Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20176
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mathias
Antonsen Normann
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Vanessa PLAVJANIKOVA (Czech Republic), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mathias Antonsen Normann, Norway
Represented by Eirik Monsen
RESPONDENT:
Al Raed, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20176
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
the Norwegian player Mathias Antonsen Normann (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
•
the Saudi Club Al Raed (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the
Saudi Arabia Football Federation (SAFF).
2.
On 31 December 2019, the Player initiated an employment relationship with the Russian
club FC Rostov, which was originally valid from the date of signature until 31 December
2024, and later extended until 31 December 2025.
3.
On 3 August 2023, the Player terminated his employment with FC Rostov, citing force
majeure considering the events involving the armed conflict in Russia.
4.
On 16 August 2023, the Player and the Club concluded an “Employment Contract for
Professional Football Player (Non-Saudi Nationality)” (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from
21 August 2023 until 30 June 2025.
5.
Pursuant to art. 5 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (quoted verbatim):
“Article 5. Remuneration
5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any
taxes, bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Monthly salary August 21, 2023, to August 31, 2023
Monthly salary September 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024
Monthly salary July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025
Currency
USD
USD
USD
Amount
41,056 $
127,273 $
141,667 $
The Club shall pay to the Player each monthly salary payment by the last day of each
month for a total of [TOTAL NUMBER OF MONTHS AS PER ART. 4.1].
5.2 Fixed financial payments
The Club shall pay the following fixed financial payments to the Player (net of any taxes,
bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20176
6.
Payment type
Currency
Amount
Payment deadline
(DD.MM.YYYY)
Monthly salary August 21, 2023, to
August 31, 2023
USD
300,000 $
01/09/2023
Art. 14 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“Article 14. Declarations
1. The Player declares that is under no contractual obligation towards any other
football club.
2. The Player declares that he has not entered into an agreement with a third party (i.e.
a party other than the Player, the two clubs transferring the Player from one to the
other, or any previous club with which the Player has been registered) whereby a third
party is being entitled to participate, either in full or in part, in compensation payable
in relation to the future transfer of the Player from one club to another, or is being
assigned any rights in relation to a future transfer or transfer compensation.
3. The Club declares that is has not entered into an agreement with a third party
whereby a third party is being entitled to participate, either in full or in part, in
compensation payable in relation to the future transfer of the Player from one club
to another, or is being assigned any rights in relation to a future transfer or transfer
compensation.”
7.
Art. 15.1 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“Article 15. General Provisions
1. The Contract shall be subject to the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia taking into
account the specificity of sport.”
8.
On 1 September 2023, FC Rostov filed a claim for breach of contract against the Player and
the Club in front of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC), which was
registered under ref. no. FPSD-11614. FC Rostov inter alia claimed that the Player had
breached his contract without just cause, entitling it to compensation. FC Rostov further
claimed that the Club should be held jointly and severally liable in accordance with art. 17
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
9.
On 15 November 2023, the DRC issued its decision in the abovementioned case
(hereinafter: the DRC Decision), the grounds of which were later notified to the parties on
18 December 2023. Accordingly, the DRC partially accepted the Club’s claim and ordered
both the Player and the Club to pay FC Rostov EUR 2,923,507 as compensation for breach
of contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20176
10. FC Rostov, the Player and the Club appealed the DRC Decision to the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS). The proceedings were registered under ref. no. CAS 2024/A/10279,
2024/A/10280 & 2024/A/10281.
11. On 31 March 2025, CAS issued its Award (hereinafter: the CAS Award), confirming the breach
of contract by the Player, while amending the amount of compensation to EUR
3,026,954.32 plus interest.
12. On 18 July 2025, the Player sent a written default notice to the Club, granting a 10‑day
deadline for the settlement of the overdue salaries of April, May and June 2025 and
referring to art. 12bis of the Regulations.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 1 August 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
14. In his claim, the Player alleged that the Club failed to comply with its essential contractual
obligations by repeatedly and unjustifiably withholding his salaries for April, May and June
2025. He stated that these payments were contractually due at the end of each respective
month and that the Club did not provide any prima facie contractual basis for the delay.
15. The Player further alleged that, despite sending a formal default notice in line with art.
12bis of the Regulations, the Club did not settle the overdue amounts nor provide any
response, thereby confirming its persistent non-compliance. The Player maintained that he
fully respected all his contractual duties throughout the employment relationship, whereas
the Club persistently breached its main payment obligation.
