Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21149
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Abdelrahman Gaafar Al Alhagi
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica) Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Abdelrahman Gaafar Al Alhagi, Sudan
Represented by Greg Griffin
RESPONDENT:
Alittihad Tripoli SC, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21149
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Sudanese player Abdelrahman Gaafar Al Alhagi (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Libyan club Alittihad Tripoli SC (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as
from 1 September 2024 until 31 August 2026.
2.
Pursuant to article 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to remunerate the Player as
follows:
“Article (4) - Financial Remuneration
The two parties agreed to determine the financial value of this contract for the entire
period at a total amount of (240,000) US dollars, Two hundred and forty thousand US
dollars, to be paid as follows:
1) The first party is obligated to pay the contract advance to the second party in the
amount of (60,000) US dollars sixty thousand US dollars of the beginning of each
year of the contract term.
2) The two parties agreed to set the monthly salary at (4,700) US dollars, four
thousand and seven hundred US dollars of the total remaining value of the
contract, to be paid at the end of each month throughout the duration of the
contract.”
3.
On 22 August 2025, the Player served the Club with a notice of default, demanding payment
of his monthly salaries for July and August 2025, in the aggregate amount of USD 9,400, as
well as the advance payment of USD 60,000 due on 1 September 2025. The Player granted
the Club a period of 15 days to remedy the breach.
4.
On 6 September 2025, the Club responded to the Player’s notice, denying liability for two
months’ salary on the grounds that the salary for August 2025 would only fall due on 31
August 2025. The Club further asserted that the Player was required to collect his
remuneration upon his return to Libya following national team duties.
5.
On 7 September 2025, the Player issued a second notice of default, requesting payment of
his outstanding salaries by 14 September 2025 and the advance payment by 22 September
2025. The Player reserved his rights “pursuant to clauses 12bis and 14bis” of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
6.
On 23 September 2025, the Player terminated the Contract, invoking just cause pursuant
to art. 14bis of the Regulations. The Player claimed payment of the full amount of USD
69,400 as outstanding remuneration.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21149
7.
On 7 January 2026, the Player entered into a new employment contract with the Maltese
club Tarxien Rainbows Football Club, valid from the date of signature until the end of the
2025/2026 season. Accordingly, the Player would be entitled to: (i) EUR 1,000 as monthly
salary; (ii) EUR 600 as car allowance; (iii) EUR 250 as food allowance; and (iv) EUR 150 as
mobile allowance.
8.
According to the information retrieved from FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
2025/2026 season in Malta was schedule to conclude on 8 June 2026.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 2 October 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is set out below.
a. Claim of the Player
10. In his claim, the Player alleged that at the end of August 2025, he was informed via
WhatsApp by a Club employee that the Club intended to terminate the Contract; however,
the parties were unable to reach an agreement.
11. Notwithstanding, the Club allegedly fulfilled its foreign player quota, thereby excluding the
Player from the list. The Player further asserted that the Club failed to pay the advance
payment and two months’ salaries, despite the default notices issued in September.
12. The Player consequently claimed that he terminated the Contract with just cause, seeking
the following relief:
“24. Payment of the unpaid contract amount of $69,400.00 usd net.
25. Interest to be calculated on the damages awarded at the maximum allowable interest
per annum under Swiss Law of 18%; and
26. An order that the respondent pay the claimant’s costs of these proceedings in
accordance with rule 18 of the procedural rules, up to the maximum amount of chf
25,000.00 referred to in the procedural rules.
27. Additional compensation pursuant to article 17 paragraph 1 (ii) of the rstp in the sum
of $30,000.00 due to the egregious circumstances of the respondent’s conduct;”
b. Reply of the Club
13. On 25 October 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the Player’s claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21149
14. The Club asserted that it acted in good faith by complying with its financial obligations
during the first contractual year. However, it alleged that the Player failed to fulfil his
contractual obligations by refusing to return to the Club after his holidays in August 2025.
15. The Club further argued that the Player’s notices were invalid as they did not comply with
the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations, and that the Player remained absent.
Moreover, the Club contested the evidentiary value of the WhatsApp messages and
claimed that the registration period in Libya remained open until 24 October 2025, thereby
asserting that the Player had not been excluded from the competitive list.
