, the Club argued that compensation should be set at no less than
USD 1,950,000, submitting that any lower figure would reward the Player’s breach, as his
projected earnings under his new contract would exceed those under the Third Contract
even after payment of such compensation.
146. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that, under art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
compensation is to be assessed based on the actual damage suffered, in line with the
“positive interest” principle, and 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.
147. In this respect, 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. The Chamber considered that, under a fixed-term employment contract,
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-20117
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 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 was adopted, this could mean disregarding such an essential principle.
148. Having regard to the circumstances of this individual case, the Chamber considered that
the Player’s remuneration as foreseen in the breached contract (i.e., the Third Contract),
constitutes a reliable basis on which to establish the economic value that the Player’s
services represented for the Club and this remuneration can be understood as bearing
correlation to his value as a player, which the Club lost (and which thus could be alleged
to have caused damage to the Club) in light of the Player’s breach of contract.
149. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Club sufficiently established and proved
that it suffered a damage of USD 1,200,000.
150. The Chamber further noted the Club’s argument that the Player’s new remuneration with
Sepahan (USD 2,100,000) should be taken into account, asserting that the prorated
hypothetical three-season value (USD 3,150,000) demonstrates that the Player stands to
financially benefit from an unlawful termination.
151. In this respect, the DRC held that, under the IRF, the Player’s subsequent contract with
Sepahan cannot be relied upon as a criterion for calculating compensation in the present
matter.
152. The DRC then turned to the Club’s reliance on the Player’s alleged “market value,” which
the Club derived solely from the publicly accessible website Transfermarkt. In this respect,
the Chamber stressed that Transfermarkt is a crowd-sourced, non-official platform whose
valuations are generated through user interactions, unverified contributions, and
non-transparent methodologies. As such, the Chamber determined that it cannot be
deemed an objective, reliable, or verifiable source in establishing market value for the
purpose of calculating compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations, and therefore the
Club’s submission based on this platform must be disregarded.
153. The Chamber wished to stress that, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, it is incumbent on the claiming party to provide adequate, objective, and
independently verifiable evidence of any alleged market value, such as documented
transfer offers, formal negotiations, expert valuations, or other authoritative data. In the
absence of such supporting evidence, mere references to Transfermarkt fall far short of
the evidentiary threshold consistently applied in FIFA jurisprudence.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-20117
154. Lastly, the DRC analysed the Club’s claim for replacement costs totalling USD 1,150,000
(prorated to USD 1,725,000 over three years).
155. As explained by this Chamber 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
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”.
156. Following this, the DRC underscored that, in order for the Club to successfully claim
replacement costs, it must substantiate that Mr. Tibor Halilović was hired to replace the
Player. This requires that the Club proves (i) that there is a causal nexus between the
Player’s premature termination of the Third Contract and the hiring of Mr. Halilović and
(ii) that the players played in largely the same position on the field.
157. In this respect, the members of the DRC first observed that the transfer agreement for
the acquisition of Mr. Halilović’s services was executed on 11 July 2025, whereas the Player
only terminated his employment relationship with the Club on 24 July 2025. Accordingly,
at the moment the Club concluded the transfer agreement for Mr. Halilović, the Player
remained fully bound by his employment contract and subject to the Club’s authority. The
Chamber therefore held that Mr. Halilović could not reasonably be regarded as a
replacement for the Player, as the latter was still contractually tied to the Club and there
was no contemporaneous need —or basis— to recruit a replacement. Therefore, the
Chamber decided that the Club’s claim for replacement costs could not be upheld.
158. In any event and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that, although the Club
submitted the transfer agreement and the employment contract of Mr. Halilović, it failed
to provide any evidence demonstrating similarity of profile with the Player.
159. In light of the foregoing and based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case
at hand, the Chamber decided that the Player is liable to pay the Club compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of USD 1,200,000, with 5% interest per annum as from
the date of termination (i.e., 24 July 2025) until the date of effective payment.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-20117
160. Lastly, with respect to the Player’s counterclaim for moral damages in the amount of
USD 2,000,000, the Chamber noted that the Player failed to provide any substantiating
evidence either supporting the amount requested or establishing a casual nexus between
the alleged damage and its quantification. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject the
Player’s counterclaim in full.
Sporting sanctions
161. 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.
162. 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.
163. 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”.
164. 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”.
165. 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).
166. With the above in mind, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 25 March
1993 and the Third Contract entered into force on 22 June 2025. Furthermore, the Player
terminated the Third Contract without just cause on 24 July 2025. The breach of contract
by the Player therefore occurred within the protected period.
167. In light of the foregoing, 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.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
168. 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
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-20117
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.
169. 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.
170. 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.
171. 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 the Club, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
172. 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
173. 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.
174. 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.
175. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-20117
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Tractorsazi, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Ricardo Alves Coelho da Silva, is
rejected.
3.
Ricardo Alves Coelho da Silva must pay to Tractorsazi USD 1,200,000 as compensation
for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as from 24 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of Tractorsazi are rejected.
5.
A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on
Ricardo Alves Coelho da Silva. 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.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-20117
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. 32