Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21036
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kevin
Tulimieri
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kevin Tulimieri, Italy
Represented by Roy Vermeer
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
GZIRA UNITED, Malta
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21036
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 July 2024, the Italian player Kevin Tulimieri (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent) and the Maltese club GZIRA UNITED (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract), which was valid from as the date of its signature until 8 June 2027.
2.
In accordance with Clause 2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to remunerate the Player
inter alia as follows, quoted verbatim:
“2. Remuneration & Bonuses
2.1. In remuneration for his services the Club shall pay the player monthly salary of one
thousand Euros (€1,000) gross of all taxes at the end of each month and such payment
shall be effected either by cheque or bank transfer.
The Player shall be entitled for the following monthly gross allowances paid during the
periods specified in the preceding clause:
a. food allowance of six-hundred-euro (€600) gross for the first season and then
increased to eight-hundred-euro (€800) gross for the second and third season.
b. communication allowance of seven-hundred-euro (€700) gross for the first two
seasons and then increased to nine-hundred-euro (€900) gross during the third
season.
c. car allowance of five-hundred-euro (€500) gross for the first season and then
increased to six-hundred-euro (€600) gross for the second and third season.
d. petrol allowance of four-hundred-euro (€400) gross for the first two seasons and
then increased to five-hundred-euro (€500) gross during the third season; and
e. laundry and clothing allowance of three-hundred-euro (€300) gross for the first
two seasons and then increased to four-hundred- euro (€400) gross during the
third season;
f. The club will provide the player with decent accommodation for the exclusive use
of himself and his family.”
3.
Clause 5.6 of the Contract provided:
“The parties agree in the case of any dispute between the parties arises out of this
Contract, the parties shall first try to settle the dispute in an amicable matter. If such
amicable solution is not found, then the aggrieved party shall file a complaint with the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21036
competent board of the Malta Football Association to decide on such dispute, which shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.”
4.
On 1 October 2024, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages with a contact saved as
“Pres Nunzio”, whom the Player identified as the Club’s president. In said communication,
the Player requested payment of his housing expenses.
5.
On 4 October 2024, the Club paid EUR 1,000 to the Player’s bank account.
6.
On 11 November 2024, the Player signed a lease agreement for a flat in Malta, valid for a
term of one year. The agreed monthly rent amounted to EUR 1,100, payable on the 11th
day of each month.
7.
On 11 and 14 November 2024, the Player sent WhatsApp messages to a contact saved as
“Alex Segretario Gzira”, identified by the Player as “another official of the Club”, wherein he
complained about his accommodation situation. The Player indicated that he had
personally borne the rental expenses and anticipated an imminent payment obligation.
Accordingly, the Player requested the reimbursement of his rent.
8.
On 20 November 2024, the Club paid EUR 1,000 to the bank account held by Mrs. Giusy
Fortuna, whom the Player identified as his wife.
9.
On 6 June 2025, the Player, represented by the Maltese Players’ Association, served a
formal notice of default upon the Club, demanding reimbursement of EUR 9,900
corresponding to nine months’ rent (i.e., October 2024 to June 2025). The Player requested
that the Club cure the breach by 13 June 2025.
10. On 13 June 2025, the Club responded to the Player’s request for reimbursement of
accommodation expenses, expressly denying his allegations regarding the housing
allowance. The Club clarified that it had offered the Player a “decent and refurbished
accommodation,” which, according to the Club, the Player refused without providing any
reason. The Club therefore concluded that “the matter should be closed without any
further action.
11. On 16 June 2025, the Player, again represented by the Maltese Players’ Association, denied
that he has refused any accommodation offered to him by the Club. The Player stressed
that this benefit was part of his compensation package and granted until 19 June 2025 to
make a full payment, failing which may lead to legal action being taken.
12. On 6 August 2025, an unspecified individual, identified by the Player as a Club
representative, seemingly proposed a mutual termination agreement. The Player
responded that he would consult with his family prior to providing feedback, but no
amicable solution was found.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21036
13. On 18 and 23 August 2025, the Club participated in two official matches, for which the
Player was not included in the squad list.
