Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20696
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Ahmed Yahya Saddig Hamid
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ahmed Yahya Saddig Hamid, Sudan
Represented by Slim Boulesnam
RESPONDENT:
Al Branes, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20696
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 September 2024, the Sudanese player Ahmed Yahya Saddig Hamid (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Libyan club Al Branes (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 22
September 2024 until 30 July 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant USD
30,000 in three instalments, i.e., USD 15,000 upon signature, USD 7,500 at the end of the
return phase and USD 7,500 on an unspecified date.
3.
On 22 January 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of USD 15,000 as the first instalment of the Contract.
4.
On 16 March 2025, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 5 September 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
6.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to
outstanding remuneration. In this respect, the Claimant stated that his outstanding
remuneration amounted to more than 50% of the value of the Contract.
7.
Having stated the above, the Claimant’s requested payment from the Respondent of the
following amounts:
•
USD 15,000 as outstanding remuneration, i.e., the first instalment of the Contract,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 September 2024; and
•
USD 15,000 as the residual value of the Contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
date of termination of the Contract.
b. Reply of the Respondent
8.
Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20696
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
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 5 September 2025 and submitted for decision
on 11 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 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.
10. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Sudanese player and a Libyan
club.
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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. 4
REF. FPSD-20696
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
14. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that,
according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause due to outstanding
remuneration. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Respondent did not respond to
the claim, entailing that its decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on
file, that is, the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 21 par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
15. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had been fulfilled.
16. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
17. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Claimant, on 22 January 2025, he did not
receive his remuneration corresponding to the first instalment of the Contract in the
amount of USD 15,000. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Claimant has
provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 22 January 2025, i.e.,
at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 16 March 2025.
18. Taking into account (i) the wording of art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations; (ii) the fact that
the Claimant’s salary was not due on a monthly basis; and (iii) that no due date was included
in the Contract for the payment of its second and third instalments, the Chamber
considered that it was up to the Player to prove, on the basis of art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, that his outstanding remuneration amounted to more than two monthly
salaries on the date of his default notice to the Club.
19. Within this framework, the Chamber calculated the pro-rata value of the Player’s monthly
salary under the Contract and concluded that it corresponds to approximately USD 3,000.
•
USD 30,000 (total value of the Contract) / 10 months (from 22 September 2024 until
30 July 2025)
20. In view of the above considerations, and in the absence of any evidence to establish the
due date for the payment of the second instalment of the Contract, the Chamber concluded
that only the first instalment of the Contract in the amount of USD 15,000 was due on 22
January 2025, i.e., the date of the Player’s default notice to the Club. Therefore, the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20696
Chamber held that the Player had 5 full outstanding monthly salaries under the Contract
on that date.
21. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the
burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract
concluded between the parties.
22. Nonetheless, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence
to prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
23. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
24. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
25. Firstly, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding
remuneration under the Contract at the moment of its termination, namely its first
instalment amounting to USD 15,000.
26. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 22 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
27. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
28. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20696
29. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
30. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 15,000 (i.e., the second and third instalments of the
Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
31. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
32. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
33. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 15,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
34. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 March 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Sporting sanctions
35. 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 club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20696
36. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates 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”.
37. In the present matter, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 24 September
2004 and that the Contract was concluded on 21 September 2024. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause on 16 March 2025,
thus the breach of contract occurred within the protected period.
38. The Chamber then recalled that the Club had already been held liable for breaching other
players’ employment contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, in particular
in cases FPSD-19176, FPSD-19609 and FPSD-20478. In the Chamber’s view, the Club’s status
as a repeat offender warranted the imposition of additional consequences in order to
uphold the principle of contractual stability enshrined in the Regulations.
39. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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.
41. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
42. 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 article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
43. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20696
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
44. 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 Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
45. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
d. Costs
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20696
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ahmed Yahya Saddig Hamid, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Branes, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 September
2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 15,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
March 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20696
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. 11