Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22147
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Omar Al Soma
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Omar Al Soma, Syria
Represented by Mohammed Ahmed Aldaini
RESPONDENT:
Al Orobah, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Lamjed Belkahia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22147
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 January 2025, the Syrian player Omar Al Soma (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant)
and the Saudi club Al Orobah (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 6 January 2025 until 6 July
2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 5 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of EUR 200,000 net. In addition,
the Player was entitled to the following bonuses:
o “USD 100,000 – scoring 10 or more goals”.
o “USD 150,000 – if the team secures its place in the Roshen league”.
3.
On 10 June 2025, the Parties concluded the so-called “Mutual consent Agreement”
(hereinafter, the Termination Agreement), pursuant to which:
“An agreement had [sic] been reached between two parties, on this day 10/06/2025.
To mutually terminate the Professional player contract with the first team of [the Club].
Taking this into consideration with full understanding, the club certifies that the professional
player has no obligations towards it, and the professional player certifies that the club has
not obligation towards him. And still 800,000 dollar eight hundred thousand dollar and it
will be paid in three instalments:
- 200,000 dollar on 01/07/2025
- 300,000 dollar on 01/08/2025
- 300,000 dollar on 01/09/2025”.
4.
Also on 10 June 2025, the Parties concluded a financial clearance (hereinafter, the Financial
Clearance), under which the Player confirmed that:
“I have received my financial entitlements from my contract, which begins on [06/01/2025]
and ends on [06/07/2025], with a total amount of (one million and two hundred thousand
dollars) USD 1,200,000. I have received two months’ salary as well as all bonuses and
incentives included in the contract. The only remaining amount due to me from the club is
(eight hundred thousand dollars) USD 800,000, to be paid as follows:
- 200,000 dollar on 01/07/2025
- 300,000 dollar on 01/08/2025
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22147
- 300,000 dollar on 01/09/2025”.
5.
On 27 October 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of seven days
to pay USD 800,000 under the Termination Agreement.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 30 November 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Player asserted that the Club has failed to pay any of the amounts
stipulated in the Termination Agreement and explicitly acknowledged by it in the Financial
Clearance.
8.
Invoking the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Player argued that he is entitled to receive
USD 800,000, plus 5% interest per annum as from the day following each respective due
date.
9.
Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the above, [the Player] respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
a) Admit the present Claim;
b) Hold [the Club] liable for breach of the Employment Agreement;
c) Order [the Club] to pay [the Player] the following amounts:
USD 200,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum pro rata die, as from 02 July 2025
until the date of effective payment;
USD 300,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum pro rata die, as from 02 August
2025 until the date of effective payment;
USD 300,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum pro rata die, as from 02
September 2025 until the date of effective payment;
d) Order [the Club] to bear all costs related to this procedure if and as applicable”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22147
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club argued that it had encountered serious financial difficulties following
its relegation from the Saudi First Division League at the end of the 2024/2025 season,
confirmed on 25 May 2025. The Club submitted that these circumstances constituted a
situation of force majeure, partially exempting it from liability, as the relegation was,
according to the Club, unforeseeable at the time the Termination Agreement was signed.
11. The Club further submitted that, although none of the instalments had been paid, it
attempted to negotiate a revised payment plan with the Player’s representative both
before and after receipt of the formal notice, but no agreement was reached.
12. Additionally, the Club acknowledged that the Player scored 11 goals during the 2024/2025
season (thus meeting the requirement for the goal-related bonus). However, it stressed
that the Club did not maintain its position in the Roshn Saudi League, meaning that this
second bonus was not payable. According to the Club, the Termination Agreement was
intended to fully settle the Player’s financial rights, yet the agreed amount of USD 800,000
was “overvalued” in light of what it described as the Player’s actual sporting contribution. In
this regard, the Club stated that: “The Club disputes that this amount represents fair
compensation, given the Player’s limited impact on the team’s result, which led to relegation”.
13. On this basis, the Club argued that the outstanding balance should be reduced to a
maximum of USD 500,000, taking into account the initial payment of USD 200,000
confirmed in the Financial Clearance, as well as the USD 150,000 bonus not due because
of relegation.
14. The Club also emphasised that the Termination Agreement contains no clause providing
for interest in the event of delayed payment and therefore stated that it “proposes to pay
the principal without interest”.
15. Based on the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“En conséquence, le Club demande à la DRC de:
a) Rejeter la proposition de règlement de la FIFA et ouvrir une procédure régulière;
b) Constater que le Club n'est pas en faute délibérée et exonérer partiellement sa
responsabilité pour force majeure et difficultés financières;
c) Réduire le montant dû à 500,000 USD, sans intérêts payable en 6 tranches mensuelles
d) Rejeter la demande d'intérêts de 5 % p.a.;
e) Ordonner une expertise indépendante sur les entitlements du Joueur;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22147
f) Condamner le Demandeur à supporter les frais de procédure;
g) Accorder toute autre mesure équitable, y compris une médiation gratuite (article 26 des
Règles Procédurales)”.