14. On 8 September 2025, the Player issued a second notice of default to the Club, alleging
non-payment of his salaries for May, June, July, and August 2025, totalling EUR 14,900. The
Player further reiterated that the Club remained indebted to rental reimbursements since
October 2024, amounting to an additional EUR 12,100. The Player granted the Club a period
of 10 days to remedy the breach, failing which he reserved the right to terminate the
Contract.
15. On 12, 17 and 20 September 2025, the Club player three other official matches, and the
Player was again excluded from the squad list.
16. In parallel, on 19 September 2025, the Player sent a third notice of default to the Club,
granting an additional five days to settle the outstanding remuneration. The Player
expressly stated that failure to comply would entitle him to terminate the Contract with
just cause pursuant to art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
17. By letter dated 19 September 2025, but emailed on 22 September 2025, the Club contested
the Player’s claim for reimbursement of rental expenses. The Club asserted that
accommodation had been offered to the Player, which he allegedly refused. Consequently,
the Club disclaimed any liability for rental costs and requested a detailed breakdown of the
Player’s claim for outstanding salaries.
18. Also on 22 September 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s correspondence, maintaining
that no accommodation had ever been provided and reiterating his demand for
reimbursement within 3 days. The Player further itemized his claim for unpaid salaries as
follows, while restating the three-day deadline to avoid termination of the Contract:
- EUR 3,500 as the salary for May 2025;
- EUR 3,800 as the salary for June 2025;
- EUR 3,800 as the salary for July 2025;
- EUR 3,800 as the salary for August 2025.
19. On 24 September 2025, the Club allegedly issued a cheque for an amount of EUR 13,200.
The parties dispute whether the Player had ever been summoned to collect these monies.
20. On 26 September 2025 at 15:22, the Player acknowledged that the Club had failed to
respond or effect payment within the prescribed deadline. Accordingly, the Player declared
the termination of the Contract, invoking just cause on the grounds of persistent overdue
payables (hereinafter: the Termination Notice).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21036
21. On 26 September 2025 at 19:29, the Club responded to the Termination Notice, asserting
that the Player had previously been instructed to attend the President’s office to collect a
cheque for his outstanding remuneration and to sign an acknowledgment of receipt, as
required by the licensing regulations of the Malta Football Association (MFA). The Club
provided a photo of the cheque and expressly rejected the Player’s allegation of just cause
for termination, contending that the termination was unjustified. Furthermore, the Club
declared that, as of that date, the Player was deemed to have abandoned his employment
and was granted a period of 15 days to return and remedy the situation.
22. On 27 September 2025 at 08:23, the Player responded to the Club’s communication,
categorically denying that he had ever been summoned to collect a cheque. The Player
further asserted that the Club had never paid him by cheque, emphasizing that all previous
payments had been made via bank transfer. In the same correspondence, the Player
confirmed the termination of the employment contract.
23. On 27 September 2025 at 09:11, the Club reiterated its position, maintaining that the Player
had been duly informed of the availability of the cheque for his outstanding remuneration.
The Club insisted that the Player was aware of this arrangement and confirmed that it
would allow a period of 15 days for the Player to remedy what it considered an
abandonment of his employment, failing which the Club reserved the right to initiate the
necessary proceedings.
24. On 27 September 2025 at 09:42, the Player responded that the Club’s position was duly
noted and rejected in full.
25. On 27 September 2025 at 12:31, the Club reiterated that the cheque for the Player’s
outstanding remuneration remained available for collection at its offices. The Club further
indicated that, should the Player fail to collect the cheque, it would proceed to deposit the
amount with the MFA as a measure to demonstrate compliance and good faith.
26. On 27 September 2025 at 13:11, the Player replied to the Club, reiterating that any
outstanding remuneration should be settled via bank transfer, consistent with the payment
method previously used throughout the contractual relationship. The Player further
emphasized that any deposit of funds with the MFA would not constitute valid payment to
him.
27. On 27 September 2025 at 14:25, the Club reiterated its position that payment by cheque
constituted a valid form of settlement under the terms of the employment contract. The
Club further stated that it would not proceed with a bank transfer, arguing that such action
could prejudice its position by enabling the Player to claim that the payment had been
effected belatedly.
