Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21251
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Adrien
Sebastien Perruchet Silva
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Vanessa PLAVJANIKOVA (Czech Republic), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Adrien Sebastien Perruchet Silva, Portugal
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
United, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Evgeny Krechetov
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21251
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 September 2024, the Portuguese player, Adrien Sebastien Perruchet Silva
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant), and the Emirati club, United (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from its date of signature until 31 May 2026.
2.
Clause 4 of the Contract provided as follows:
4. EARLY TERMINATION
*(for more details see article 16)
4.1. Does the Player have the right to
early terminate this Contract (to buy
himself out)?
if “YES”, the Buy-out Sum is:
3.
NO
4.2. Does the Club have the right to
early terminate this Contract (to buy
itself out)?
if “YES”, the Buy-out Sum is:
YES
4.3. If this Contract is terminated by the
Player without just cause, the amount
of compensation (liquidated damages)
shall be:
4.4 If this Contract is terminated by the
Club without just cause, the amount of
compensation (liquidated damages)
shall be:
4.5 Other terms
6 months’ salary
6 months’ salary
6 months’ salary
NO
In addition, clause 5 of the Contract reads as follows:
5. SALARY (MONTHLY FIXED REMUNERATION)
*for more details see article 11) **(all sums are net of UAE taxes only)
Amount per month
Period of payment (from – to)
40,000 AED
30-09-2024 TO 31-05-2026
· If the First Team is promoted to the UAEFA ADNOC Pro League for the
Season 2025-2026, the salary for the period from 1 June 2025 to 31
May 2026 shall be 80,000 AED per month.
4.
Clause 16.3 of the Contract provided as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21251
“If this Contract is terminated by the Club without just cause, the Club shall pay the Player,
within 30 days from the termination, a compensation (liquidated damages) in the amount set
forth in clause 4.4 of this Contract or, if no amount of compensation is set forth in clause 4.4
of this Contract, - in the sum determined by the competent dispute resolution body. In the
latter case, any Player’s income in kind or in the form of a compensation for expenses
associated with the performance of his work (for example: housing allowance, car allowance,
flight tickets’ allowance etc.) shall not be taken into consideration for the sake of calculation
of the compensation.”
5.
Clause 16.5 of the Contract provided as follows:
“16.5. If clause 4.2 of this Contract grants the Club the right to early termination of this
Contract for the pre-determined Buy-out Sum, then the Club has the right at any time
(including during the Protected Period) to terminate this Contract unilaterally and without
application of any sporting sanctions by fourteen days’ notice in writing to the Player and in
return for the payment of the Buy-out Sum, set forth by clause 4.2 of this Contract, that has
to be payable by the Club to the Player on or before the day of the termination. This Contract
shall be considered terminated as from the date specified by the Club in the notice.”
6.
On 24 June 2025, the Club notified the Player of the termination of the Contract as from 9
July 2025, by exercising clauses 4.2 and 16.5 thereof.
7.
On 27 June 2025, the Player addressed a letter to the Club contesting its entitlement to
prematurely terminate the Contract. In this context, the Player granted the Club a deadline
of 10 days in order to pay the amount of AED 480,000 as compensation for the early
termination of the Contract, corresponding to its residual value.
8.
On 9 July 2025, the Player sent a further correspondence to the Club maintaining that the
Contract had been terminated without just cause and requesting the payment of AED
480,000 within three days.
9.
On 10 July 2025, the Player received the following payments from the Club:
-
AED 240,000 corresponding to the six months’ salary under the clause 4.2 of the
Contract; and
AED 52,000 corresponding to the Player’s salaries for June 2025 and part of July 2025.
10. On the same date, the Club informed the Player, by means of a letter, that it was entitled
to terminate the Contract and had already proceeded with the payment of AED 240,000.
11. On 11 August 2025, the Player sent a further default notice to the Club requesting the
payment of AED 188,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21251
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 7 October 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
13. In his claim, the Player submitted that the Contract was unilaterally terminated by the Club
without just cause.
14. The Player further argued that the compensation for unilateral termination without just
cause can never be limited to an amount lower than the residual value of the relevant
contract at the time of its termination.