16. The Club concluded its submission as follows:
“Al-Ittihad Club confirms that, in its correspondence dated 06/09/2025, it formally
requested the Player to rejoin the team, resume training, and perform his obligations,
while expressing the Club’s readiness to pay all due amounts upon his return. However,
the Player failed to respond and continued his absence both before and after the notices
and communications were sent. This conduct clearly contravenes the principles of
contractual performance, particularly in professional player contracts, which are binding
on both parties and governed by reciprocal rights and obligations.”
c. Replica of the Player
17. On 4 November 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
18. The Player reiterated reference to the proposed settlement by the Club, asserting that it
served as evidence of the Club’s intention to terminate his services. The Player further
emphasized that the Club had never challenged his termination notice, nor contested the
breach of its financial obligations.
19. In continuation, the Player disputed the Club’s allegations regarding his absence. According
to the Player, he was never invited to rejoin the Club after the holidays and was excluded
from the pre-season. The Player insisted that it was the Club that breached the Contract.
20. The Player updated his requests for relief as follows:
“The Claimant seeks;
(i)
Interest to be calculated on the damages at the maximum allowable interest per
annum under Swiss law of 18%
(ii) That the Respondent pay the cost of those proceedings to a maximum amount
of 25,000 CHF
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21149
(iii) An additional payment of compensation pursuant to article 17, paragraph 1(ii) RSTP
the sum of $30,000 USD due to the egregious circumstances of the Respondent’s conduct.
Particulars
The Claimant relies upon it to establish the egregious conduct of the Respondent towards
him as being;
(iii) The refusal of the Respondent to pay monies due to him whilst at the same time
recruiting other foreign players to take his position in the team.
(iv) The failure of the Respondent to advise the Claimant that the pre-season
training regime was to be conducted in Egypt and by directing that he fly to
Libya, at a time when he remained unpaid for the majority of his contract
thereby forcing him to return to Libya where none of the senior players or
coaches would have been.”
d. Duplica of the Club
21. On 11 November 2025, the Player submitted its duplica, restating its main arguments.
22. Initially, the Club requested that the Football Tribunal acknowledge its good faith in
handling the Player’s employment. Subsequently, it alleged that the Player engaged in
unauthorized communication with an individual claiming to represent the Club, who lacked
authority to execute any document.
23. The Club further reiterated that the Player failed to comply with the requirements of art.
14bis of the Regulations, asserting that the first default notice was premature and the
second was issued during the Player’s absence.
24. Likewise, the Club denied the Player’s allegations regarding the lack of registration, stating
that such omission could still be remedied.
25. The Club therefore requested:
“Claims and Requests
1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the player is entitled only to 52 days of salary (1 July
2025 – 22 August 2025), amounting to USD 8,146.66.
2. The Tribunal recognizes that the actions taken by the player’s lawyer under Article 14
bis were procedurally defective and premature, as the claim for payment was made
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21149
before the actual due date, rendering the player’s unilateral termination without just
cause.
3. The player has no right to claim any financial amounts for the period from 23 August
2025 until the end of his contract on 31 August 2026, due to his abandonment of
contractual duties.
4. The player should be considered to have terminated the contract without just cause.
5. The player should be sanctioned and ordered to compensate Al-Ittihad Club for the
losses and damages incurred in accordance with FIFA Regulations.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. 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 2 October 2025 and submitted for decision
on 16 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.
27. 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 Sudanese player and a Libyan club.
28. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that, in the second round of
submissions, the Club seemingly counterclaimed against the Player, stating that he “should
be sanctioned and ordered to compensate [the Club] for the losses and damages incurred in
accordance with FIFA Regulations.” However, this request was both generic and untimely
pursuant to art. 21, par. 2 of the Procedural Rules. Consequently, the Chamber established
that any potential counterclaim was inadmissible.
29. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21149
b. Burden of proof
30. 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
31. 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 would 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
32. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by a player against a club.
33. The Player argued that the Club breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay two
months’ salary and an advance payment despite multiple default notices. He asserted that
the Club intended to terminate his employment, evidenced by a proposed settlement, and
excluded him from the competitive list after fulfilling its foreign player quota. The Player
denied allegations of absence, claiming he was never invited to return post-holidays and
was excluded from pre-season activities. Consequently, the Player claimed that he
terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations and sought
outstanding remuneration and compensation.
