Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20775
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Islam
Abouelmagd
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Royal, United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Represented by Roberto Terenzio
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Islam Abouelmagd, Egypt
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Telecom Egypt, Egypt
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20775
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are the following:
• The Emirati club, Royal (hereinafter: Royal and the Claimant), affiliated to the UAE
Football Association (UAEFA);
• The Egyptian player, Islam Abouelmagd (hereinafter: the Player or the First Respondent);
and
• The Egyptian club, Telecom Egypt (hereinafter: Telecom or the Second Respondent),
affiliated tothe Egyptian Football Association (EFA).
2.
The Player and Telecom and hereinafter jointly referred to as the Respondents.
3.
In March 2022, the Player was initially registered with Royal as an amateur. This status is
evidenced by the UAEFA player passport as well as the medical documentation issued for
the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 sporting seasons.
4.
On 10 April 2023, Royal and the Player entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract), valid as from 10 April 2023 until 9 April 2025.
5.
Pursuant to clause 4 of the Contract, Royal undertook to remunerate the Player with a
monthly salary of AED 2,500, payable at the end of each calendar month.
6.
According to Royal, upon the conclusion of the 2023/2024 sporting season in April 2024,
the Player ceased reporting to the Club.
7.
On 10 October 2024, the UAEFA addressed a letter to the EFA requesting clarification
regarding the Player’s registration status.
8.
On 15 October 2024, the EFA replied, confirming that the Player had been registered as a
professional with Telecom for the 2024/2025 sporting season. The Player’s registration with
Telecom was subsequently reconfirmed by the EFA following an inquiry from the FIFA
General Secretariat. In particular, the EFA specified that the Player was registered with
Telecom from 3 October 2024 until 8 January 2025.
9.
On 24 October 2024, Royal sent a formal warning letter to both the Player and Telecom,
with a copy to the EFA. In this correspondence, Royal asserted that the Player remained
contractually bound to the Club until April 2025, noted that no International Transfer
Certificate (ITC) request had been submitted to the UAEFA, and claimed compensation
corresponding to the residual value of the Contract. Royal further requested that Telecom
provide a copy of the alleged new employment contract concluded with the Player.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20775
Information retrieved from the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS)
10. According to the information retrieved from FIFA TMS, on 6 January 2025, Telecom initiated
a transfer instruction with a view to engaging the Player on a permanent basis as an
out‑of‑contract player (Transfer ID: 959443). In this context:
• The Emirati club “Masfout” was indicated as the Player’s former club, instead of Royal;
and
• Telecom uploaded an employment contract dated 1 January 2025, drafted in Arabic,
indicating that the employment relationship would run from the date of signature until
31 July 2027, and providing for a total fixed remuneration of EGP 840,000.
11. On 7 January 2025, the EFA submitted a request to the UAEFA for the issuance of the
Player’s ITC.
12. On the same date, the UAEFA requested the cancellation of the transfer, asserting that the
Player remained bound by a valid employment contract with Royal until 9 April 2025 (i.e.,
the Contract). As a consequence, the EFA never received the Player’s ITC.
13. Still on 7 January 2025, the Player and Telecom executed a mutual termination agreement,
confirming that their employment relationship had been ended by mutual consent
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 10 September 2025, Royal filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of Royal
15. Royal submitted that the Player had been fully integrated into the Club’s sporting structure
since 2022 and that their relationship had evolved into a professional one with the signing
of the Contract on 10 April 2023. The Club argued that, from the moment the Contract
entered into force, it respected all its obligations. In particular, the Club affirmed that it had
consistently paid the Player’s monthly salary of AED 2,500, ensured the renewal of his visa,
provided accommodation, meals, and all other benefits stipulated in article 4 of the
Contract, and facilitated the Player’s participation in medical examinations and sporting
activities. Royal emphasized that at no point did the Player raise any complaint or express
dissatisfaction with the employment relationship, which demonstrated that he had no
objective or justified reason to terminate the Contract.