16. Based on the above, the Player claimed entitlement to the outstanding net amount of USD
425,001 plus interest and requested that the DRC impose disciplinary consequences on the
Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
17. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“Based on the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA Football Tribunal to determine
that the Club has overdue payables towards the Player and order that the Club must
pay the Player the amount of USD 425,001 net, as per the Contract plus 5% interest
until the date of effective payment, specified as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20176
•
•
•
USD 141,666 net for the salary of April 2025 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May
2025.
USD 141,666 net for the salary of May 2025 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June
2025.
USD 141,666 net for the salary of June 2025 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July
2025.
The FIFA DRC is further requested to sanction the Club in accordance with Article 12bis
par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Club
18. On 18 August 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the claim.
19. In its reply, the Club first submitted that the Player’s claim was unfounded and
inadmissible, arguing that it relied on an incorrect legal basis and that the applicable law
was the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, pursuant to art. 15 of the Contract. In this
regard, the Club held that, under the governing law, the relevant regulatory framework was
the 2024 SAFF Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the SAFF
Regulations), and not art. 12bis of the Regulations. It therefore requested that the claim be
rejected as inadmissible.
20. The Club further argued that the Player’s claim for outstanding salaries could not be
evaluated without taking into account the “broader context” of the Player’s own conduct
when entering into the Contract. According to the Club, the Player had knowingly concealed
that he remained contractually tied to FC Rostov when he signed with the Club and had
expressly misrepresented his status by declaring that he was under no contractual
obligation to any other club. The Club emphasised that this misrepresentation later
resulted in the DRC Decision, upheld by the CAS Award, which imposed joint and several
liability on the Club for more than EUR 3 million in compensation to FC Rostov.
21. The Club maintained that the Player’s misrepresentation constituted a fundamental breach
of good faith, undermining the basis of the contractual relationship. The Club alleged that
such conduct – combined with the Player’s failure to inform the Club of ongoing disputes
with FC Rostov – directly caused severe financial consequences and ultimately impaired the
Club’s ability to meet certain financial obligations, including the salary payments for April,
May, and June 2025. The Club therefore claimed that art. 44 of the Swiss Code of
Obligations (SCO) and art. 172 and 128 of the KSA Civil Code on contributory negligence
should apply, eliminating or substantially reducing any monetary entitlement of the Player.
22. Additionally, the Club argued that set-off operated to extinguish any salary debt. In its view,
the Player, as the Club’s co-debtor under the CAS Award, owed the Club a monetary
amount far exceeding the claimed USD 425,001. As both parties had reciprocal monetary
obligations, and as the Player did not dispute the non-payment for several months, the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20176
Club asserted that it reasonably considered the salary obligations extinguished by set-off
under art. 281 of the KSA Civil Code and art. 120 of the SCO.
23. The Club also submitted that the Player’s reliance on art. 12bis of the Regulations was
misplaced because the protective mechanism of overdue payables could not be invoked
by a player whose own misconduct created the circumstances underpinning the alleged
late payment. The Club argued that art. 12bis of the Regulations required good faith from
the creditor and was incompatible with situations in which the Player’s own breach caused
the financial difficulty.
24. Finally, the Club highlighted broader legal arguments based on European Union law and
the “CJEU Diarra judgment”, contending that the joint-liability system and the Player’s
attempt to seek additional payment from the Club despite being responsible for the
situation contradicted the principles of fairness, proportionality, and good faith governing
sporting employment relationships.
25. The Club requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“For the reasons set out above, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber to:
1. Declare the claim inadmissible on the grounds that it relies on the wrong legal
basis, namely Article 12bis FIFA RSTP, which is inapplicable under the Parties'
agreement and the governing law.
2. Alternatively, dismiss the claim on the merits in its entirety.
3. Find that no salary is due to the Claimant for April-June 2025, by virtue of valid setoff under Article 281 of the KSA Civil Code and Article 120 of the Swiss Code of
Obligations, extinguishing the alleged debt.
4. Acknowledge the contributory negligence of the Claimant pursuant to Article 44
Swiss CO and Articles 172 and 128 KSA Civil Code, which bars or at minimum reduces
any entitlement to compensation.
5. Confirm that the Claimant acted in breach of the duty of good faith (Article 95 KSA
Civil Code; Article 2 Swiss Civil Code), thereby forfeiting the protection of Article 12bis
FIFA RSTP.
