Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21916
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mehdi Abeid
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Vanessa PLAVJANIKOVA(Czech Republic), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mehdi Abeid, France
Represented by Joao Filipe Lobao
RESPONDENT:
Al Raed, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21916
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 23 August 2024, the French player Mehdi Abeid (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Saudi club Al Raed (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into a
document titled “EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER (NONSAUDI NATIONALITY)” (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from that same day, i.e., 23 August
2024, until 30 June 2026.
2.
The relevant part of art. 5 of the Contract established, inter alia, the following:
“5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any
taxes, bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Monthly Salary
Monthly Salary
From the date
23/08/2024
1/09/2024
Until date
31/08/2024
30/06/2026
Currency
USD
USD
Amount
18,551
69,565
The Club shall pay to the Player each monthly salary payment by the last day of each
month for a total of [TOTAL NUMBER OF MONTHS AS PER ART. 4.1].
(…)”
3.
As to the applicable law, art. 15 of the Contract established that:
“1. This Contract shall be subject to the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia taking into
account the specificity of sport.
2. This Contract is executed in at least three (3) copies. One copy shall be retained by the
Player, one copy shall be retained by the Club and one copy shall be duly submitted to
the Committee. In the event of any dispute, the copy of the Contract received by the
Committee shall prevail.
3. Each copy of the Contract shall be duly signed and dated by the Parties.
4. The Club shall affix its official stamp or seal to the final page of this Contract.
5. If an intermediary is involved in the negotiation of a contract, he/she shall be named
in that contract.
6. Arabic and English shall be the official and approved languages of this Contract and
any correspondence between the Parties. In the event of any dispute or conflicting
provisions arising from the wording, the English language version shall prevail.”
4.
On 31 July 2025, the parties entered into another document titled “Financial settlement to
release football player” (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement), by means of which they
mutually terminated the Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21916
5.
Art. 3 of the Settlement Agreement established:
“The Second Party, Mr. Mehdi Abeid, acknowledges having received part of his salaries
and contractual financial entitlements. The parties agree that the remaining amount
owed by the First Party, Al-Raed Club, until July 31, 2025, is USD 209065 (Two hundred
nine thousand and sixty five USD).
This amount shall be paid in full payment upon the signature of the present agreement.
Upon receipt of the full amount, the Second Party waives all current and future financial
or legal claims against the First Party and confirms full and final discharge of Al-Raed
Club from any contractual obligation.”
6.
As to the dispute resolution mechanism, art. 7 included the following (quoted verbatim):
“The parties sign this Agreement in full exercise of their rights, and undertake to comply
with it in its terms, as it does not contain any clause contrary to law, public morals,
customs or good habits and in relation to what is provided Saudi Football Federation
International Federation of Association Football. It is expressly stated that this Contract
is in full force and effect for all purposes, and in the event of a claim by any of the
signatory parties, (sic)
Disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of FIFA, as the competent first-instance body
with regard to disputes of an international dimension, pursuant to the relevant provisions
of the FIFA Regulations.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 14 November 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
8.
In his claim, the Player alleged that the Football Tribunal was competent to hear his claim,
as established by arts. 22 and 23 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), as well as by art. 7 of the Settlement Agreement.
9.
According to the Player, the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement to terminate
the Contract, and said agreement established that the remaining amount owed by the Club
to the Player until 31 July 2025 was USD 209,065, which had to be paid in full upon its
signature.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21916
10. However, according to the Player, the Club failed to make any payment under the
Settlement Agreement, and he claimed that the Club owed him USD 209,065 plus default
interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2025 until the date of effective payment.
11. The Player also requested that, as the Club failed to comply with its payment obligations
within the deadline set by FIFA, it must be subject to the disciplinary consequences
established under art. 24 of the Regulations until the full amount due to him, including
interest, was duly paid.
12. In light of the above, the Player submitted the following request for relief:
“1. To accept and uphold the present claim in full.
2. To confirm that the Respondent has breached the terms of the Financial Settlement to
Release Football Player signed on 31 July 2025 by failing to make the agreed payment of
USD 209,065.
3. To Order the Respondent to pay to the Claimant (the Player) the outstanding principal
amount of USD 209,065 (two hundred and nine thousand and sixty-five dollars).
