DRC - Preliminary Decisions
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21566
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Frankie Samuel Perry
BY:
Frans DE WEGER, The Netherlands, Chairperson
CLAIMANT:
Frankie Samuel Perry, Great Britain
RESPONDENT:
Manchester 62 FC, Gibraltar
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21566
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
• The player Frankie Samuel Perry (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant), who was born
in Chichester (United Kingdom); and
• The club Manchester 62 FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), which is based in
Gibraltar (British Overseas Territory) and affiliated to the Gibraltar Football Association
(GFA).
2.
On 20 October 2022, the Player was transferred in the Transfer Matching System (TMS)
from the English club, Worthing FC (Transfer ID: 55299), to the Gibraltarian club, FCB
Magpies (Transfer ID: 37122) In this transfer instruction, the Player was listed as a British
citizen.
3.
On 28 May 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Employment Contract) valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2027.
4.
The Player’s passport, provided in support of his claim, indicated that the Player was born
in Chichester in the United Kingdom, on 13 August 2004.
5.
On 2 October 2025, the Player sent an email to the Club stating that he was not paid his
salaries of June 2025 (GBP 1,250), July 2025 (GBP 1,375), August 2025 (GBP 1,375) as well as
a bonus for August 2025 (GPB 1,000) for a total outstanding of GBP 5,000.
6.
On 9 October 2025, the Player wrote to Mr. Karl Tilbury, Head of Legal of the GFA, stating
that the Club had not replied to his email of 2 October 2025, and that since then a fourth
salary (GBP 1,375) had become due.
7.
On 15 October 2025, Mr. Tilbury replied that the GFA cannot be involved in disputes
between players or coaches and clubs and directed the Player to the National Disputes
Resolution Chamber of the GFA or to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 19 October 2025, the Claimant submitted a first claim against the Respondent, which
was registered under ref. no. FPSD-21433, in which he identified himself as a British citizen.
9.
On 25 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the
abovementioned claim but informed the Player that it appeared to lack an international
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21566
dimension. Consequently, the Player was informed that the dispute was seemingly outside
of the Football Tribunal’s scope of jurisdiction, and that the case would therefore be closed.
10. On 25 October 2025, the Player submitted a new claim to FIFA. The Player insisted that FIFA
was competent to hear his claim, as per the information transmitted by the GFA.
11. The Player submitted that he had a contract with the Club valid from 1 August 2024 until
31 August 2027, under which he was entitled to a monthly salary of GBP 1,250 net,
increasing by ten percent (10%) at the start of each season, which coincides with the month
of July.
12. The Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him his salaries of June 2025 (GBP 1,250), July
2025 (GBP 1,375), August (GBP 1,375) and September 2025 (GBP 1,375), as well as a GBP
1,000 performance bonus that was supposedly due in August 2025, for a total of GBP 6,375
outstanding.
13. The Player therefore claimed the following, quoted verbatim:
“The total amount currently outstanding is £6,375 GBP, broken down as follows:
•1 months at £1,250 (June– 2025): £1250
•3 months at £1,375 (July–September 2025, reflecting 10% increase): £4125
•£1,000 bonus payment due in August 2025•Total: £6,375”
14. On 21 November 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat informed the Claimant that the matter
in question raised a preliminary procedural issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Football
Tribunal and would therefore be submitted for an expedited decision in accordance with
art. 19 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21566
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Chairperson) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
16. In doing so, he noted that this matter had been presented to FIFA on 25 October 2025 and
submitted for a preliminary decision on 21 November 2025. Taking into account the
wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the Chairperson
determined that this edition of the Procedural Rules was applicable to this matter.
17. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 19 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, the
Chairperson confirmed his competence to decide, in an expedited manner, whether this
case is affected by any preliminary procedural matter (i.e., whether the Football Tribunal
obviously lacks jurisdiction or if the claim is time-barred). Likewise, the Chairperson
highlighted that if the claim is not affected by any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA
general secretariat would be ordered to continue the procedure (cf., art. 19 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
18. The Chairperson then 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 employment-related disputes
between players and clubs with an international dimension.
19. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairperson noted that an issue regarding the Football
Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the present claim exists and must be addressed accordingly.
20. At this point, the Chairperson recalled that the wording of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations clearly implies that the first condition that needs to be compulsorily fulfilled in
order for FIFA to be competent to hear an employment related dispute between a club and
a player is that the said dispute has an international dimension. This means, in other words,
that in case the player has the same nationality from the country where the club that holds
his registration is based, the relevant dispute must be considered a purely internal
(national) matter to be decided by the competent authorities in the respective country.
21. If the parties are of the same nationality (or even if they have a second nationality), an
international dimension is only established if the player can prove that they were
considered a foreigner in the country concerned.1
See, for example, CAS 2014/A/3682 Lamontville Golden Arrows Football FC v. Kurt Kowarz & Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
1
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21566
22. In other words, if the player is a national of the country in which the club is based, the
dispute is considered to be of a purely national nature and therefore outside the Football
Tribunal’s jurisdiction. According to the Chairperson, this is because the mens legis of the
rule is to protect the parties’ access to justice and fair proceedings, while also respecting
the autonomy of the member associations and the national dispute resolution system.
23. Therefore, where the player is registered under the same nationality as the club, or both
parties indeed share the same nationality / seat, the minimum requirement of the
international dimension is not met.
24. According to the Chairperson, this is precisely the case at hand, since the Player is a British
citizen and the Club is based in Gibraltar (i.e., a British Overseas Territory). Therefore, the
Chairperson confirmed that both parties shared the same (state) nationality.
25. The Chairperson was further reassured in his conclusion by the Football Tribunal’s previous
confirmation of the absence of an international dimension in cases involving clubs from
Gibraltar (also a British Overseas Territory) and British citizens (see, for example, FPSD3466, FPSD-3467, FPSD-3468, FPSD-3529, FPSD-10562). The same rationale was also
applied in cases involving clubs based in China PR and players with Chinese nationality and
passports issued by Hong Kong (see Commentary on the Regulations, Edition 2023 – p. 4446).
26. Further, the Chairperson acknowledged that CAS had also confirmed this approach in an
award issued on 18 March 2024, when it upheld a previous decision passed by the Football
Tribunal2. In that case, the Sole Arbitrator was also dealing with the dispute between a
British player and a club based in Gibraltar, and ruled that:
• the wording of art. 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations is clear and reinforced by the
consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS in similar cases;
• the existence of the international dimension was conditional on the player being a
foreigner in the club’s country;
• the fact that the parties shared the same British nationality and the player was
registered as a British national was considered to be a decisive argument; and
• in conclusion, there was no international element for players with nationalities of
independent countries which have more than one member association of FIFA
incorporated within their territory.
2
CAS 2023/A/9957 Carlos Patrick Simeon v. Lynx Football Club Limited.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21566
27. The Chairperson emphasized that the Football Tribunal had adhered to the above
reasoning for several years and continues to do so.
28. In conclusion, the Chairperson decided that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction
to hear the claim of the Player.
b. Costs
29. Having established the above, the Chairperson 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”. While confirming that the Claimant is not a
coach under the Regulations, the Chairperson recalled that the mens legis of the cited
provision is directed at natural person, who, unlike legal persons, are not required to bear
any costs relating to proceedings before the Football Tribunal.
30. Lastly, the Chairperson decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the
Claimant, as it would be unfair in this specific case for a party who is not subject to the
Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction to have to pay any costs.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21566
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Frankie
Samuel Perry.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21566
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. 9