16. Furthermore, Royal submitted proof of payment of the Player’s salaries up until April 2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20775
17. According to the Club, serious irregularities arose at the end of the 2023/2024 sporting
season, when the Player unexpectedly ceased all communication and failed to report back
to the Club following the holiday period granted to him. Royal stressed that the Player
disappeared without any explanation, in clear breach of his obligations under the Contract,
which required him to attend training sessions, participate in all club-related activities, and
refrain from leaving the Club without written authorization. Furthermore, the Player did
not provide any notice, medical justification, or request for contractual termination. The
Club submitted that these actions demonstrated unequivocally that the Player had
voluntarily abandoned the employment relationship.
18. Royal explained that its concerns deepened when it discovered that the Player had
registered as a professional with Telecom for the 2024/2025 season. In its view, this
confirmed that the Player had unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause.
19. Royal underscored that the Player’s conduct amounted to a blatant violation of the
Contract, which expressly prohibited him from negotiating with or signing for another club
during the contract period, except within the last six months. By signing a new contract
while still bound to Royal until 9 April 2025, the Player disregarded these obligations and
engaged in conduct directly contrary to FIFA’s contractual stability principles.
20. The Claimant further argued that Telecom had actively induced the Player to breach his
contract. Royal insisted that Telecom was, or ought to have been, fully aware that the Player
was not free to sign with another club, given that no ITC had been requested through
official channels. The Club highlighted that neither Telecom nor the EFA had ever
approached UAEFA or Royal to inquire about the Player’s status. In addition, despite being
formally notified on 24 October 2024, Telecom failed to respond to the Club’s warnings,
and this silence – combined with the absence of any procedural diligence – revealed, in
Royal’s view, clear bad faith and intentional participation in the breach.
21. On this basis, Royal maintained that both Respondents bore responsibility for the unlawful
termination of the Contract. Royal argued that, pursuant to art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the Player was liable to
pay compensation for breach of contract without just cause and that Telecom was jointly
and severally liable as the Player’s new club. The Club emphasized that the minimum
compensation should correspond to the residual value of the Contract – amounting to AED
30,000 – but that the amount could be higher depending on the Player’s remuneration
under the new contract with Telecom, which the Claimant requested the DRC to order the
Respondents to disclose.
22. Finally, Royal submitted that the Player’s actions occurred within the protected period,
given that the Contract had entered into force less than two full seasons prior. Accordingly,
the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on both Respondents.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20775
23. Royal requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“For all the above reasons and for those which may be further added during this
proceeding, and reserving the right to modify the following requests in a supplement of
the Claim in case the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber grants to file it, the Claimant
respectfully requests the FIFA DRC to ascertain the termination without just cause of the
Employment Contract by Mr. Islam Khaled Antar Abouelmagd and the inducement of
Telecom Egypt Club and, as a consequence:
a) to order Mr. Islam Khaled Antar Abouelmagd, in exclusive way or jointly and severally
with Telecom Egypt Club, liable to pay Royal F.C. a compensation equal to the residual
value of the Employment Contract signed between the Parties equal to 30,000 AED, or
the higher amount (if any) taking into account the new employment contract signed
between the Respondents;
b) in subordinate way, to order Mr. Islam Khaled Antar Abouelmagd, in exclusive way or
jointly and severally with Telecom Egypt Club, to pay in favour of the Claimant a
compensation in accordance with the principle of specificity of sport to calculate on the
basis of the discretion of the honourable FIFA DRC;
c) Pay, in any case, an interest of 5% on each of the above amounts due to the Claimant,
calculated from the date of the termination without just cause by the Player, i.e. from 30
April 2024 until the date of effective payment;
d) to sanction the Respondents pursuant to article 17, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the FIFA
RSTP;
e) to apply any other measure it considers necessary in the decision of the case at stake.”
b. Reply of the Player
24. Upon consultation by the FIFA General Secretariat, the EFA confirmed that the Player was
currently registered with the Egyptian club Amer Youth FC.