28. On 27 September 2025 at 15:45, the Player reiterated that he had never been informed of
the existence of any cheque for payment. He further stated that any payment made
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21036
subsequent to the termination could only partially reduce the outstanding remuneration
but would not affect the legality of the termination effected on 26 September 2025. The
Player also emphasized that he would not accept payment by cheque, noting that all
previous salary payments had been made via bank transfer and alleging that the issuance
of the cheque formed part of a “false narrative” advanced by the Club.
29. On 27 September 2025 at 16:27, the Club reiterated its position, asserting that the Player
had been duly informed of the availability of the cheque and accusing him of
misrepresenting the facts, as it alleged, he had previously done regarding the
accommodation issue. The Club questioned the Player’s good faith and emphasized its own
record of compliance, noting that it had never faced proceedings before the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC), which, in its view, demonstrated that it had always acted
properly. Finally, the Club reaffirmed the 15-day deadline for the Player to retract his
termination and return to the Club.
30. On 27 September 2025 at 16:32, the Player acknowledged receipt of the email and referred
to his previous communications.
31. On 8 October 2025, the Treasurer of the MFA, Mr Ivan Mizzi, confirmed that they had
received a cheque payable to the Player amounting to EUR 13,200 dated 24 September
2025.
32. The Player remained unemployed following the termination of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
33. On 26 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 Player
34. The Player claimed that he terminated the Contract with just cause based on both art. 14
and 14bis of the Regulations. He claimed that the Club had failed to pay four monthly
salaries (May to August 2025) and repeatedly neglected its contractual obligation to provide
accommodation, despite being placed in default on three separate occasions. The Player
stated that he granted the Club more than the required fifteen-day period to cure its
breaches, yet the Club persistently failed to comply.
35. Furthermore, the Player alleged that while the Player was a valued member of the squad
during the 2024/2025 season, he was no longer considered for any matches as from the
start of August 2025 (which was also not contested in the reply of the Club dated 22
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21036
September 2025) when he declined to prematurely terminate the Contract. According to
the Player, the Club lost interest in his services and ceased paying his remuneration.
36. The Player also emphasized that the Club’s failure to provide accommodation caused
significant financial damage, as housing was a material benefit under the Contract and a
decisive factor in the Player’s acceptance of the employment offer. The Player emphasized
that the Club failed to provide him with housing but initially acknowledged this obligation
by making three payments of EUR 1,000 in the first months of the Contract (the first one in
cash, the second to his bank account and the third to his wife) but subsequently ceased to
comply.
37. The Player submitted proof of having made the following payments allegedly attributed to
his lease costs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 1,649 on 11 November 2024;
EUR 1,690 on 14 December 2024;
EUR 1,100 on 13 January 2025;
EUR 1,100 on 12 February 2025;
EUR 900 on 17 March 2025;
EUR 270 on 18 March 2025;
EUR 1,170 on 14 April 2025;
EUR 1,100 on 14 May 2025;
EUR 1,100 on 16 June 2025;
EUR 1,100 on 14 July 2025; and
EUR 1,100 on 18 August 2025.
38. He also added that, although the Contract did not provide for a specific housing allowance,
the Player’s spending was not unreasonable considering the Maltese market, as well as it
was well-documented and supported by FIFA jurisprudence.
39. Finally, the Player argued that the contract explicitly excluded mitigation of damages in the
event of termination for just cause, entitling him to the full residual value of the contract
and related benefits until its original expiry date. This contractual arrangement was
consistent with the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which allegedly
upheld clauses providing for full compensation without mitigation where expressly agreed
by the parties.
40. In light of the above, the Player requested:
•
EUR 13,200 for reimbursement of rent expenses incurred between October 2024
and September 2025 (i.e., 12 months at EUR 1,100 per month). He requested
interest at 5% p.a. from the due dates, which was the last day of each month.
•
EUR 18,700 corresponding to unpaid salaries for the months of May to
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21036
September 2025. This amount included EUR 3,500 for May and EUR 3,800 for
each of the subsequent four months. The Player also requested interest at 5%
p.a. calculated from the respective due dates, which was the last day of each
month.
•
EUR 108,900 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Contract following its termination. This amount was
calculated based on the remaining contractual period from October 2025 until 8
June 2027, including monthly salaries and allowances, as well as 21 months of
rent (EUR 23,100). The Player requested interest at 5% p.a. from the date of
termination (26 September 2025).