34. Conversely, the Club maintained that it acted in good faith by fulfilling its financial
obligations during the first contractual year and alleged that the Player breached the
Contract by refusing to return after his holidays. It argued that the Player’s default notices
were invalid under art. 14bis of the Regulations and disputed the evidentiary value of
WhatsApp messages. The Club denied excluding the Player from registration, asserting the
transfer window remained open, and claimed any omission could be remedied. In its later
submissions, the Club requested acknowledgment of its good faith and even sought
sanctions and compensation from the Player, though this counterclaim was deemed
inadmissible.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21149
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14bis or art. 14 of the Regulations.
This involved assessing the validity of the Player’s default notices, the Club’s compliance
with its financial obligations, and the allegations regarding the Player’s absence and
registration status. Additionally, the Chamber had to establish the appropriate
consequences.
A.
DID THE PLAYER TERMINATE THE CONTRACT WITH JUST CAUSE?
(i) Art. 14bis of the Regulations
36. First of all, the Chamber noted that the Player terminated the Contract on 23 September
2025, expressly invoking art. 14bis of the Regulations, on the basis of outstanding
remuneration.
37. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations stipulates
that, in the event that a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries,
the player shall be deemed to have just cause to terminate the contract, provided that he
has put the club in default in writing and granted it a deadline of at least 15 days to comply
with its financial obligations.
38. Turning to the matter at hand, the Chamber observed that:
• On 22 August 2025, the Player issued a first default notice, requesting payment of
two monthly salaries (July and August 2025) in the amount of USD 9,400, as well as
an advance payment of USD 60,000 allegedly due on 1 September 2025, granting
the Club a deadline of 15 days to remedy the breach;
• Subsequently, on 7 September 2025, the Player sent a second default notice,
granting the Club additional deadlines until 14 September 2025 for the monthly
salaries and 22 September 2025 for the advance payment; and
• The Contract was ultimately terminated on 23 September 2025.
39. In this context, the Chamber noted that, for the purposes of art. 14bis of the Regulations,
only remuneration that is already due and payable at the time of the default notice may be
taken into account.
40. In this respect, the Chamber also noted that while the salary for July 2025 was indisputably
due when the Player sent his first notice, the salary for August 2025 only became payable
at the end of the month of August 2025, i.e. after the submission of the first default notice.
41. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the advance payment of USD 60,000 did not amount
to a “salary” within the meaning of the Regulations, which was contractually agreed to fall
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21149
due on 1 September 2025 and, therefore, could not be considered due at the time the first
default notice of 22 August 2025 was served.
42. As regards the second default notice dated 7 September 2025, the Chamber acknowledged
that, at that stage, the salary for August 2025 and the advance payment could arguably be
considered due. However, art. 14bis of the Regulations requires that the Club remain in
default for at least 15 days following a valid default notice referring to already due
remuneration, and that the termination may only occur after the expiry of such deadline.
43. In the present case, the Player differentiated the deadlines for the salaries and the advance
payment and ultimately terminated the Contract on the same day the deadline for the
advance payment expired, thereby not granting the Club an additional 15-day period
following a unified and numerically complete outstanding amount equivalent to two
monthly salaries.
44. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the formal requirements of art.
14bis of the Regulations were not fully met, and consequently, the Player could not rely on
art. 14bis of the Regulations as a legal basis for the termination of the Contract with just
cause.
(ii) Art. 14 of the Regulations
45. Having established that the termination could not be validated under art. 14bis of the
Regulations, the Chamber proceeded to assess whether the termination could nonetheless
be justified under the general concept of just cause pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations.
46. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that art. 14 of the Regulations allows for the
termination of an employment contract without consequences where one party has
seriously breached its contractual obligations, to such an extent that the continuation of
the employment relationship can no longer reasonably be expected.
47. The Chamber also recalled that, in accordance with constant FIFA jurisprudence, persistent
and significant non-payment of remuneration, even if falling short of the strict thresholds
of art. 14bis of the Regulations may constitute just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations.