25. On 17 October 2025, and again following a request from the FIFA General Secretariat, Amer
Youth FC submitted a signed declaration from the Player, providing the contact details to
be used for the purposes of these proceedings.
26. On 21 October 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Player and Telecom to submit
their respective positions on the matter. The Player, however, did not file any submission.
c. Replica of Telecom
27. On 14 November 2025, Telecom submitted its reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20775
28. Telecom first presented its factual account. It stated that, according to TMS, the Egyptian
football season for 2024/2025 ran from 31 August 2024 to 10 June 2025, with the first
registration period running until 25 October 2024, and the second opening on 1 January
2025. Telecom claimed that it came into contact with the Player only after learning from
him that he was a free agent. The Player allegedly represented that he was registered as
an amateur with Masfout under UAEFA and provided a UAE Resident Identity Card in
support of his status. Based on this representation, Telecom and the Player allegedly
negotiated and signed an employment contract on 1 January 2025, valid for two and a half
seasons.
29. Telecom further stated that, on 6 January 2025, the EFA issued an ITC request in TMS.
However, on 7 January 2025, UAEFA requested cancellation of the transfer and did not
issue the ITC. On that same date, the Player and Telecom mutually terminated their
employment contract by mutual agreement. Telecom emphasized that because the ITC
was never issued, the Player was never registered with Telecom at any time. To
substantiate this, Telecom relied on the TMS instruction showing the status “cancellation
requested,” and highlighted that, at the time of filing its position, the Player still appeared
registered with Royal, with the ITC retained by UAEFA.
30. On this basis, Telecom argued that it never registered the Player and therefore never
benefited from his sporting services. As a result, Telecom asserted that it cannot legally be
considered the “new club” under art. 17 of the Regulations, since the well‑established
criterion is that the club which first registers the player following a breach is the one
deemed the new club. As registration never occurred, Telecom concluded that it never met
the factual or legal preconditions to be held jointly and severally liable with the Player.
31. Telecom emphasized that imposing liability or sanctions on it despite the lack of
registration would contradict the purpose of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, which is to
ensure that the club benefiting from the player’s services guarantees compensation.
Because Telecom never fielded or used the Player and had no capacity to do so without an
ITC, it maintained that it derived no advantage and could not have induced any breach.
Telecom therefore requested that all claims against it be dismissed, that it be declared not
to be the “new club”, that no compensation or sporting sanctions be imposed on it, and
that it not bear the costs of the proceedings.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20775
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 September 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 Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
33. 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 Emirati club, an Egyptian player, and an Egyptian club.
34. 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
35. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
36. 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. 8
REF. FPSD-20775
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract lodged by a club against a former player and the club alleged to have
subsequently employed him.
38. In particular, the Chamber observed that Royal argued that it had entered into a valid
employment relationship with the Player on 10 April 2023, binding him until 9 April 2025,
and that it duly complied with all contractual obligations, including the payment of salaries
and provision of accommodation, meals, and visas. Royal submitted that, in April 2024, the
Player absented himself from the Club without justification and subsequently registered
with Telecom, thereby terminating the Contract without just cause. Royal further
maintained that Telecom induced the Player to breach the Contract by signing him despite
the absence of an ITC request and despite being made aware of Royal’s contractual rights.
On this basis, Royal sought compensation corresponding to the residual value of the
Contract, interest, and the imposition of sporting sanctions on both Respondents.
39. The Chamber further noted that the Player did not file any reply, despite having been
invited to do so.
40. Conversely, Telecom, for its part, submitted that it never acted as the Player’s “new club”
within the meaning of art. 17 of the Regulations. Telecom acknowledged having signed an
employment contract with the Player on 1 January 2025, believing him to be a free agent.