6. Order the Claimant to bear all costs of these proceedings, including any applicable
procedural costs and contributions towards the Respondent's legal fees.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20176
c. Replica of the Player
26. On 1 September 2025, the Player submitted his replica on this matter.
27. In his replica, the Player first emphasised that the Club did not contest the core facts
underlying the claim, namely that the Club failed to pay the salaries for April, May, and June
2025, and that at least two of these instalments were more than 30 days overdue at the
time of the duly served default notice. The Player stressed that these undisputed elements
were the only relevant facts for a claim under art. 12bis of the Regulations, and that the
Club attempted to divert the proceedings by introducing arguments related to an entirely
different dispute involving FC Rostov.
28. The Player rejected the Club’s allegation that the present matter was linked to earlier
contractual issues with FC Rostov. He clarified that the dispute with FC Rostov had no
connection whatsoever to the overdue salary claim. He further pointed out that the Club
selectively quoted a CAS paragraph and failed to mention that CAS had explicitly held that
the Club failed to conduct proper due diligence before hiring the Player. According to the
Player, CAS made clear that the Club never investigated his registration status and ignored
correspondence from FC Rostov, which contradicted the Club’s attempt to portray itself as
misled.
29. The Player also rejected the Club’s allegation that he acted in bad faith or misrepresented
his contractual situation. He stated that, before signing with the Club, he informed the Club
that he had unilaterally terminated his contract with FC Rostov. The Player recalled that
before CAS, the Club itself had argued that the termination was made with just cause;
therefore, the Club’s new assertion in these proceedings – that the Player was still
contractually bound to FC Rostov – was inconsistent with its own prior legal arguments.
30. The Player further refuted the Club’s claim that he caused the Club to become solely
responsible for the CAS‑imposed joint and several liability. He stated that the Club had
every right to appeal the CAS Award to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) but chose not to,
and that his own appeal did not require any notification to the Club. Therefore, the Club’s
attempt to describe this as bad faith was unfounded.
31. Regarding the Club’s objections to the default notice and its claim of set‑off, the Player
reiterated that he complied fully with the procedure under art. 12bis of the Regulations,
providing the required 10‑day deadline. He noted that the Club did not respond at all to
the notice. The Player insisted that the Club’s references to “set‑off” were baseless because
he had no debt towards the Club; the CAS Award ordered payment to FC Rostov, not to the
Club. Thus, no reciprocal obligations existed between the parties that could allow any
set‑off under Swiss or Saudi law.
32. The Player also disputed the Club’s assertion that he had “accepted” the set‑off by waiting
before sending his default notice. He explained that the Club had previously paid salaries
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20176
late, and he reasonably expected the same to occur. He further claimed that his patience
could not be construed as any form of acceptance or waiver.
33. In addition, the Player rejected the Club’s reliance on Swiss or Saudi legal provisions
concerning contributory negligence or set‑off, emphasising that such arguments were
irrelevant because the Club had produced no evidence of any misconduct on his part.
Moreover, according to the Player, art. 12bis of the Regulations applied directly and
exclusively to overdue payables, regardless of any unrelated litigation.
34. Finally, the Player reaffirmed his original position: this was a straightforward overdue
payables case, the Club’s reply was based on irrelevant and incorrect assertions, and the
DRC should not allow the proceedings to be obfuscated by references to unrelated
disputes or unsupported allegations.
d. Duplica of the Club
35. On 4 September 2025, the Club filed its duplica.
36. In its duplica, the Club reaffirmed its original position and expressly rejected all arguments
raised by the Player in his replica. It reiterated that the core background of the dispute
could not be isolated from the prior litigation involving FC Rostov.
37. The Club argued that the Player had long been aware of his contractual issues with FC
Rostov, as demonstrated by multiple pieces of correspondence between July and August
2023, and that this proved he had concealed material facts when signing with the Club. The
Club maintained that the Player’s misrepresentation constituted a breach of his duty of
good faith and directly caused the Club’s financial exposure and resulting inability to meet
certain payment deadlines.
38. Regarding the Player’s default notice of 18 July 2025, the Club argued that the 10‑day
deadline was unreasonable and “objectively insufficient,” especially considering the
broader circumstances created by the Player’s conduct. The Club asserted that the Player’s
claim under art. 12bis of the Regulations was therefore inadmissible because the provision
was the wrong legal basis, as Saudi law governed the Contract and the applicable
regulatory framework was the 2024 SAFF Regulations.
