Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20774
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Julián Augusto Marchioni Garobbio
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Julián Augusto Marchioni Garobbio, Argentina & Spain
Represented by Erik Ovalle Leranoz
RESPONDENT:
ACSM Politehnica Iași, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20774
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2024, the Argentinian and Spanish player Julián Augusto Marchioni Garobbio
(hererinafter, the Player or the Claimant) and the Romanian club ACSM Politehnica Iași
(hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter,
the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2022 until 15 June 2023.
2.
On an unspecified date, the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the
Parties) signed an addendum to the Contract (hereinafter, the Addendum), in accordance
with which:
“[The Parties] agreed the present addendum to [the Contract], whereby the parties agreed
as follows:
1. [The Contract] is extended until 30.06.2025.
2. Parties mutually agreed to modify the article 2 from addendum registered with no.
487/13.06.2023, as follows: “In exchange for the Player’s football activities as provided
for in this Contract, the Club shall pay to the Player, for period 01.04.2024 — 30.06.2024,
the amount of 27.250 (twenty-seven thousand two hundred fifty) Lei net per month. The
payment shall be made on the 15th of the month for the previous month.
(…)
In exchange for the Player’s football activities as provided for in the Contract, the Club
shall pay to the Player, for period 01.07.2024 — 30.06.2025, the amount of 41.100 (fortyone thousand one hundred) Lei net per month. The payments shall be made on the 15th
of the month for the previous month”.
3.
On 6 August 2025, the Romanian national courts granted the Club’s request to initiate
insolvency proceedings.
4.
On 20 August 2025, the Club informed the Player about the insolvency proceedings.
5.
On 27 August 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 10 days “to
cancel the payments corresponding to the months of March, April, May and June 2025”.
6.
On 29 August 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice in the following terms:
“We acknowledge receipt of your communication. However, we kindly ask you to clarify what
you refer to by "cancel the payments," as we do not understand the meaning or legal basis
of this request.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20774
Regarding the legal situation of the club, as already informed on 20 August 2025, the club
is under insolvency proceedings. For your convenience, we hereby attach again the certified
translation of the court decision dated 6 August 2025, proving the insolvency status.
We reiterate that, according to applicable law, you have the right to register your claim in
the creditors ‘table until 22 September 2025”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 10 September 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
8.
In his claim, the Player asserted that the Club has failed to pay his monthly remuneration
for March, April, May and June 2025, totalling RON 164,400.
9.
Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“The Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
2. Order the Respondent to pay the total outstanding salaries for March, April, May, and
June 2025, amounting to 164,400 LEI (≈ 32,396 EUR), plus 5% annual interest from the
due date of each installment until full payment.
3. Consider the existence of Case No. PSD-20121 involving Nicolás Samayoa as evidence of
systematic breaches by the Respondent.
4. Impose disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent under Articles 12 bis(4) and 24 bis RSTP
for repeated non-compliance.
5. Condemn the Respondent to bear all procedural and legal costs of these proceedings.
6. Authorize termination of the employment contract with just cause if the Respondent fails
to comply with the decision”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club initially contended that the Player’s claim is inadmissible, given that he
failed to put it in default in accordance with art. 12bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations). In this respect, the Club argued that, as it
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20774
informed the Player in reply to his default notice, it did not understand what he meant by
“cancel the payments”.
11. In the alternative, the Club submitted that, on 6 August 2025, the national courts formally
admitted the Club’s request for opening of insolvency proceedings in accordance with the
corresponding Romanian law.
12. The Club further asserted that the Player had been officially notified of the above on 20
August 2025. It also emphasised that any payment orders were suspended.