15. Furthermore, the Player asserted clause 4.2 of the Contract suffers from a manifest lack of
reciprocity, since it confers on the Club a unilateral right of buy-out without affording the
Player an equivalent entitlement.
16. In addition, the Player referred to jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS),
alleging that penalty and/or compensation clauses which disproportionately favour one
party and undermine contractual stability are to be deemed invalid. In this respect, the
Player asserted that, although the Contract symmetrically caps liquidated damages at six
months’ salary for either party (cf., clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the Contract), it grants the Club a
unilateral buy-out and/or early termination right (cf., clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the Contract)
without reciprocal protection for the Player.
17. In view of the above, the Player requested to be awarded compensation corresponding to
the residual value of the Contract, after deduction of the amount of AED 240,000 already
paid by the Club, leaving a net outstanding of AED 188,000.
18. The Player submitted the following requests for relief:
“In light of all the above, Mr. Silva respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) Determine the present Statement of Claim is admissible;
(ii) Determine that any contractual arrangement relied upon by United FC to cap
compensation at six (6) months’ salary is inapplicable, legally ineffective and void vis-à-vis
mandatory employee rights under Articles 337c, 341 & 362 of the SCO, and shall therefore
not be taken into account for determining compensation;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21251
(iii) Order United FC to pay to Mr. Silva the outstanding principal amount of AED 188.000,00
(One Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand UAE Dirhams), representing the net residual-value
balance of the Employment Agreement;
(iv) Order United FC to pay to Mr. Silva default interest at 5% per annum on AED 188.000,00
from 10 July 2025 until the date of effective payment;
(v) Impose sporting sanctions upon United FC pursuant to Article 17.4 of the FIFA RSTP, namely
a ban on registering new players, nationally and internationally, for two consecutive
registration periods.”
b. Position of the Club
19. In its reply, the Club submitted that the Contract had been negotiated freely and
transparently between the parties. In particular, the Club emphasised that the early
termination provisions were set out on the first page of the Contract and had been
expressly accepted by the Player, who also confirmed that he had legal advice at his
disposal at the time of signature.
20. According to the Club, the termination of the Contract was executed under a valid buy-out
clause, which granted the Club the contractual right to early terminate the contractual
relationship upon fourteen days’ notice and the payment of an amount corresponding to
six monthly salaries.
21. The Club further emphasised that buy-out clauses are legally distinct from liquidated
damages clauses, are typically unilateral, and do not require reciprocity between the
contracting parties.
22. In any event, the Club asserted that even if the buy-out clause of the Contract were to be
disregarded, the Contract contained a reciprocal liquidated damages clause amounting to
six months’ salary, which, in the Club’s view, is proportionate in light of the relevant Football
Tribunal jurisprudence.
23. Moreover, the Club submitted that the Player never questioned the validity of clause 4.2 of
the Contract during the notice period but rather mistakenly alleged that such a clause did
not exist, which the Club considered to be an argument raised in bad faith and contrary to
the principle of venire contra factum proprium.
24. Finally, the Club insisted that it had paid all amounts due under the Contract, including the
amount provided for in its clause 4.2, and had therefore fully complied with its contractual
obligations. On this basis, the Club deemed the termination to be lawful, proportionate,
and carried out in good faith.
25. The Club submitted the following requests for relief:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21251
“The Respondent respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football
Tribunal to issue a decision:
1. Rejecting the Claim of the player, Adrien Sebastien Perruchet Silva, in its entirety;
2. Ordering the player, Adrien Sebastien Perruchet Silva, to pay the costs of the proceedings
in the event that any arise and are to be apportioned.”
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 7 October 2025 and submitted for decision
on 19 March 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 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 Portuguese player and an Emirati club.
28. 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
29. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-21251
c. Merits of the dispute
30. 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
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this dispute concerns a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract.
32. The Chamber observed that the Player maintained that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause, arguing that clause 4.2 thereof is contrary to the Regulations and should
be deemed invalid. As a result, the Player requested to be compensated with the residual
value of the Contract, after deduction of the amount already paid by the Club.
33. The Chamber also took note that the Club, for its part, asserted that the termination was
lawfully executed pursuant to a valid buy-out clause, the terms of which were fully
complied with, and that the Player’s subsequent objections were unfounded.
34. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to first determine the validity
of clause 4.2 of the Contract read in conjunction with clause 16.5 thereof.
35. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the said provision granted the Club the
possibility to terminate the employment relationship at any time, subject to the payment
of an amount corresponding to six monthly salaries to the Player.
36. Having carefully analysed the wording and the systematic context of the aforementioned
clause within the Contract, the Chamber considered that such provision cannot be
construed as establishing a genuine buy‑out mechanism, but rather as a contractual
entitlement reserved exclusively to the Club to terminate the Contract prematurely against
payment of a predetermined amount.
37. In particular, the Chamber noted that said clause effectively allows the Club to unilaterally
terminate the contractual relationship at any stage of its term by paying compensation
equal to six months’ salary, i.e., an amount corresponding to the compensation foreseen
under the Contract in the event of termination without just cause.
38. In light of the above, the Chamber found that the said clause cannot be relied upon by the
Club as a valid contractual basis to unilaterally terminate the Contract without the
existence of just cause.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21251
39. As a consequence, the Chamber deemed that the early termination of the Contract by the
Club must be assessed in accordance with the general principles governing the termination
of employment contracts.
40. In this respect, and in the absence of any evidence on file suggesting the existence of just
cause, the Chamber concluded that the Contract was terminated by the Club without just
cause.
ii. Consequences
41. 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.
42. Firstly, the Chamber confirmed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
the termination of the Contract.
43. In continuation, 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.
44. 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.
45. In this regard, the Chamber observed that clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the Contract, in
conjunction with its clause 16.3, established the following:
Clauses 4.3 and 4.4:
4. EARLY TERMINATION
*(for more details see article 16)
[...]
4.3. If this Contract is terminated by the
Player without just cause, the amount
of compensation (liquidated damages)
shall be:
6 months’ salary
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21251
4.4 If this Contract is terminated by the
Club without just cause, the amount of
compensation (liquidated damages)
shall be:
6 months’ salary
Clause 16.3:
“If this Contract is terminated by the Club without just cause, the Club shall pay the
Player, within 30 days from the termination, a compensation (liquidated damages) in
the amount set forth in clause 4.4 of this Contract or, if no amount of compensation
is set forth in clause 4.4 of this Contract, - in the sum determined by the competent
dispute resolution body. In the latter case, any Player’s income in kind or in the form
of a compensation for expenses associated with the performance of his work (for
example: housing allowance, car allowance, flight tickets’ allowance etc.) shall not be
taken into consideration for the sake of calculation of the compensation.”
46. The Chamber noted that the Contract contains a clause providing for compensation in case
of termination without just cause by either party, corresponding to six monthly salaries.
47. The Chamber therefore proceeded to assess whether the said clause should be taken into
account for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable by the Club
to the Player, taking into consideration the principles of reciprocity and proportionality.
48. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the relevant provision applies equally to both
parties and establishes a fixed amount of compensation corresponding to six months’
remuneration in the event of termination without just cause.
49. Notwithstanding the above, the majority of the Chamber deemed that, in the specific
circumstances of the present matter, the compensation stipulated therein could not be
regarded as manifestly disproportionate in relation to the remaining value of the Contract
at the time of termination, nor as undermining the principle of contractual stability.
50. In particular, the majority of the Chamber deemed that an amount corresponding to six
months’ remuneration constituted a reasonable period of time for the Player to seek
alternative employment and thus represented adequate compensation for the early
termination of the contractual relationship vis-à-vis its original duration and the remaining
period. The majority of the Chamber also observed that the Player seemingly accepted this
amount of compensation when negotiating his contract without any documented
reservation.
51. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber agreed to apply the aforementioned clause for
the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable by the Club to the Player.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21251
52. In view of the above, the majority of the Chamber established that the Player was entitled
to compensation corresponding to six monthly salaries.
53. Lastly, taking into account that the Club has already paid the amount of AED 240,000 to the
Player following the termination of the Contract, the majority of the Chamber concluded
that no further compensation was due.
54. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber decided by majority to reject the claim of the Player
in its entirety.
d. Costs
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21251
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Adrien Sebastien Perruchet Silva, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21251
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