•
EUR 5,000 as a contribution towards his legal fees.
41. The Player requested the following relief:
“As a consequence of all the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to confirm that
he terminated the contract with just cause and to order the Club to pay him the following
amounts:
•
•
•
•
EUR 18,700 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest as from the relevant
due dates;
EUR 13,200 as outstanding rent payment plus 5% interest as from the relevant
due dates;
EUR 108,900 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest as from 26
September 2025.
EUR 5,000 as a contribution to his legal fees
In addition, sporting sanctions should be imposed on the Club for the breach of contract
within the protected period.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
42. On 26 September 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim
against him.
43. The Club acknowledged the existence of the Contract and admitted that it had signed the
version provided by the Player without verifying changes from the PDF version. However,
it argued that it had respected the contract terms and acted in good faith throughout the
employment relationship.
44. The Club disputed the Player’s allegation of just cause for termination. It claimed that the
Player was verbally informed on 23 September 2025 to collect a cheque for his outstanding
salaries and sign a receipt required by the MFA for licensing purposes. According to the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21036
Club, the cheque was issued on 24 September 2025, and the Club provided evidence that
it later deposited the amount (EUR 13,200) with the MFA after the Player refused to collect
it. The Club argued that the Player maliciously ignored this communication and terminated
the Contract prematurely on 26 September 2025, before the notice period expired.
45. The Club asserted that, prior to the commencement of the subsequent season, it invited
the Player to explore opportunities with other clubs and indicated its willingness to
negotiate alternative terms. In this context, the Club claimed that it proposed a financial
package amounting to EUR 50,000 as compensation, while expressing that it was “prepared
to negotiate” further conditions.
46. Regarding accommodation, the Club admitted delays in providing housing but stated that
it had offered the Player a refurbished apartment in Gzira, which he refused, insisting
instead on receiving EUR 1,000 per month as rent reimbursement. The Club maintained
that its contractual obligation was to provide accommodation, not to reimburse rent, and
that no written amendment to the Contract was ever signed. It also questioned the validity
of the Player’s lease agreement under Maltese law, noting that it was not registered with
the Housing Authority.
47. The Club concluded its reply as follows, quoted verbatim:
“a. the contract of employment under clause 5.6 specified that in ‘the case of any
dispute between the parties arises out of this contract, the parties shall first try and
settle the dispute in an amicable manner. If such amicable solution is not found, the
aggrieved party shall file a complaint with the competent board of the Malta Football
Association to decide such dispute, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the
matter’. Consequently, under the principle of pacta sunt servanda the claim should
have been filed before the competent board of the Malta Football Association and thus
the first issue to be decided by this Chamber is whether it has competence to decide on
this claim.
b. the claim is unfounded considering the claimant was advised that the payment of
his salary was being made by cheque and the cheque was ready for collection – all this
prior to the lapse of the notice period given to the club by the Claimant;
c. the Claimant failed to collect the cheque in bad faith in order that he may claim the
payment of the salary of the remaining period of his contract, including damages and
take the opportunity to cash the rental amount as the accommodation provided by the
Club could no longer be provided as he is no longer employed by the Club;
d. the amount has been deposited in trust with the Malta Football Association as can
be confirmed by the receipt granted to us by the Treasurer of the Malta Football
Association.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21036
e. the claimant has failed to substantiate before this Chamber the monthly expense of
one thousand euro as no receipt in accordance with the provisions of Maltese Law has
been provided.
48. The Club also filed a counterclaim against the Player, asserting that he had terminated his
employment without just cause and abandoned his duties. It emphasized that the Player
was informed about the cheque and that the payment was available within the notice
period he had granted. The Club argued that the Player’s intention was to terminate the
Contract and claim compensation unlawfully, even though he knew he might have been
included in the starting lineup for the next match.
49. The Club requested that the DRC:
“a. determine and confirm that the Player Kevin Tulimieri had terminated his
employment without a just cause and therefore has abandoned his employment;
b. to award in favour of Gzira United Football Club all such damages for the breach of
contract plus interest as from the date the player abandoned his place of employment
i.e. 26th September 2025 which damages and interest shall be payable by the player;
c. to award in favour of Gzira United Football Club the payment of two thousand five
hundred euro for legal expenses incurred by the Club in relation to this dispute and for
the proceedings instituted by the player against the club.”
