Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22374
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Marcelo Henrique Passos Carne
BY:
Johan VAN GAALEN, South Africa
CLAIMANT:
Marcelo Henrique Passos Carne, Brazil
Represented by Kelly Marin Noronha
RESPONDENT:
Al Jabalain FC, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22374
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2024, the Brazilian player Marcelo Henrique Passos Carne (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Jabalain FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the Contract provided as follows:
“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
Currency
American dollar
Amount
16670
The Club shall pay to the Player each monthly salary payment by the last day of each
month for a total of [200,040.00].
5.2 Fixed financial payments
The Club shall pay the following fixed financial payments to the Player (net of any taxes,
bank fees and foreign exchange charges)
3.
Payment type
Currency
Amount
Signing-on Fee
Additional
fixed
payment(s)
American dollar
American dollar
25000
25000
Payment deadline
(DD.MM.YYYY)
10.07.2024
15.02.2025
Clause 8 of the Contract established:
“Article 8. Disciplinary Sanctions
1. In the event that the Player commits a violation of any of his obligations under this
Contract or the applicable regulations, the Club may impose disciplinary sanctions
against the Player. The Club shall duly charge the Player and shall notify him in writing
of the details of such charges. The Player shall be provided with an opportunity to
respond to the charges. In particular, the Player declares that he is aware of the
applicable SAFF regulations, including the Players’ Status Regulations and the
Disciplinary and Ethics Regulations (which are freely available on the official SAFF
website).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22374
2. In the event that the Player fails to fulfil his obligations under this Contract, the Club
may impose one or more of the following sanctions against the Player in accordance
with the Club’s disciplinary rules:
a.a written warning;
b.a reprimand;
c. a fine; and/or
d.community/football service.
1. Fines for minor offences which are imposed by the Club on the same day as the offence
may not exceed the amount corresponding to one (1) day of the fixed monthly
remuneration payable to the Player (the amount to be calculated by dividing the
monthly salary by 30) under the terms of Article 5.1 of this Contract.
2. Under no circumstances shall the Club sanction the Player for the poor performance
of the team and/or alleged poor play.
3. In choosing and levying a sanction, the Club shall take into account all circumstances
of the case. The Club shall notify the Player in writing at least 7 days prior to the hearing.
The Player may be represented in disciplinary proceedings by a person (of any
nationality) authorised by the Player for that purpose.
4. The Club recognises that if the sanction consists of a fine, and such fine is deducted
by the Club from the Player’s salary, the Player is entitled to file a claim at the FIFA DRC
to assess the legitimacy of the fine.”
4.
On 31 July 2024, the Club paid the Player SAR 94,000, which, according to the Player, was
equivalent to USD 25,000.
5.
On 15 September 2024, the Club paid the Player SAR 61,823.78.
6.
On 1 October 2024, the Club paid the Player SAR 62,637.53, equivalent to USD 16,670.
7.
On 15 October 2024, the Club paid the Player SAR 63,228.16.
8.
On 15 December 2024, the Club paid the Player SAR 63,228.16.
9.
On 5 January 2025, the Club paid the Player SAR 56,350.39.
10. On 28 February 2025, the Club paid the Player USD 16,670 in cash.
11. On 14 July 2025, the Club paid the Player USD 7,509.
12. On 22 July 2025, the Club paid the Player USD 32,558.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22374
13. On 30 October 2025, the Club paid the Player USD 25,000.
14. On 20 January 2026, after the claim was lodged, the Club paid the Player USD 31,686.93.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 17 December 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
16. The Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract, under which he was entitled to
USD 200,040 as salaries and USD 50,000 as a signing fee. However, the Player stated that
he received a total of USD 190,088 and, therefore, the remaining unpaid remuneration
amounts to USD 59,952.
17. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“The Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Order the Respondent to pay outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 59,952,
plus 5% annual interest from the due dates of each instalment until full payment.
2. Declare that the Respondent has overdue payables within the meaning of art. 12bis
FIFA RSTP.
3. Impose sporting sanctions under art. 12bis(4) in the event of non-payment within the
deadline established in the decision, including but not limited to:
o
o
o
a registration ban,
deduction of points,
further disciplinary measures as deemed appropriate.
4. Order the Respondent to bear procedural costs, if applicable.”
b. Reply of the Club
18. In its reply, the Club acknowledged that the Player’s outstanding entitlements amounted
to USD 31,687, corresponding to the salaries for May and June 2025. Nevertheless, the Club
alleged that this balance had already been paid on 20 January 2026.
19. Regarding the difference claimed by the Player, the Club argued that the Player was subject
to a disciplinary decision issued by the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee of the Saudi
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22374
Arabian Football Federation (SAFF), whereby he was fined USD 20,000 as a result of
unsporting conduct toward a match referee, consisting of physical assault. The Club alleged
that this disciplinary sanction was settled by deducting the Player’s salaries for March and
April 2025, upon his consent, and that the amounts were duly remitted to the SAFF.
20. Hence, the Club argued that there were no outstanding remuneration owed to the Player
and requested that the claim be rejected.
c. Player’s reaction to the alleged payments
21. After having been invited by the FIFA General Secretariat to exclusively file his comments
regarding the alleged payment, the Player acknowledged having received USD 31,686.93
on 20 January 2026. Nonetheless, the Player argued that this payment did not extinguish
the Club’s default and may only be considered for the purpose of deduction from the
outstanding amount, without prejudice to interest and sporting consequences.