4. To order the Respondent to pay to the Claimant default interest at the applicable rate
of 5% (five percent) annually as from 01 August 2025 until the date of effective payment,
pursuant to Articles 102(2) and 104(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
5. To impose on the Respondent the sanctions established in paragraph 1 and 2 of article
24 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
6. To establish that the Respondent shall bear all the costs of the present procedure.”
b. Position of the Club
13. In its reply, the Club argued that, since the Settlement Agreement was inherently connected
to the Contract, it was governed by the same legal framework, i.e., the Saudi Arabian law.
14. The Club further argued that the claim was inadmissible as the Player generated a
procedural defect by not putting the Club in default and not granting it 10 days to comply
with its obligations, something that, according to the Club, was required by art. 12bis of the
Regulations.
15. In addition, the Club argued that this dispute was out of the Football Tribunal’s competence
as it did not arise from the Contract, but rather it concerned an alleged breach of the
Settlement Agreement, which terminated the underlying employment relationship.
Consequently, according to the Club, this dispute was not an employment-related matter,
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21916
but rather it was a contractual debt claim arising from a post-employment settlement deed,
and as such it was not covered by art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations.
16. Furthermore, the Club submitted that the Player incorrectly relied on art. 24 of the
Regulations as a jurisdictional basis for the imposition of sporting sanctions. In the Club’s
view, said provision exclusively concerned the consequences of failing to pay amounts
already ordered within the prescribed deadlines and merely established enforcement
mechanisms, such as registration bans and playing restrictions, applicable only once the
Football Tribunal had issued a decision ordering payment. The Club argued that art. 24
governs the enforcement of existing decisions, not the establishment of jurisdiction for
new claims, and since no prior decision of the Football Tribunal ordered the Club to pay
any amount to the Player, art. 24 was irrelevant at this stage and could not serve as a
jurisdictional basis for the Dispute Resolution Chamber to hear the present matter.
Consequently, the Club maintained that the Player should have submitted the matter to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, rather than to the Football Tribunal.
17. Additionally, the Club argued that the Player’s reliance on Swiss law was fundamentally
misplaced, submitting that FIFA-specific regulations must prevail over general principles of
national law when assessing admissibility. The Club further maintained that any alleged
default under general civil-law principles did not exempt a party from complying with the
mandatory pre-litigation procedures expressly required under the FIFA Regulations.
18. As to the merits, the Club acknowledged the existence of the Settlement Agreement and
admitted that it did not fulfil the payment obligations contained therein. It alleged,
however, that the delay in payment resulted from the Club’s ongoing financial review and
restructuring process. In this order of ideas, the Club stated that such delay did not
constitute an acknowledgment of the debt in the amount claimed nor a repudiation of the
Settlement Agreement. It added that it has acted in good faith at all times and remained
committed to resolving its outstanding financial obligations.
19. The Club further accused the Player of acting with bad faith by allegedly failing to send a
written notice in accordance with art. 12bis of the Regulations, by not granting the Club a
reasonable opportunity to cure the default, by submitting the matter directly to FIFA
without exhausting the mandatory pre-litigation steps, and by requesting sporting
sanctions that, according to the Club, were procedurally unavailable at this stage.
20. In light of the above, the Club submitted the following request for relief (quoted verbatim):
“1. Uphold the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and declare that the DRC lacks
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute, which concerns a debt claim arising
from a post-employment settlement agreement falling outside the scope of Article
22(1)(b) RSTP;
2. Uphold the preliminary objection on admissibility and declare the claim
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21916
inadmissible for failure by the Claimant to comply with the mandatory procedural
prerequisite established in Article 12bis(3) RSTP (written default notice with 10-day
cure period);
3. Dismiss the Statement of Claim in its entirety;
4. Reject all requests for relief sought by the Claimant, including:
- Payment of USD 209,065;
- Default interest;
- Sporting sanctions under Article 24 RSTP;
5. Order the Claimant to bear any costs associated with these proceedings;”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 14 November 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.
22. 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 was, in principle,
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Saudi club.
23. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Club challenged the jurisdiction
of FIFA, as it argued that the matter did not arise from the employment relationship but
from a post-employment agreement governed by Saudi Arabian law.
24. The Chamber also noted that the Player, conversely, argued that the Football Tribunal had
jurisdiction under arts. 22 and 23 of the Regulations and art. 7 of the Settlement
Agreement.
25. Therefore, the Chamber acknowledged that, as to this point, its task was to determine
whether the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, i.e., whether it
qualified as an employment-related dispute under art. 22 of the Regulations.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21916
26. In this context, the Chamber first noted that, according to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, FIFA has inter alia jurisdiction to hear:
“employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international
dimension (…) .”