50. Together with its submission, and in addition to the email exchange between the Club and
the Player’s representatives, the Club provided:
•
Affidavit of Mr Ian Micaleff, who identified himself as acting on a volunteer basis
as the Secretary of the Club.
•
Sworn declaration of Mr Nunzio Antignani, who identified himself as “a
committee member” of the Club for the 2024/2025 season.
•
Affidavit of Mr Alex Cassar, who identified himself as the Club’s treasurer.
•
Sworn declaration of Mr Marlon Galea, who identified himself as Team Manager.
51. On 21 October 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
submission and, particularly, the counterclaim. The FIFA General Secretariat requested that
the Club inter alia clarified the amount in dispute and provided a detailed breakdown.
52. On 22 October 2025, the Club confirmed its intention to lodge a counterclaim against the
Player and quantified its request as follows, quoted verbatim:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21036
“b. in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 FIFA RSTP we are requesting the
following damages on the basis of the attached contract of employment:
-
Season 2025/2026:
Eur 3800 x 8.5 months (26th September 2025 to 8th June 2026) = EUR 32,300
-
Season 2026/2027:
Eur 4200 x 12 months (9th June 2026 to 8th June 2027) = EUR 51,600
Total for the above amounts to EUR 83,900
c. according to National legislation when a contractual employee terminates his
employment without a just cause the amount payable shall be half of the residual value
of the remaining period of the contract and thus the claim is being made for forty one
thousand nine hundred and fifty EURO (€41,950)
d. We are also requesting that interest at the rate of five per cent (5%) per annum on the
amount awarded as from the date of the award until the day of the effective payment of
the damages.
e. we are requesting the payment of the legal expenses to be incurred for the entire
process which we estimate do not exceed the amount of five thousand euro (€5,000).”
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
53. On 7 November 2025, the Player submitted his reply to the counterclaim of the Club.
54. The Player firmly rejected the Club’s assertion that the termination of the Contract on 26
September 2025 was unjustified. He argued that the Club failed to provide any objective
evidence proving that a cheque existed prior to the termination or that he was informed
about it on 23 September 2025. The only evidence submitted by the Club consisted of
witness statements from its own officials, which the Player contended lacked probative
value due to their vested interest in the outcome. He cited DRC jurisprudence confirming
that internal witness statements carry limited evidentiary weight. The Player maintained
that the Club fabricated the story and backdated the cheque after learning of the
termination, noting that the image of the cheque was only sent after the termination notice
had been issued.
55. The Player further emphasized that payment by cheque was improper and contrary to
established practice, as he had always been paid via bank transfer. He argued that a cheque
does not constitute proof of payment unless accompanied by banking documentation
showing it was cashed, referencing FIFA jurisprudence. He also invoked CAS jurisprudence
affirming that a creditor has the right to determine the method of payment, and he
expressly required payment by bank transfer. The Player clarified that the termination
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21036
occurred at 15:19 on 26 September 2025 and the claim was filed with FIFA at 15:55, whereas
the Club only mentioned the cheque at 19:29, hours after the claim had been lodged. This
timeline, he argued, undermined the Club’s narrative.
56. Addressing allegations of bad faith, the Player stressed that he had granted the Club three
separate deadlines – on 8, 19, and 22 September 2025 – to settle the outstanding amounts
before terminating the Contract. He noted that if his intention had been to terminate at all
costs, he could have done so earlier, as just cause already existed by 19 September 2025
due to four unpaid salaries. The termination was a last resort after persistent non-payment,
which left him without a club, training, or income at the age of 33. He also dismissed other
allegations, including claims that he altered the Contract before signing, pointing out the
absence of evidence and the fact that three Club officials signed the Contract. The Player
argued that the Club’s deposit of the cheque with the MFA was irrelevant, as it occurred
after termination and contradicted his explicit refusal to accept cheque payments. He
clarified that signing the “Financial Criteria” document for 2024 did not waive his
entitlement to rent payments, as those were not part of licensing assessments.
