Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21007
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Slimen Kchouk
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Slimen Kchouk, Tunisia
Represented by Global Sport Consulting
RESPONDENT:
Al Arabi, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Studio Civale
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21007
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 May 2025, the Tunisian player, Slimen Kchouk (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), received an offer of employment (hereinafter: the Offer) from the Emirati club, Al
Arabi (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
The offer read as follows, quoted verbatim:
“We would like to propose a job offer to you as a professional football player in - AL ARABI
SPORTS CLUB - UAE.
Noting that this proposal is based on our information that you are a free agent. If this
information is incorrect, this proposal will be considered null and void. The terms and
conditions of the proposal offer:
Employment
Contract Period
One sports season: from 01/08/2025 to
31/05/2026
Employment
Contract value
- 8500 USD monthly salary throughout
the contract period.
Renewal Conditions:
The contract may be renewed under
the following conditions:
1-Team
successfully
achieves
promotion to the UAE Professional
League for the 2025-2026 season.
2-The club exercises the option to
renew through an official letter.
In such a case, the total salary subject
to mutual agreement between both
parties.
Advantages
-
A bonus according to the club internal
regulation system
-
Accommodation
-
Flight ticket allowance for player, his
wife and daughter.
-
Providing the car during the contract
period
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21007
This offer is just a proposal, so ALARABI SPORTS CLUB will be pending only after:
i.The player’s passing the medical examination. This examination must be carried
out in the UAE and under the supervision of the AL ARABI SPORTS CLUB and in
accordance with its conviction.
ii.Signing the final employment contract between the player and AL ARABI SPORTS
CLUB.
Hope our proposal will meet your expectations and waiting for your reply to move
forward.
If you agree with the above, please sign the proposal and send it back us within the
specified time.
Best regards.”
3.
On 22 July 2025, the Player wrote an email to the Club stating that he was due to begin his
employment with the Club and thus requested his flight ticket and his entry visa.
4.
On 1 August 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, stating that it had not
answered his previous email, and that he requested an answer by 8 August 2025, otherwise
he would seek recourse against it.
5.
On 8 August 2025, the Player sent a second default notice to the Club which read as follows,
quoted verbatim:
“Dear sir,
This is my third and final notice, following two previous reminders already sent and duly
signed by the player.
Until today, no entry visa, no flight ticket, and no response of any kind has been received
from your side.
Despite my full compliance and availability, the club has failed to fulfill its contractual
obligations, in particular regarding travel arrangements necessary for my travelling and
arrival to UAE.
Accordingly, you are hereby granted a final deadline until 13 August 2025 to take the
necessary steps and provide an appropriate response.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21007
Should you fail to react or fulfill your obligations within this final deadline, such silence
and inaction will be considered as a clear indication that the club has renounced to the
contract and its obligations.
This shall constitute for me a just cause for termination of the contract , in accordance
with applicable FIFA regulations.
I reserve all rights in this regard.
Sincerely,”
6.
On 9 August 2025, the Player received the following communication via WhatsApp from the
Club, quoted verbatim:
“This offer is for suggestions only and is subject to conditions. To complete the offer, you must
obtain an entry visa to the United Arab Emirates. After submitting your visa application to
assist you in entering the country, we regret to inform you that it has been rejected by the visa
issuing authorities in the country, as we previously informed you. The club does not interfere
in matters related to the issuance or rejection of visas. This is the policy of the country.”
7.
On the same day, the Player sent an email to the Club which stated, quoted verbatim:
“Today, my agent received an official communication from you via WhatsApp stating that
the document previously sent to me was only an offer, that you were unable to obtain my
entry visa to the United Arab Emirates, and that, consequently, you consider yourself no
longer bound by any contractual obligation.
I understand this as a unilateral termination of the contract on your part, without just
cause. As such, I will proceed to submit a formal claim to FIFA seeking compensation for
the damages caused by this unilateral termination.
Best regards”
8.
On 20 November 2025, the Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he remained
unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 24 September 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21007
a. Position of the Claimant
10. The Player alleged that the Offer contained the essentialia negotii, and should be considered
as binding employment contract, as it contained, the name of the parties, the object, the
salary, the term, and was even signed by the parties on the Club’s letterhead.
11. The Player submitted that the Club terminated the Contract by virtue of its letter of 9
August 2025, in which it is stated that the signature of an employment contract was
conditional to the issuance of a work visa by the Emirati authorities.
12. The Player raised that the issuance of a visa is merely an administrative procedure that is
incumbent on the Club and that cannot condition the validity of a Contract.
13. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“The player Sliman KCHOUK respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) determine that the club had no just cause to terminate the Employment agreement
signed on 30 May 2025;
(ii) order AL ARABI Club (United Arab Emirates) to pay the total amount of Eighty Five
thousand dollars (USD 85,000.00) as compensation for breach of the contract plus 5% p.a.
as from the date of 1 August 2025 until the effective payment;
(iii) Impose any sanction to the Club as considered appropriate.”
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Club did not answer the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21007
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 September 2025 and submitted
for decision on 8 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.
16. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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), 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 Tunisian player and an Emirati club.
17. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
18. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21007
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Player is requesting compensation following a termination without just cause of the
contract deriving from the signature of the Offer.
21. Since the Club did not respond to this claim, the Single Judge confirmed that his decision
would be based on documentation on file, i.e. the submissions and evidence filed by the
Player, in accordance with articles 14 par. 1 and 21 par.1 of the Procedural Rules.
22. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Offer constituted a valid and binding employment contract then assess if this contract was
terminated with or without just cause and the consequences thereof.
Offer
23. First, the Single Judge took note of the Player’s allegation that the Offer constituted a valid
and binding employment contract.
24. In view of the above, the Single Judge first assessed whether the Offer contained the
essentiala negotii. For that reason, the Single Judge recalled that the established case law of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be
considered valid and binding, in addition to the consent of the employer and the employee,
it must contain the essential elements (essentiala negotii) of an employment contract, i.e.
the parties to the contract and their function, the duration of the employment relationship
and the remuneration to be paid by the employer to the employee.
25. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not reply to the claim and therefore
the Player’s position remains undisputed.
26. The Single Judge also noted that the Offer included the following conditions, quoted
verbatim:
“This offer is just a proposal, so ALARABI SPORTS CLUB will be pending only after:
i.The player’s passing the medical examination. This examination must be carried
out in the UAE and under the supervision of the AL ARABI SPORTS CLUB and in
accordance with its conviction.
ii.Signing the final employment contract between the player and AL ARABI SPORTS
CLUB”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21007
27. After careful observation of the content of the Offer the Single Judge noted that it contained
(i) the names of the parties, i.e. the Club and the Player (ii) a duration from 1 August 2025
to 31 May 2026, (iii) a monthly salary of USD 8,500 payable 10 months, (iv) and the offer
was validly issued by the Club, accepted, signed by the Player, and was ultimately
acknowledged by the Club in its communication of 9 August 2025 to the Player. In light of
the above, the Single Judge determined that the parties had concluded their negotiations
as the offer contained the essentialia negotii, and was duly issued by the Club, accepted by
the Player, and that they were ready to enter into a final employment contract following
the completion of the medical exam, that was set to be conducted in the United Arab
Emirates, where the Club is located.
28. While the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, as reflected in the 2023
edition of the Commentary on the Regulations (hereinafter: the Commentary) at p. 238,
provides that “a medical examination is a crucial element for a club when deciding whether to
contract a professional footballer, and that the importance of the medical examination justifies
different conditions being attached to a ‘draft employment contract’, as opposed to a final
employment contract”, the Single Judge determined that under the present circumstances
of the case, the Offer was a valid employment contract. He highlighted that the naming of
the document itself as an “offer” is indicative of the parties’ intention to enter a contractual
relationship, and that it was not merely an invitation to submit to a medical exam before
engaging in negotiations for an eventual contract.
29. For the sake of completeness, the Club could have invited the Player to travel to the United
Arab Emirates to submit to a medical exam, as pre-condition for entering negotiations that
would lead to the potential conclusion of an employment contract. In the present case, the
negotiation occurred prior to the issuance of the Offer.
30. Considering the elements and the specific timeline of the events the Single Judge
determined that the Club and the Player entered a valid employment contract.
Termination of the contract or Offer
31. Following this determination the Single Judge turned its attention to the circumstances
under which the Offer was rescinded.
32. The Single Judge recalled that in its letter of 9 August 2025 sent to the Player, the Club
stated, quoted verbatim:
“To complete the offer, you must obtain an entry visa to the United Arab Emirates. After
submitting your visa application to assist you in entering the country, we regret to inform
you that it has been rejected by the visa issuing authorities in the country, as we previously
informed you. The club does not interfere in matters related to the issuance or rejection
of visas”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21007
33. In light of these comments of the Club, the Single Judge observed that in the Offer there is
no mention of the necessity for the Player to obtain a visa to travel to the UAE or to obtain
a work permit, as a condition for the validity of the Offer.
34. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
summarized in the Commentary, at p. 239, which is to the effect that, “obtaining a valid
work permit – and, although it is not explicitly mentioned, a visa – is considered an
administrative formality that a club is required to complete prior to signing a contract with a
player. The engaging club is obliged to take all necessary administrative action to ensure a work
permit and/or visa is granted to the player, thus allowing them to render their services to the
club.439 This action must be taken before the contract is signed”.
35. Considering that the Offer conditioned the signature of the final employment contract to
the completion of a medical exam in the UAE, the Single Judge deemed that the failure on
the part of the Club to obtain a visa for the Player to travel to the UAE prevented the latter
from meeting the conditions of the Offer. Such failure of fulfilling its contractual obligations
contradicts the principle of good faith, and the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo.
36. In the present case, the Single Judge determined that after the parties entered an
employment contract, by virtue of the Offer that contained the essentialia negotii, the Club
cannot justify its departure from the employment relationship on the failure of the Player
to obtain a work permit or a visa to travel to the UAE. It was its responsibility as the
employer. In that sense, the Single Judge noted that the Player kept on pursuing the
employment relationship as he contacted the Club requesting his visa and his flight tickets,
as included in the Offer.
37. Considering the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Club had terminated the
contract without just cause on 9 August 2025.
ii. Consequences
38. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
39. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single Judge
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21007
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
40. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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).
41. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Offer from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the
Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 85,000 serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, as the Player was
entitled to a monthly salary of USD 8,500 over a period of 10 months as per the terms of
the Offer.
42. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Football Tribunal 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.
43. The Single Judge 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).
d. Costs
44. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
45. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21007
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Slimen Kchouk, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Arabi, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 85,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9
August 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21007
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