39. The Club further insisted that set‑off extinguished any salary debt for April–June 2025. It
maintained that both parties held reciprocal monetary obligations: the Club allegedly owed
salary, while the Player allegedly owed the Club monetary compensation arising from CAS’
joint and several liability findings. It reiterated that such reciprocity fulfilled the conditions
for set‑off under art. 281 of the KSA Civil Code and art. 120 of the SCO and insisted that the
Player’s silence for several months before sending his default notice constituted tacit
acceptance of the set‑off.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20176
40. The Club also repeated its argument that it suffered significant financial hardship due to
the imposed EUR 3 million liability – further supporting, in its view, a complete elimination
of any claim for salary arrears. Additionally, it argued that allowing the Player to recover
salaries in these circumstances would violate principles established in the CJEU Diarra
Judgment, by placing disproportionate burdens on the Club for allegedly facilitating the
Player’s free movement.
41. In conclusion, the Club reaffirmed all prior arguments, insisted that art. 12bis of the
Regulations could not be applied, and maintained that no salary was due to the Player by
virtue of valid set‑off, contributory negligence, and the Player’s alleged misrepresentations.
It reiterated its request that the claim be declared inadmissible or dismissed in full and that
the Player bear the procedural and legal costs.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable legal framework
42. First of all, the DRC (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber) 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 1 August 2025 and submitted for decision on 19 March
2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
43. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Norwegian player and a Saudi club.
44. At this point, the Chamber also noted that, according to the Club, the Player’s claim was
inadmissible because it relied on the wrong legal basis. In this sense, the Club alleged that
art. 15 of the Contract expressly established that the Contract was governed by the law of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and not by the Regulations. Therefore, the Club argued that
the applicable regulatory framework would be the 2024 SAFF Regulations, not art. 12bis of
the Regulations.
45. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber established that the procedural and regulatory
framework applicable before FIFA bodies does not prevent the admissibility of a claim. In
fact, the chosen national law is irrelevant for admissibility. Consequently, the Chamber
found no basis to conclude that the claim was inadmissible.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20176
46. Subsequently, and in connection with the above, 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
47. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
48. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
49. The Chamber subsequently turned to the substance of the matter, noting that the parties
strongly dispute the Player’s entitlement to overdue payables under the Contract.
50. The Chamber observed that the Player maintained that the claim concerned a
straightforward case of overdue payables, as the Club failed to pay the undisputed salaries
for April, May and June 2025.
51. Conversely, the Chamber recalled that the Club contended that no salary was due because
the Player’s alleged misrepresentation regarding his contractual status with FC Rostov
caused the Club’s substantial financial exposure, which in turn impaired its ability to meet
salary obligations. The Club maintained that the Player acted in bad faith, concealed his
contractual issues, and created the very circumstances leading to non-payment, thereby
invoking contributory negligence principles under Swiss and Saudi law. It further claimed
that the salary debt had been extinguished by set-off, arguing that the Player owed the
Club sums arising from the CAS Award. The Club also emphasised financial hardship and
broader legal principles to argue that the Player should not be rewarded for conduct that
allegedly harmed the Club. Accordingly, the Club requested the claim to be dismissed in
full and insisted that the Player bear any procedural costs.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20176
52. In response to the Club’s allegations, the Chamber noted that the Player rejected the Club’s
attempts to link this dispute to the separate matter involving FC Rostov, stressing that any
litigation between him and FC Rostov had no relevance to the Club’s failure to pay
contractual salaries. He also denied allegations of misrepresentation or bad faith, arguing
that the Club itself was aware he had unilaterally terminated his contract with FC Rostov,
and that the Club’s claims of set-off, contributory negligence, or financial hardship lacked
any legal basis and could not extinguish its salary obligations.
53. In this context, the Chamber first recognised that it remained undisputed that the Player’s
salaries for April, May and June 2025, totalling USD 425,001 net, were not paid. Notably,
the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether his entitlement to said
amounts was affected by the findings in the proceedings involving FC Rostov (i.e., the EUR
3 million compensation owed by the Player and the Club to FC Rostov).
54. In the first place, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that salary debts were
extinguished through set-off because the Player allegedly owed the Club financial amounts
resulting from the CAS Award.
55. Nevertheless, the Chamber considered this argument to be flawed.
56. First, the Chamber accepted the Player’s position that the alleged debt towards FC Rostov
was not owed to the Club and therefore could not extinguish salary obligations.
57. Second, the Chamber emphasised that the finding of joint liability in the CAS Award did not
entail direct liability from the Player towards the Club or vice versa. Similarly, the CAS Award
could not be interpreted so as to establish a 50% financial obligation by each respondent.