57. Finally, the Player asserted that the Club’s counterclaim lacked legal basis and
substantiation, as the amounts claimed for breach of contract were unsupported by
evidence. He concluded that the termination was valid under art. 14 and 14bis of the
Regulations and requested that the counterclaim be dismissed in its entirety.
58. The Player submitted his own written statement, confirming that he participated in a
training session at the Club on 23 September 2025 and denying that he had ever been
informed of the existence of any cheque.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
59. 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 26 September 2025 and submitted for
decision on 15 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 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.
60. 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 in principle competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an Italian player and a Maltese club.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-21036
61. At this point, the DRC noted that the Club did not strongly dispute the competence of the
Football Tribunal but it suggested in its conclusions that:
“the contract of employment under clause 5.6 specified that in ‘the case of any dispute
between the parties arises out of this contract, the parties shall first try and settle the
dispute in an amicable manner. If such amicable solution is not found, the aggrieved
party shall file a complaint with the competent board of the Malta Football Association to
decide such dispute, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter’.
Consequently, under the principle of pacta sunt servanda the claim should have been
filed before the competent board of the Malta Football Association and thus the first issue
to be decided by this Chamber is whether it has competence to decide on this claim.”
62. In this respect, the Chamber noted that clause 5.6 of the Contract provided the following:
“The parties agree in the case of any dispute between the parties arises out of this
Contract, the parties shall first try to settle the dispute in an amicable matter. If such
amicable solution is not found, then the aggrieved party shall file a complaint with the
competent board of the Malta Football Association to decide on such dispute, which shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.”
63. While considering the above, the Chamber initially questioned whether the jurisdiction
clause was sufficiently clear, as it merely referred to “the competent board of the MFA”
without specifying a particular decision-making body.
64. However, even assuming ad arguendo that the clause could be interpreted as designating
the national dispute resolution chamber within the MFA, the DRC considered that such
body is not recognized by FIFA in accordance with art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations.
65. Consequently, the DRC confirmed that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute.
66. 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
67. 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).
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-21036
c. Merits of the dispute
68. 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
69. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract initiated by a player against a club, as well as a counterclaim for
breach of contract filed by the same club against the same player.
70. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player terminated the Contract on 26
September 2025, asserting just cause pursuant to art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations. The
Player alleged that the Club failed to pay more than two monthly salaries and did not
provide the contractually agreed accommodation. Furthermore, the Player contended that
he granted the Club sufficient time to remedy these breaches, which the Club failed to do.
71. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club disputed the Player’s entitlement to any
accommodation allowance and accused the Player of acting in bad faith with the intention
of benefiting from an early termination. While the Club did not deny the delay in salary
payments, it asserted that the Player was summoned to collect the outstanding amounts
prior to termination but failed to do so, allegedly to justify ending the Contract.
Consequently, the Club rejected the existence of just cause and argued that the Player
should bear liability for the consequences of an unlawful termination.
72. In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that its task was to determine the legal
consequences arising from the termination of the Contract, particularly whether the Player
had just cause and the extent of the parties’ liabilities.
73. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
74. As a starting point, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing 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). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this
provision coming into force may be considered.” (emphasis added).
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-21036
75. It followed that two cumulative requirements must be satisfied for art. 14bis to apply: (i) at
least two monthly salaries must be outstanding; and (ii) the debtor must have been placed
in default and failed to fully remedy the breach within a period of 15 days.
76. In casu, the Chamber noted that, irrespective of the amounts outstanding and the
discussion regarding the cheque, the Player never formally granted the Club a 15-day
deadline as required by the provision. Although the Player initially referred to 10 days and
subsequently added 5 additional days, the Chamber emphasized that art. 14bis clearly and
unequivocally stipulates that the deadline must be set at 15 days.
77. As a result, the DRC determined that art. 14bis of the Regulations was not applicable.
78. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC also recalled that the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, as detailed in the Commentary on the Regulations – Edition 2023 (hereinafter: the
Commentary), pp. 123 et seq., establishes the following:
“A player invoking other outstanding remuneration to terminate their contract may still
have just cause. The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the general
definition of what constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of article 14,
along with the relevant general criteria set out in jurisprudence and described above.
