Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22067
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Ottman Dadoune
BY:
Calum BEATTIE, Scotland
CLAIMANT:
Ottman Dadoune, France
Represented by Laura Grange
RESPONDENT:
Ratchaburi FC (RBFC), Thailand
Represented by Christophe Larrouilh
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22067
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 June 2025, the French player Ottman Dadoune (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player) and the Thai club Ratchaburi FC (RBFC) (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 20 June 2025
until 30 April 2026.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly
salary of USD 12,000 on the last business day of each month.
3.
In addition, the Respondent undertook in the Contract to provide the Claimant with
accommodation, a car, two flight tickets Paris-Bangkok-Paris for him and his family, as well
as visa expenses for him and his family.
4.
On 17 August 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement to
terminate the Contract (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
5.
The Termination Agreement read as follows, quoted verbatim:
“[…] The club and the player mutually agree to terminate the professional agreement as follow:
The player will receive the following amount as final payment 12,000 usd x 3 = 36,000 usd +
6,000 usd = 42,000 USD and 28,200 thai bahts. the total amount will be paid the 22 august.
The player Wife and kid will receive one return ticket from Bangkok to Lyon.
Club and players shall not bring any lawsuit against this agreement to any court and both
parties will not demanding for any financial compensation […]”
6.
On 20 August 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a payment arrangement
(hereinafter: the Payment Arrangement), which stipulated the following, quoted verbatim:
“[…] This is to confirm the arrangement following release letter signed the 17 august 2025, under
which I will accept payment of your outstanding balance of 42,000 usd and 22,200 thai bahts in
installments. You must sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter indicating admission of
the full amount of the amount and acceptance of term of our agreement.
I will, then, accept payment of the account, monthly instalment commencing
USD 14,000 = 455,840 Thai baht (maximum payment date August 22, 2025)
USD 14,430 = 469,840.80 Thai baht (by bank transfer to Ottman Dadoune's account by
September 30, 2025 at the latest)
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22067
USD 14,430 = 469,840.80 Thai baht (by bank transfer to Ottman Dadoune's account by October
30, 2025 at the latest)
The amounts indicated correspond to the contract termination agreement with compensation:
USD 42,860 or 1,395,521 Thai baht
The Bangkok-Lyon plane tickets for Dadoune Ottman, his wife, and his daughter are covered by
the club and will be purchased by August 26, 2025
In the event of non-payment, player Dadoune Ottman may claim payment of the full amount of
his salary stipulated in his initial contract, i.e., all of his salary due until April 30, 2026.
Mr. Dadoune Ottman has the right to sue the club and FIFA to claim compensation for the full
amount of his contract.
[…]
Please return the sign copy of this agreement with this agreement with your first payment before
the commencement date of the monthly installements otherwise this agreement is null and void
[…]”
7.
On 22 August 2025, the Respondent remitted USD 14,000 to the Claimant.
8.
On 31 October 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default as follows, quoted
verbatim:
“[…] Dear Sir/Madam,
I contact you concerning my situation.
On 12 June 2025, we concluded a contract by which you hired me as a professional football
player until 30 April 2026.
I am supposed to receive a net monthly salary of 12 000 USD.
On 17 August 2025, we had agreed to terminate the employment contract by mutual agreement
in exchange for payment by your club of the sum of USD 42 000 USD and 28 200 THB before 22
August 2025 and the payment of my plane tickets for my family and me.
On 20 August 2025, following the club's request, we have agreed on a new payment schedule:
- 14 000 USD = 455 840 THB before 22 August 2025 ;
- 14 430 USD = 469 840.80 THB before 30 September 2025 ;
- 14 430 USD = 469 840.80 THB before 30 October 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22067
We agreed also that the Bangkok-Lyon plane tickets for me, my wife and my daughter are
covered by the Club and will be purchased by 26 August 2025.
I accepted this new payment schedule because we had agreed to the following clause:
“In the event of non-payment, player Dadoune Ottman may claim payment of the full amount
of his salary stipulated in his initial contract, i.e., all of his salary due until 30 April 2026. Mr.