13. Based on the above, the Club requested the following:
“We hereby respectfully request the following:
o To dismiss the Claimant’s request as inadmissible, given that the Respondent Club was
not duly notified in accordance with Article 12bis paragraph 3 of the FIFA Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which expressly requires that a debtor club be
formally put in default in writing and granted at least ten (10) days to comply before a
claim is lodged.
o In the alternative, to suspend the present proceedings ex officio, due to the initiation of
general insolvency proceedings against the Respondent, as ordered by the Iasi Tribunal
in Ruling No. 82/2025 of 06 August 2025, rendered in Case No. 3748/99/2025”.
c. Information provided by the FRF
14. On 8 September 2025, at the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Romanian Football
Federation (FRF) confirmed that the Club is still affiliated with the FRF and participates in
competitions organised under its auspices.
d. Claimant’s comments regarding insolvency
15. On 3 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
comments regarding the opening of insolvency proceedings and denied the Club’s request
for suspension of the FIFA proceedings. For the sake of good procedural order, the FIFA
general secretariat also invited the Player to comment on this issue, if he wished to do so.
16. Also on 3 October 2025, the Player submitted his additional comments regarding the
opening of insolvency proceedings against the Club. In his additional comments, the Player
argued that there is no regulatory basis for the suspension of the present proceedings, and
reiterated his request for relief.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20774
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. 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 10 September 2025 and submitted for
decision on 23 October 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.
18. 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 an
Argentinian and Spanish player and a Romanian club.
19. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Club had requested a suspension of the present
proceedings, citing the existence of ongoing insolvency proceedings in its local jurisdiction.
20. While the Chamber recognized that the initiation of insolvency proceedings may have
implications for the enforcement of financial decisions, the Chamber also established that
these proceedings do not, in and of themselves, preclude FIFA’s jurisdiction to adjudicate
the matter or the admissibility of the claim. In this regard, the Chamber found it particularly
relevant that the Club remains affiliated with its national association, the FRF, and
continued to actively participate in competitions organized under its auspices.
21. Accordingly, the Chamber ruled that the Club’s request to pause the proceedings based on
insolvency lacked regulatory basis and must be rejected. According to the Chamber, the
matter shall proceed in accordance with FIFA’s regulatory framework, without prejudice to
any future considerations regarding enforcement.
b. Admissibility of the claim
22. Having established the above, the Chamber further noted that the Club contested the
admissibility of the claim, arguing that the Player allegedly failed to place the Club in default
in accordance with art. 12bis of the Regulations. In this respect, the Club asserted that, as
it had previously communicated the Player in response to his default notice, it did not
understand the meaning of “cancel the payments”.
23. In this regard, the Chamber wished to clarity that non-compliance with the formal
requirements set out art. 12bis of the Regulations does not render a claim inadmissible,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20774
nor does it affect the enforceability of the amounts claimed as outstanding. Rather, such
non-compliance solely limits the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal to impose disciplinary
sanctions on the debtor club. In other words, if a claim does not fulfil the requirements of
art. 12bis of the Regulations, it will still be treated as a standard claim for outstanding
amount; however, no sanctions will be imposed on the debtor club (cf. Commentary on art.
12bis of the Regulations, p. 113 — 2023 edition)
24. Accordingly, and without prejudice to the analysis of whether the Player complied with the
formal requirements of art. 12bis of the Regulations —which will be addressed in
continuation—, the Chamber concluded that the claim of the Player is fully admissible.
25. 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.
c. Burden of proof
26. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
27. 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
28. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerns a
claim filed by the Player against the Club for outstanding remuneration arising from the
Addendum concluded between the Parties —which amended the Contract— pursuant to
which:
1. [The Contract] is extended until 30.06.2025.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20774
2. Parties mutually agreed to modify the article 2 from addendum registered with no.
487/13.06.2023, as follows: “In exchange for the Player’s football activities as provided
for in this Contract, the Club shall pay to the Player, for period 01.04.2024 — 30.06.2024,
the amount of 27.250 (twenty-seven thousand two hundred fifty) Lei net per month. The
payment shall be made on the 15th of the month for the previous month.
(…)
In exchange for the Player’s football activities as provided for in the Contract, the Club
shall pay to the Player, for period 01.07.2024 — 30.06.2025, the amount of 41.100 (fortyone thousand one hundred) Lei net per month. The payments shall be made on the 15th
of the month for the previous month”.
29. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay
his monthly salaries for March, April, May and June 2025, totalling RON 164,400.
30. 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 Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having
complied with its financial obligations.
31. The Chamber first noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Addendum concluded between the
Parties.