27. The Chamber remarked on the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, according to which
the notion of “employment-related” is broad. In particular, the Chamber noted that the
Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 459460) (hereinafter: the Commentary), addressed this issue as follows:
“A crucial aspect in such disputes, however, can often be whether a dispute is actually
‘employment-related’ (…)
In a 2019 award, the sole arbitrator considered that the DRC was competent to deal with
a settlement agreement entered into between the parties following a decision by the
national dispute resolution chamber in an underlying employment-related dispute
between a player and their club. The sole arbitrator found that disputes of this nature
had to be viewed as ‘employment-related’ for the purposes of determining FIFA’s
jurisdiction, however considering also that the two parties had agreed on a jurisdiction
clause in favour of FIFA in their settlement.
The fact that disputes of this kind, i.e. disputes between a player and a club arising from
an agreement on monies owed and remuneration from a previous employment
relationship, should qualify as ‘employment-related’ is also confirmed by the consistent
jurisprudence of the DRC. It is widely accepted that if such disputes have an international
dimension, they can be heard by the DRC.
In a recent award, CAS pointed out that the notion of employment-related disputes
includes a wider range of disputes than just simply those arising out of employment
agreements.”
28. In this context, the Chamber considered it important to note that the dispute concerned
an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, an instrument executed precisely to
terminate the employment relationship arising from the Contract. Accordingly, the dispute
remained intrinsically linked to the underlying Contract, as it would not exist independently
of it.
29. In addition, the Chamber emphasized that, pursuant to art. 7 of the Settlement Agreement,
“[…] disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of FIFA, as the competent first-instance body for
disputes of an international dimension, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the FIFA
Regulations.”, i.e., the parties to the Settlement Agreement itself included a clear jurisdiction
clause in favour of FIFA.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21916
30. Therefore, according to the Chamber, the dispute falls within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit.
b) of the Regulations, FIFA has jurisdiction to hear the claim, and the Club’s objection in this
regard must be dismissed.
31. Then, 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. Admissibility
32. The Chamber then recalled that the Club also disputed the admissibility of the claim, stating
that it was inadmissible on the grounds that the Player had failed to issue a proper default
notice and had not granted the 10-day deadline to comply with its obligations as required
under art. 12bis of the Regulations.
33. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the formal requirements set out in art. 12bis
of the Regulations relate exclusively to the possible imposition of sanctions on clubs, and
not to the admissibility of a claim.
34. The Chamber established that this interpretation was consistent with the Commentary,
which explains that “[a]s far as debtors are concerned, article 12bis is aimed exclusively at clubs
as regards the ability to impose sanctions […] [t]he notification and the 10 days are formal
requirements. Provided that both the formal and the material requirements mentioned above
are met, the DRC or PSC will have the power to impose a range of disciplinary sanctions.”. In
conclusion, non-compliance with the requirements set out in art. 12bis of the Regulations
affects only the potential imposition of sanctions on the debtor club and does not impact
the admissibility of the claim itself.
35. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s request to declare the claim
inadmissible based on the alleged non-compliance with the requirements established in
art. 12bis of the Regulations and determined that the claim was admissible.
c. Burden of proof
36. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21916
37. 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
38. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
39. The Chamber recalled that the Player argued that the Club failed to make any payment
under the Settlement Agreement, thereby falling into default as of 31 July 2025.
Accordingly, he requested payment of USD 209,065 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as
from 1 August 2025.
40. The Chamber also noted that the Club acknowledged that it failed to pay the amount of
USD 209,065 stipulated in the Settlement Agreement and claimed that this was due to its
ongoing financial restructuring process.
41. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player was entitled to the amounts claim.
42. At this point, the Chamber noted that, although the Club alleged that it was going through
financial difficulties, it failed to provide any evidence of these claims, which, in any event,
would not justify the non-payment of the owed amount under the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
43. Considering that the Club did not dispute the debt and did not provide any evidence of
having paid the amounts claimed nor any valid justification, the Chamber concluded that
the Player was entitled to the entire amount owed plus interest.
44. As a consequence, and 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
established under the Settlement Agreement, i.e., USD 209,065,
45. 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 1 August 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21916
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Club had to 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
e. Costs
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21916
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Mehdi Abeid.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is admissible and partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Al Raed, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 209,065 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2025
until the date of effective payment;
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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 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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21916
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