Dadoune Ottman has the right to sue the club and FIFA to claim compensation for the full
amount of his contract.”
To date, your club has not honored the agreement. You have not paid me two installments, and
I did not receive my plane ticket on time. I only received 14 000 USD.
In accordance with our agreement, I therefore request that you compensate me in full for my
salaries until 30 April 2026.
This represents 10 months with a monthly salary of 12 000 USD :
12 000 USD x 10 = 120 000 USD – 14 000 USD = 106 000 USD
You also failed to meet the deadlines for my plane ticket, and I had to pay for it myself. I am also
requesting a refund for the ticket in the amount of 33 910 THB. Please find the bill.
As a result, I kindly ask you to pay me the amount of 106 000 USD and 33 910 THB within the
next 10 days to my bank account. Should you fail to abide by your obligation of payment as
defined under the contract, reference is made to article 12bis of the FIFA RSTP based on which I
reserve my right to file a claim with the FIFA Football Tribunal to enforce my rights. […]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 24 November 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
10. In his claim, the Player argued that, due to the Club’s failure to comply with its financial
obligations under the Termination Agreement, and in light of the wording of the Payment
Arrangement, he is entitled to his remuneration under the Contract until 30 April 2026. Put
differently, it is the position of the Player that he is entitled to USD 106,000, after accounting
for the Club’s partial payment of USD 14,000 made on 22 August 2025.
11. In addition, the Player argued that he is entitled to THB 33,910 as reimbursement of flight
tickets.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22067
12. Having stated the above, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“- USD 106,000 net as compensation for termination of his contract, plus 5% interest p.a. from
October 31, 2025;
- Alternatively, USD 28,860 net as compensation for breach of contract with the following interest
on arrears:
•plus 5% p.a. interest on the sum of USD 14,430 from October 1, 2025;
•plus 5% p.a. interest on the sum of USD 14,430 from October 31, 2025
- THB 33,910 net for the reimbursement of the plane ticket, plus 5% interest p.a. from August 27,
2025;
- EUR 5,000 in legal fees.”
(Freely translated from French)
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent acknowledged a delay in payment to
the Claimant due to a problem with its accounting system.
14. In addition, the Respondent presented proof of payment to the Claimant in the amount of
THB 981,868.16.
c. Claimant’s comments regarding the Respondent's alleged payment
15. In his additional comments, the Claimant acknowledged having received a payment of USD
30,645.88 from the Respondent on 8 December 2025 and stated that this amount must be
broken down as follows:
“- 469,840.80 THB, or 14,430 USD, corresponding to one salary and part of another salary;
- 469,840.80 THB, or 14,430 USD, corresponding to one salary and part of another salary;
- 4,504 THB, or 143.17 USD, corresponding to late payment interest;
- 2,574 THB, or 81.82 USD, corresponding to late payment interest;
- 33,910 THB corresponding to the reimbursement of the plane ticket.”
(Freely translated from French)
16. In this context, the Claimant’s amended requests for relief were the following:
“- $77,140 net in compensation for breach of contract ($106,000 – $14,430 – $14,430), plus 5%
interest per annum from October 31, 2025
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22067
- €5,000 in legal fees.”
(Freely translated from French)
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 November 2025 and submitted
for decision on 18 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.
18. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 French player and a Thai club.
19. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
20. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
21. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22067
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note that, according
to the Claimant, he is entitled to his remuneration under the Contract until 30 April 2026
due to the Respondent’s failure to comply with its financial obligations under the
Termination Agreement and in light of the wording of the Payment Arrangement.
23. In addition, the Single Judge took note of the position of the Respondent, who
acknowledged a delay in payment to the Claimant due to a problem with its accounting
system.
24. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, (i) whether the Claimant is entitled to his
remuneration under the Contract until 30 April 2026; (ii) whether the claimed amounts by
the Claimant had in fact remained unpaid by the Respondent; and, if so, (iii) whether the
Respondent had a valid justification for not having complied with its financial obligations.
25. In light of the position of the Club, the Single Judge first observed that it remained
undisputed that the Club failed to remit the Player USD 14,430, corresponding to the
second instalment of the Payment Arrangement due on 30 September 2025.
26. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled the following wording of the Payment
Arrangement, quoted verbatim:
“[…] This is to confirm the arrangement following release letter signed the 17 august 2025, under
which I will accept payment of your outstanding balance of 42,000 usd and 22,200 thai bahts in
installments. You must sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter indicating admission of
the full amount of the amount and acceptance of term of our agreement.
I will, then, accept payment of the account, monthly instalment commencing
USD 14,000 = 455,840 Thai baht (maximum payment date August 22, 2025)
USD 14,430 = 469,840.80 Thai baht (by bank transfer to Ottman Dadoune's account by
September 30, 2025 at the latest)
USD 14,430 = 469,840.80 Thai baht (by bank transfer to Ottman Dadoune's account by October
30, 2025 at the latest)
The amounts indicated correspond to the contract termination agreement with compensation:
USD 42,860 or 1,395,521 Thai baht
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22067
The Bangkok-Lyon plane tickets for Dadoune Ottman, his wife, and his daughter are covered by
the club and will be purchased by August 26, 2025
In the event of non-payment, player Dadoune Ottman may claim payment of the full amount of
his salary stipulated in his initial contract, i.e., all of his salary due until April 30, 2026.
Mr. Dadoune Ottman has the right to sue the club and FIFA to claim compensation for the full
amount of his contract. […]”
27. After the analysing the aforementioned wording, the Single Judge determined that the
Payment Arrangement contained a clause entitling the Player to claim the residual value of
the Contract should the Club fail to pay any of its instalments. In this respect, the Single
Judge considered that the Payment Arrangement ensured a fair outcome and discouraged
contractual breaches.
28. Having stated the above, the Single Judge underlined that the residual value of the Contract
corresponds to a pre-established amount tied to its intrinsic worth, rather a distinct
penalty. In other words, the Single Judge considered that the Club had the choice to either
fulfil its financial obligations under the Payment Arrangement or face the consequence of
paying the full residual value of the Contract.
29. Within this framework and given the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge
pointed out that, as of 1 October 2025, the Player became entitled to the residual value of
the Contract due to the Club’s failure to comply with the payment date of the second
instalment under the Payment Arrangement.
30. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the Club’s
obligation under the Payment Arrangement is proportionate and reasonable, as it
corresponds to the Player’s remuneration under the Contract if it would not have been
terminated prematurely. Put differently, the Single Judge held that the Player was entitled
to his remuneration under the Contract until 30 April 2026 and that, by failing to comply
with its financial obligations under the Payment Arrangement, the Club could no longer
benefit from the Player’s waiver of his compensation for the premature termination of their
employment relationship.
31. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge also emphasised that the Payment
Arrangement was not a unilateral concession by the Player as the Club benefited from it by
securing a clean break and avoiding potential further disputes or claims related to the early
termination of the Contract.
32. As a result, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable under the Payment Arrangement to pay
to the Claimant the residual value of the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22067
33. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the
burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Payment
Arrangement concluded with the Claimant. Nonetheless, the Single Judge pointed out that
the evidence provided by the Respondent only partially proves the payment of the
amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant. In fact, the Single Judge recalled that the
Claimant acknowledged having received from the Respondent USD 14,000 on 22 August
2025 and USD 30,645.88 on 8 December 2025.
34. Consequently, the Single Judge decided, in accordance with the general legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, to award the Player USD 63,354.12, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
USD 108,000 (USD 12,000 x 9 months) as the residual value of the Contract, i.e., the
monthly salaries from August 2025 to April 2026
−
USD 14,000 as the Respondent’s payment on 22 August 2025
−
USD 30,645.88 as the Respondent’s payment on 8 December 2025.
35. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on USD 63,354.12 as from 31 October 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
36. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
37. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
38. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
39. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22067
40. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
42. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
43. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
44. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
45. The Single Judge 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
46. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
47. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22067
48. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22067
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ottman Dadoune, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ratchaburi FC (RBFC), must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 63,354.12 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 October
2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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. 13
REF. FPSD-22067
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. 14