22. The Player also filed comments beyond the scope of the invitation, which were disregarded
by the FIFA General Secretariat based on art. 23 of the Procedural Rules Governing the
Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
23. Lastly, the Player updated his requests for relief as follows:
“VI. FINAL POSITION OF THE CLAIMANT
In light of the above, the Claimant respectfully requests the deciding body to:
• take note of the payment made on 20 January 2026 exclusively as a partial deduction;
• reject in full the Respondent's arguments concerning alleged disciplinary salary
deductions;
• confirm the existence of overdue payables within the meaning of art. 12bis FIFA RSTP;
and
• issue a decision ordering the Respondent to pay the remaining outstanding
remuneration, plus interest, and providing for the application of the relevant sporting
sanctions in case of non-compliance.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22374
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 17 December 2025 and submitted
for decision on 10 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
25. 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 Brazilian player and a Saudi Arabian club.
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22374
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
30. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him several
salaries.
31. Additionally, the Single Judge noted that the Club acknowledged a debt but argued that it
had settled it on 20 January 2026, after the Player filed his claim before FIFA. Moreover, it
mentioned that the remaining amount had been deducted from the Player’s salary based
on a disciplinary sanction imposed by the SAFF.
32. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player is entitled to the amounts claimed.
33. First, the Single Judge noted that the Player argued that the Club failed to pay him the full
salaries for April, May, and June 2025, as well as the balance of the salaries for January and
March 2025. In this regard, the Single Judge remarked that the Player provided several
pieces of evidence demonstrating the payments made by the Club and that, in none of
them, is there a specific reference to the purpose of the payment. In this context, the Single
Judge interpreted that, with all the payments, the Club settled the older debts, based on
the standard practice of the Football Tribunal.
34. Based on the above, the Single Judge considered that in his claim the Player actually
requested the balance of the salary for March 2025, totalling USD 9,942, and the full
salaries for April, May, and June 2025. While the Club acknowledged the debt for the
salaries for May and June 2025 and paid an amount on 20 January 2026, as acknowledged
by the Player, it argued that the salaries for March and April included a deduction based
on a fine imposed by the SAFF.
35. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that, in line with established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), clubs may, as a general
principle, impose on players and offset such amounts against salary only where the parties
have expressly agreed to the possibility of set-off. That said, CAS has applied a restrictive
approach to such mechanisms, emphasizing that any set-off of fines must not deprive an
employee of their basic salary nor be implemented in an abusive or disproportionate way
(see, for example, CAS 2018/A/5807). Moreover, according to the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, financial penalties – including fines or any comparable monetary
sanctions – cannot be used by clubs as a tool to circumvent or reduce outstanding financial
obligations owed to players. The Single Judge also stressed that setoffs are subject to the
player being fully informed about the allegation and being given a fair opportunity to
defend himself if necessary.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22374
36. While the Club argued that the Player agreed to this deduction, the Single Judge noted that
it failed to provide any evidence of such consent. Therefore, the Single Judge considered
that the Club was not entitled to deduct this alleged fine from the Player’s salaries and that
the alleged deductions could not be enforced.
37. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Club failed to provide any evidence
demonstrating that (i) the SAFF opened disciplinary proceedings against the Player, (ii) the
SAFF, as a result of those disciplinary proceedings, imposed a fine on the Player, (iii) the
amount of such fine was USD 20,000, and (iv) the Club paid this amount to the SAFF. In fact,
the Club failed to prove that the alleged behavior it intended to attribute to the Player ever
occurred or that the Player has ever been informed about the alleged misconduct.
Nevertheless, even had the Club provided any of this evidence, the parties still did not have
any agreement regarding the deductions, and the Club did not prove that any due process
was followed in order to apply such deduction.
38. For the sake of completeness, in the Single Judge’s view, clause 8.4 of the Contract was not
applicable to the present matter, as the alleged deduction was not linked to any disciplinary
sanction imposed by the Club, but rather to a sanction allegedly issued by the SAFF.
39. Hence, the Single Judge considered that the Club’s position could not succeed and that the
Player was entitled to his full salaries.
40. The Single Judge also underscored that the debt claimed by the Player amounted to USD
59,952, and the Club only paid USD 31,686.93, stating that USD 20,000 was deducted. Even
if, arguendo, the Single Judge was to consider that the Club in fact deducted this amount,
there was no explanation regarding the remaining USD 8,265.07, which the Club had
likewise failed to prove it paid.
41. Based on the above considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the Club failed to
provide any valid justification for the non-payment of the Player’s salary and should
therefore pay him the outstanding amount in full. Furthermore, given that the Player
argued that the partial payment made by the Club should only be taken into account as a
deduction from the outstanding remuneration - without prejudice to his entitlement to
interest – the Single Judge interpreted that he continued to claim interest on the partial
payment, to which he was entitled. Consequently, the Single Judge found that Player was
entitled both to the outstanding remuneration and to interest accrued.
42. In this context, the Single Judge determined that with the payment of USD 31,686.93, the
Club settled the older debts, i.e. the remaining balance for March 2025 (USD 9,942), the full
salary for April 2025 (USD 16,670), and a partial payment for May 2025 (USD 5,074.93), and
should pay 5% interest p.a. over these amounts as from each respective due date until 20
January 2026. In addition, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the Player USD
28,265.07 with 5% interest p.a. for the balance for May 2025 and the full salary for June
2025, also as from each respective due date until the date of effective payment.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22374
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22374
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.
51. 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.
52. 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
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22374
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Marcelo Henrique Passos Carne, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Jabalain FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 9,942 as from 1 April 2025 until 20 January
2026;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 16,670 as from 1 May 2025 until 20 January
2026;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,074.93 as from 1 June 2025 until 20 January
2026;
- USD 28,265.07 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 11,595.07 as from 1 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 16,670 as from 1 July 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22374
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22374
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