32. However, the Chamber observed that the Club did not dispute that the payments claimed
were outstanding and failed to provide any evidence of compliance with the
aforementioned financial terms.
33. Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts claimed as
outstanding under the Addendum, totalling RON 164,400 broken down as follows:
o RON 41,400 as March 2025 salary;
o RON 41,400 as April 2025 salary;
o RON 41,400 as May 2025 salary; and
o RON 41,400 as June 2025 salary.
34. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request, the Addendum, and the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the DRC decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following the
respective payment dates, as follows:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20774
o On the March 2025 salary, from 16 April 2025;
o On the April 2025 salary, from 16 May 2025;
o On the May 2025 salary, from 16 June 2025; and
o On the June 2025 salary, from 16 July 2025.
35. Lastly, the Chamber noted that the Player also requested:
“Authorize termination of the employment contract with just cause if the Respondent fails
to comply with the decision”.
36. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the employment relationship between the
Parties expired on 30 June 2025 and, therefore, there is no ongoing contractual relationship
between them. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that this particular request for
relief is moot.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
37. 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.
38. 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 Club
with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
39. The Chamber wished to emphasise that the Player’s default notice —the receipt of which
was acknowledged by the Club— is clear in the sense that he requested payment of the
outstanding remuneration and granted the Club a deadline of 10 days to cure the breach.
40. 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.
41. 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. The Chamber also highlighted
that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to
more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
42. On account of the above, and bearing in mind that the Club is a repeat offender, the
Chamber decided to impose a fine of USD 2,000 on the Club, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20774
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. The Chamber further recalled that art. 24 par. 3 lit b) of the Regulations establishes:
“Such consequences may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has:
[…]
b) been informed that the debtor club was subject to an insolvency-related event pursuant
to the relevant national law and is legally unable to comply with an order.”
46. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that two cumulative conditions should
be satisfied for a debtor club to benefit from the exemption provided under art. 24 par. 3
of the Regulations, namely: (i) the debtor club must be subject to an insolvency-related
event under the applicable national legislation; and (ii) it must be legally prevented from
complying with the relevant payment order.
47. In this context, the Chamber carefully examined the documentation submitted by the Club,
which includes: (i) a copy of the decision issued by the competent Romanian court initiating
insolvency proceedings against the Club; (ii) evidence of notification of said proceedings to
the Player; and (iii) references to the Romanian Law no. 85/2014, seemingly governing
insolvency matters.
48. The Chamber then noted that the Club had successfully demonstrated the initiation of
insolvency proceedings in Romania, thereby satisfying the first condition under art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations. However, the DRC considered that the second condition —i.e., the
legal impossibility to comply with the payment order— remained unfulfilled.
49. Specifically, the Chamber pointed out that the decision of the Romanian court confirmed
the opening of general insolvency proceedings and instructed the Club to undertake
further steps, including the convening of a creditors’ assembly. However, the DRC found
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20774
no indication that this decision contained any express provision prohibiting the Club from
making payments and the Chamber was also unconvinced that this interpretation was
unconditional vis-à-vis Romanian national law. In the absence of a clear legal impediment,
the Chamber found that it could not be concluded that the Club was legally barred from
fulfilling its financial obligations. On the contrary, the Chamber found it telling that, based
on the information available in TMS, the Club was seemingly actively engaged in footballrelated operations, which further undermines the assertion that it was unable to make
payments due to insolvency.
50. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the Club had failed to provide any evidence
indicating that either the judicial administrator or the competent court had issued an
enforceable order explicitly prohibiting payment of the debt in question. In the absence of
such evidence and considering the international employment-related nature of the credit,
the Chamber decided that the Club failed to demonstrate that it was legally incapable of
complying with the payment order as required under art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations.
51. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
52. 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.
53. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
e. Costs
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20774
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Julián Augusto Marchioni Garobbio, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ACSM Politehnica Iași, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o RON 164,400 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 41,100 as from 16 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 41,100 as from 16 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 41,100 as from 16 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 41,100 as from 16 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 2,000 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-20774:
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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20774
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20774
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. 14