However, it stressed that the Player’s ITC was never issued, that the TMS transfer
instruction was cancelled on 7 January 2025, and that the employment relationship was
mutually terminated on the same date. Telecom therefore argued that the Player was
never formally registered with it, that it derived no sporting benefit from the Player, and
that it cannot be held jointly and severally liable nor subjected to sporting sanctions.
Telecom requested that all claims against it be dismissed.
41. Against this background, the Chamber recognized that its task was to determine the
circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship between Royal
and the Player, and the legal consequences, if any.
42. Based on the evidence in the file, the Chamber considered the following facts as sufficiently
established:
•
The Player was first registered with Royal as an amateur in 2022.
•
The Contract was signed on 10 April 2023, valid until 9 April 2025, with a monthly
salary of AED 2,500.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20775
•
Royal paid the Player’s salaries up to April 2024, at which point the Club alleged –
without dispute from the Player – that the Player ceased reporting for duty
without explanation.
•
Between April and October 2024, the Player did not render services to Royal, and
no communication was exchanged between the parties.
•
In October 2024, the Player was registered with Telecom before the EFA.
However, this registration was not processed in TMS, nor did the UAEFA receive
any ITC request.
•
Only on 6 January 2025, Telecom lodged a TMS instruction to register the Player
as an out‑of‑contract player. This transfer instruction was later cancelled, and the
EFA consequently never obtained the ITC.
•
Also on 7 January 2025, the Player and Telecom mutually terminated their
contract apparently concluded on 1 January 2025.
43. In this context, the Chamber noted significant inconsistencies between the data provided
by:
•
Royal – claiming that Telecom registered the Player in October 2024;
•
The EFA – confirming registration between 3 October 2024 and 8 January 2025,
and
•
TMS – reflecting a transfer instruction only in January 2025 and identifying
“Masfout” rather than Royal as the Player’s former club.
44. Accordingly, the Chamber deemed the only possible conclusion was that the Player moved
between jurisdictions in a non‑transparent manner, in that he was registered with the EFA
without the proper issuance of an ITC and possibly outside the registration window.
Nevertheless, the Chamber was firm to specify that any irregularities in the registration
process (i) are a matter for further regulatory investigation and may give rise to compliance
or disciplinary proceedings; but (ii) do not, in itself, entitle Royal to compensation for breach
of contract.
45. In this respect, the Chamber found that:
•
Royal expressly claimed that the Player ceased performing his duties in April
2024; and
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20775
•
Royal likewise ceased paying salaries from that same month onward and did not
take measures to enforce contractual performance (such as disciplinary action,
suspension notices, or warnings regarding salary and attendance).
46. In fact, the Chamber pointed out that neither party took any steps to resume or enforce
the employment relationship after April 2024, despite the Contract formally remaining in
force until April 2025. According to the Chamber, there is no evidence of salary payments,
attendance at training, medical controls, or disciplinary measures after April 2024.
47. Accordingly, even if the Player’s alleged registration with Telecom in October 2024 were
deemed irregular, the Chamber was of the view that this case file demonstrated that both
the Player and Royal had already abandoned performance of their mutual obligations, and
neither acted in a manner that indicated a willingness to continue the employment
relationship after April 2024.
48. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the parties had already parted ways before
the relevant events i.e., the employment relationship was de facto terminated in April 2024,
when the Player stopped rendering services and Royal ceased paying salaries or requesting
the Player’s return. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the parties have mutually
departed from the Contract, even in the absence of a formal termination.
49. Consequently, the Chamber determined that no breach of contract under art. 17 of the
Regulations could be established, as the Contract was no longer in force at the time of the
Player’s subsequent engagement with Telecom. As such, the Chamber rejected the claim
of Royal.
50. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber still instructed the FIFA General Secretariat to
refer this case file to the Regulatory & Compliance Department for further assessment on
the irregular registration by the EFA and Telecom.
d. Costs
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20775
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Royal, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20775
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. 13