Particular attention should be paid to factors such as whether the outstanding
amount is significant (i.e. that it is neither negligible nor totally subordinated), the
extent of the delay, the general attitude of the parties in the specific case and
other relevant factors.
[…]
Article 14bis requires the player to notify the club in writing that it is in default and to
grant the club a deadline of at least 15 days to fully comply with its financial obligations.
This condition is in line with the established jurisprudence of the DRC and of CAS, and
aims to provide clarity and legal certainty, particularly in relation to the specific
termination date of a contract.
[…]
Where the preconditions are not met, article 14bis does not apply; in such
circumstances the DRC may nonetheless find that the termination was made with
just cause within the scope of article 14, or consider that there was no just cause
for the termination of the contract.”
(emphasis added by the DRC)
79. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber decided to divide its assessment on different
supporting issues, namely: (A) the amount / significance of the debt, (B) the opportunity of
remedying any breach; and (C) the parties’ overall behaviour.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-21036
A. Quantum
80. The Chamber initially noted that the Player claimed entitlement to EUR 14,900 for unpaid
salaries for May, June, July, and August 2025, and EUR 12,100 for accommodation expenses
from October 2024 onwards.
81. Regarding salaries, the Chamber noted Player’s claim was contractually grounded and
acknowledged by the Club, which referred exclusively to a payment by cheque that was
never collected or cashed by the Player. Therefore, at the time of termination, the Player
was entitled to at least four outstanding monthly salaries.
82. The Chamber then considered that the entitlement to accommodation expenses, however,
was more contentious. The Contract expressly provided that the Club would “provide the
player with decent accommodation for the exclusive use of himself and his family.” Accordingly,
we concurred with the Player that the Club was obliged to provide accommodation.
83. According to the Chamber, the burden of proof rested on the Club to demonstrate that it
had provided a “decent apartment” and that the Player rejected it. The Club, however,
limited itself to mere allegations without submitting any supporting evidence (e.g.,
handover protocol, written rejection by the Player, let alone proof of the physical address
and conditions of the residence). Therefore, the Chamber accepted the Player’s argument
and concluded that the Club was in breach of its contractual obligation to provide
accommodation and failed to discharge its burden of proof.
84. The next question concerned the consequences of this breach. While the Chamber
concurred with the Club that the Contract did not provide for an accommodation
allowance, it also noted that the Player provided a copy of his lease agreement and proof
of payment, which were not challenged by the Club. More strikingly, the Chamber noted
that the Club did not dispute that the Player received reimbursement for two months, for
an amount that was one EUR 100 lower than his future rent.
85. Therefore, based on the particularities of the case, the Chamber was sufficiently convinced
of the Player’s entitlement to the reimbursement of his rent, and such amounts should be
also factored into the assessment of termination.
B. Warning / Opportunity to remedy
86. Having established the above, the Chamber turned to the analysis of the notice period
granted by the Player. The Chamber considered that the following undisputed events were
relevant:
•
On 6 June 2025, the Player placed the Club in default for the first time, claiming
exclusively accommodation reimbursements, which the Club disputed.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-21036
•
On 8 September 2025, the Player issued another default notice, adding a request
for salaries for May, June, July, and August 2025, totalling EUR 14,900, and granted
10 days for the Club to remedy the breach.
•
On 19 September 2025, the Player referred to his previous notice and granted an
additional 5 days for compliance under threat of termination.
•
On 22 September 2025, the Club replied and requested a breakdown of the debt,
which the Player provided the same day.
•
On 25 September 2025, the deadline granted by the Player elapsed.
•
On 26 September 2025, the Player terminated the Contract citing just cause. The
Club immediately reacted, claiming it had summoned the Player to collect a
cheque issued on 24 September 2025, within the deadline. The Club produced a
photo of the cheque, which the Player disputed having ever been informed
about.
87. In view of the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the overall period granted by
the Player was clearly stipulated and reasonable, as the Player ultimately waited 15 days
before terminating the Contract and remained responsive, allowing the Club an
opportunity to dispute and remedy the breach.
C. Parties’ behaviour
88. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Club alleged that the Player acted in bad
faith by failing to collect a cheque issued for the overdue amounts despite being
summoned to do so and subsequently terminating the Contract while invoking just cause.