Freely translated into English:
“Consequently, the Club requests that the DRC:
a) Reject FIFA’s proposal settlement and initiate formal proceedings;
b) Find that the Club is not at fault and partially exempt it from liability due to force majeure
and financial difficulties;
c) Reduce the amount owed to USD 500,000, without interest, payable in six monthly
instalments;
d) Reject the claim for interest at 5% p.a.;
e) Order an independent expert assessment of the Player’s entitlements;
f) Order the Claimant to pay the costs of the proceedings;
g) Grant any other equitable relief, including free mediation”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22147
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 30 November 2025 and submitted for
decision on 12 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.
17. 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 DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Syrian player and
a Saudi club.
18. 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
19. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
20. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22147
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for overdue payables arising from the
Termination Agreement and the Financial Clearance concluded between the Parties on 10
June 2025.
22. The DRC first observed that it is undisputed that, through the Termination Agreement and
the Financial Clearence, the Parties mutually agreed to terminate the Contract concluded
on 6 January 2025. It is equally undisputed that, under both agreements, the Club
undertook to pay the Player USD 800,000 in three instalments as follows:
o USD 200,000 on 1 July 2025;
o USD 300,000 on 1 August 2025; and
o USD 300,000 on 1 September 2025.
23. In this respect, while the Player submitted that the Club has failed to pay any of the
aforementioned instalments, the Club, for its part, argued that its serious financial
difficulties following relegation constitute a force majeure situation preventing it from
making payment. The Club also contended that the outstanding amount should be reduced
to USD 500,000, after deducting an alleged initial payment of USD 200,000 and the bonus
of USD 150,000 following the Club’s relegation, and further submitted that no interest
should accrue.
24. Against this background, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that their task was
to determine, based on the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed
amounts have in fact remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid
justification for not having complied with its financial obligations.
25. The DRC noted at the outset that, in casu, the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the Termination Agreement and the Financial
Clearance concluded between the Parties.
26. However, the Chamber observed that the Club submitted no documentary evidence
demonstrating payment of any of the agreed instalments. Furthermore, the Financial
Clearance itself directly contradicts the Club’s assertion that USD 200,000 was paid: it
clearly states that USD 800,000 remained outstanding and expressly lists USD 200,000 as
still due on 1 July 2025. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that there is no basis to
determine that any payment was made.
27. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Player is, prima facie, entitled to
USD 800,000 under both the Termination Agreement and the Financial Clearance.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22147
28. Nevertheless, the Chamber took note of the Club’s contention that its relegation at the end
of the 2024/2025 season constitutes a force majeure situation partially exempting it from
liability.
29. In this regard, the Chamber recalled its longstanding and consistent jurisprudence,
according to which financial difficulties per se do not constitute a valid reason to justify the
failure to fulfil contractual obligations (in this regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 23 July 2025,
Donkor, DRC Decision of 16 January 2025, Mendes de Andrade, DRC Decision of 6 June
2025, Atal).
30. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Club submitted no evidence whatsoever to
substantiate its alleged financial difficulties or to demonstrate the existence of any force
majeure event, therefore failing to discharge its burden of proof in accordance with art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
31. In any event, the Chamber emphasised that relegation is an inherent and foreseeable
sporting outcome, and thus cannot be regarded as an unforeseeable or extraordinary
event capable of constituting force majeure. Furthermore, the Club itself acknowledged that
relegation was confirmed on 25 May 2025, i.e., well before the Parties executed the
Termination Agreement and the Financial Clearance on 10 June 2025. Any financial
repercussions were therefore known, or at least reasonably foreseeable, at the time the
Club voluntarily undertook binding payment obligations. As reaffirmed in the
jurisprudence of this Chamber, contracting parties must exercise appropriate financial
diligence before entering into commitments; they cannot later rely on predictable financial
constraints to avoid performance (in this regard, DRC Decision of 27 August 2024, Petrovic).
32. In light of these considerations, the DRC unanimously held that the Club lacked any valid
justification to deviate from the fundamental legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. The
Club is therefore fully liable to pay the Player the amount of USD 800,000.
33. 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% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following its
respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
o Over the first instalment of USD 200,000, as from 2 July 2025;
o Over the first instalment of USD 300,000, as from 2 August 2025; and
o Over the first instalment of USD 300,000, as from 2 September 2025;
34. The DRC added that awarding default interest is standard practice within the Football
Tribunal and is also consistent with general principles of contract law.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22147
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
35. 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.
36. In this regard, the DRC 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.
37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
38. 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.
39. The DRC 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
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22147
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Omar Al Soma, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Orobah, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o USD 800,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 200,000 as from 2 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300,000 as from 2 August 2025 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300,000 as from 2 September 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22147
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. 12