58. Third and most importantly, the Chamber found no evidence that the Player ever accepted,
implicitly or explicitly, any set-off mechanism.
59. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Club’s argument should be rejected.
60. In the second place, the Chamber also observed that the Club attempted to rely on
principles of contributory negligence under Swiss and Saudi law, alleging that the Player’s
conduct created the circumstances that led to the Club’s financial obligations vis-à-vis FC
Rostov and, consequently, to its own inability to comply with the Contract. However, the
Chamber pointed out that both the DRC Decision and the subsequent CAS Award had
already established the joint and several liability of the Club for the payment of
compensation to FC Rostov, expressly confirming that the Club itself bore responsibility
under the applicable regulatory framework. According to the Chamber, these findings
demonstrated that the Club’s liability emanated from the regulatory consequences of
registering the Player, not from any isolated wrongful act by the Player vis-à-vis the Club.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20176
61. Consequently, the Chamber could not accept the Club’s argument that the Player was “the
only party in breach” or that the Player’s existing litigation with FC Rostov relieved the Club
of its own obligations under the Contract. In fact, the Player’s employment relationship with
the Club and the Club’s duty to remunerate him existed independently of any external
dispute. The Player continued performing his sporting services throughout the contractual
term, and his right to receive salary in return is a direct expression of pacta sunt servanda.
Nothing in the CAS Award or any other proceeding altered the Club’s parallel duty to pay
agreed monthly remuneration.
62. Furthermore, and according to the Chamber, the Club’s joint liability toward FC Rostov –
already adjudicated and confirmed – could not be held against the Player in the context of
salary obligations. The Chamber determined that the Player’s financial responsibilities
toward a third party (FC Rostov) did not negate or diminish the Club’s independent
payment duties. As the Player clarified, he held no debt whatsoever toward the Club,
meaning that the Club could not invoke set-off or contributory negligence to extinguish
salary payments.
63. Similarly, the Chamber recalled that the Club could not simply and unilaterally retain the
Player’s salary payments, especially when it did so without any prior notification or
contemporaneous objection. Such conduct, in the view of the Chamber, constituted a clear
breach of contract and was incompatible with the Regulations.
64. In the third and final place, the Chamber noted that the Club sought to rely on the CJEU
Diarra Judgment to contest its liability and argue that it should not bear the consequences
of regulatory mechanisms such as joint and several liability. However, such reliance was
inapplicable and irrelevant to the present case. In this respect, the Chamber outlined that
the Diarra Judgment did not affect the validity, enforceability, or consequences of decisions
already adopted by the DRC and affirmed by CAS in the Player’s prior litigation with FC
Rostov. Both the DRC Decision and the CAS Award expressly confirmed the Club’s joint and
several liability, and these determinations remain binding within the FIFA regulatory
framework irrespective of any general jurisprudential developments or external legal
commentary.
65. In light of the evidence and submissions, the Chamber considered that the Player complied
with his contractual obligations and that the Club undisputedly failed to pay the salaries
for April, May, and June 2025, amounting to USD 425,001 net. The Chamber also considered
that the Club’s arguments based on admissibility, contributory negligence, alleged
misrepresentation, financial hardship, or set-off have no basis within the applicable FIFA
regulatory framework.
66. The Chamber therefore decided that the Club could not unilaterally retain the Player’s
salary, and its failure to make timely payment constituted a breach of pacta sunt servanda
and fell squarely within art. 12bis of the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20176
67. As a consequence, and in application of the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the outstanding salaries
under the Contract, namely USD 141,666 net for April 2025, USD 141,666 net for May 2025
and USD 141,666 net for June 2025.
68. In addition, taking into account the Player’s request as well as the consistent practice of the
Football Tribunal, the Chamber decided to award interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
aforementioned amounts as from 1 May 2025, 1 June 2025 and 1 July 2025 respectively,
until the date of effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
69. The Chamber then referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
70. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the
Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
71. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations were met in the case at hand.
72. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the third offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Chamber decided to impose a fine of USD 20,000 on the Club in accordance with art.
12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
73. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalties, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20176
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.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber 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.
77. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
78. The Chamber 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
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20176
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mathias Antonsen Normann, is admissible and accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Raed, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 141,666 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 141,666 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 141,666 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2025
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A fine in the amount of USD 20,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-20176:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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 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 in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20176
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20176
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. 18