89. However, the Chamber did not find the Club’s position regarding the cheque persuasive. In
the DRC’s view, a party seeking to safeguard its rights against premature termination
should have acted diligently to document its conduct – by any means. By merely referring
retrospectively to a predated cheque, the Club made it impossible for the Chamber to verify
the alleged inconsistent behaviour of the Player.
90. The Chamber determined that the witness statements provided by the Club were
inconclusive in this regard, as they were contested by the Player and merely reflect the
opinions of Club personnel.
91. The Chamber also accepted the Player’s position that he had always been paid via bank
transfer and saw no reason to depart from this practice in a time-sensitive scenario. The
DRC was unconvinced by the Club’s argument and found no legal grounds to believe that
the Club was prevented from making payment within the deadline granted by the Player.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-21036
This became particularly relevant considering that the Club had ceased payments for more
than three months without any explanation.
92. Lastly, the DRC pointed out that the fact that the Club deposited the cheque with the MFA
at a later stage was irrelevant to the assessment of the validity of the termination.
D. Interim conclusion on the just cause
93. In light of the particular circumstances of the case, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s
breach of its contractual obligations was both significant and prolonged. The Club failed to
pay multiple monthly salaries and did not provide the accommodation stipulated in the
Contract. These breaches persisted over an extended period and materially affected the
Player’s ability to perform under the Contract.
94. Furthermore, the Chamber remarked that the Player granted the Club a reasonable and
clearly defined opportunity to remedy its default. Despite being placed in default and
afforded sufficient time to comply, the Club neither acted to cure the breach nor provided
any valid justification for its failure to do so. Likewise, the Club’s subsequent reliance on
the issuance of a cheque, without proper communication or timely execution, in the
Chamber’s view, did not alter this conclusion.
95. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause
pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
96. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
97. In accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided
that the Club was liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were outstanding under
the Contract at the moment of the termination.
98. Firstly, the Chamber determined that the Player was entitled to his outstanding salaries
and default interest as of the day following the respective due dates, as follows:
•
EUR 3,500 for May 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025;
•
EUR 3,800 for June 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2025;
•
EUR 3,800 for July 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2025;
•
EUR 3,800 for August 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2025;
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-21036
•
EUR 3,800 for September 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 September
2025.
99. Secondly, and for the reasons set forth in section “A-Quantum” supra, the Chamber
confirmed that the Player should be also entitled to the reimbursement of his rent
expenses, calculated as follows:
•
EUR 1,000 for the month of October 2024, prior to the signature of the lease
agreement by the Player and limited to the amount that had already been paid by
the Club in the previous months; and
•
EUR 1,100 for the months in which the lease agreement was in place and the Player
submitted corresponding proof of payment (i.e., from December 2024 to September
2025), however capped at the contractually agreed lease.
100. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the first day of each subsequent
month until the date of effective payment.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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).
104. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-21036
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 81,520 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
•
EUR 34,200 for the second season (i.e., 9 months * EUR 3,800)
•
EUR 47,320 for the third season (i.e., 11 months and 8 days * EUR 4,200)
105. The Chamber also clarified that:
•
the Player seemingly miscalculated the salary for the third season. The monthly total
amounted to EUR 4,200 instead of the EUR 4,300 claimed. Furthermore, the
Contract would expire on 8 June 2026, therefore the last salary should be prorated.
•
No accommodation allowance was included in the calculation, as such
compensation was not provided for in the Contract. Moreover, given that the Player
was no longer contractually bound to the Club, the Chamber found it speculative to
assume that he would have incurred the same housing costs.
106. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player 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.
107. The Chamber acknowledged that the Player did not secure new employment following the
termination of the Contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional compensation
applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
108. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR 81,520
to the Player (i.e., the full residual value of the Contract), which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
109. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’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 26 September 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
110. By way of conclusion, the Chamber ruled that the Player’s claim was to be partially accepted
and the Club’s counterclaim fully rejected.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-21036
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. 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.
d. Costs
116. 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.
117. 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.
118. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-21036
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Kevin Tulimieri, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, GZIRA UNITED, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 1,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- EUR 3,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2025
until the date of effective payment;
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-21036
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 September
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 81,520 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
September 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-21036
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent 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. 25
REF. FPSD-21036
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. 26