48. Applying the above principles to the present matter, the Chamber observed that, at the
time of termination:
•
The Club had failed to pay the Player’s salaries for July and August 2025;
•
The Club had also failed to pay the contractually agreed advance payment due
on 1 September 2025, which constituted a significant part of his remuneration;
•
The outstanding amounts were repeatedly claimed by the Player through
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21149
written notices, without being remedied by the Club. In particular, the Player
had mentioned a specific deadline in his previous notice (even if shorter than
required in the Regulations), but to no avail.
49. The Chamber further took note that the Club did not provide any evidence demonstrating
that the outstanding remuneration was paid or that the Player had been offered payment
in a concrete and unconditional manner.
50. As to the Club’s allegations that the Player was absent without authorization or refused to
return after his holidays, the Chamber observed that the Club failed to submit any
documentary evidence proving that the Player had been formally requested to return to
the Club’s premises or that disciplinary measures were initiated against him in this respect.
51. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that issues related to the Player’s presence existed,
such circumstances do not justify the unilateral suspension or non-payment of
remuneration, in the absence of a contractual or regulatory basis.
52. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Player alleged that the Club offered him a
termination of the Contract and subsequently excluded him from the competitive list after
filling its foreign player quota.
53. In this respect, the Chamber took notice that while the Club questioned the authority of
the individual who allegedly exchanged messages with the Player, it did not categorically
deny that a proposal to terminate the employment relationship had been made, nor did it
submit any evidence demonstrating that the Player was effectively reinstated in the Club’s
sporting plans.
54. Furthermore, regarding the Player’s exclusion from the squad, the Chamber noted that the
Club merely argued that such a situation could still be remedied, without substantiating
that the Player was, at the relevant time, eligible to participate in official competitions or
effectively included in the Club’s sporting project.
55. All in all, in the present case, although the Chamber noted that the Player terminated the
Contract in a rather expeditious manner, in particular due to the fragmented and irregular
deadlines granted in his default notices, the Chamber nevertheless considered that the
combination of the Club’s failure to pay substantial outstanding remuneration, the
existence of an offer to terminate the Contract, and the absence of concrete evidence
demonstrating the Player’s effective registration and integration into the Club’s sporting
activities, could objectively be interpreted as a loss of interest by the Club in the
continuation of the employment relationship.
56. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the overall behaviour of the Club, as
demonstrated by the accumulation of the above-mentioned circumstances, was such that
it justified the Player’s decision to terminate the Contract, since the continuation of the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21149
employment relationship could no longer reasonably be expected from him, thereby
confirming the existence of just cause pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations.
B. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES THAT FOLLOW?
57. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such an unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
58. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration under the Contract at the time
of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, was equivalent to
three monthly salaries (i.e., July, August and September 2025) and an advanced payment,
amounting to USD 74,100.
59. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s generic request, the principle of ne ultra
petita, and 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 2 October 2025 until the date of effective payment.
60. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club 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.
61. 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.
62. 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).
63. 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
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 51,700 (i.e., USD 4,700 times 11 months corresponding
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21149
to the period from October 2025 to August 2026) serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
64. 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.
65. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Maltese club Tarxien Rainbows Football
Club. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player mitigated his
damages in the total amount of USD 11,880.21 (EUR 10,146.23), broken down as follows:
•
•
•
USD 1,888.54 (EUR 1,612.54) as the prorated remuneration for January 2026;
USD 9,367.20 (EUR 8,000) as the remuneration from February to May 2026; and
USD 624.47 (EUR 533.33) as the prorated remuneration for June 2026.
66. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
67. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
USD 14,100, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player, but capped at USD
11,880.21, thereby falling back into the residual value.
68. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club would in principle be liable to pay
the amount of USD 51,700 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
69. Nevertheless, and since the Player limited his overall claim to USD 99,400, and the Chamber
had already awarded him USD 74,100 as outstanding remuneration, the Chamber
concluded that the compensation amount should be limited to USD 25,300 (i.e., USD 99,400
minus USD 74,100) in order not to contravene the principle of ne ultra petita.
70. Lastly, the Chamber also decided to award the Player interest on said compensation at the
rate of 5% p.a. as of 2 October 2025 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-21149
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
71. 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.
72. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
73. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber 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.
74. 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.
75. The Chamber 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
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-21149
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abdelrahman Gaafar Al Alhagi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alittihad Tripoli SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 74,100 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 October 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 25,300 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2
October 2025, until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-21149
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. 16