Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22475
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Taiga
Kitajima
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Taiga Kitajima, Japan
Represented by Shoichi Sugiyama
RESPONDENT:
Kasetsart FC, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22475
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2025, the Japanese player, Taiga Kitajima (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Thai club, Kasetsart FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2025 until 20 April 2026
or the end of the Thai League 2 of the season 2025/2026.
2.
According to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of BHT 56,000
representing 80% of his total remuneration and a monthly bonus of BHT 14,000
representing 20% of his total remuneration.
3.
On 21 November 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club stating the following (quoted
verbatim):
“[…] Although the Player has repeatedly requested, the Player has not been provided yet with
necessary VISA to stay in Thailand by Kasetsart Football Club. He is nearly expiring his
sightseeing VISA on 24 November 2025.
Thus, we request the Club to mutually terminate the football player employment contract on
22 November 2025 by the attached draft agreement.
Unless we reach the mutual termination agreement on 22 November 2025, we will terminate
the contract on 23 November 2025 with just cause under Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP. Once the
contract is terminated with just cause by the Player, the Club shall be obliged to pay i)
outstanding salaries, and ii) the compensation of the residual value of the contract. So it is
advisable for the Club to mutually terminate the Contract before we move forward this case
before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber.
Therefore, I request the Club to return the attached termination agreement with the
authorized signature of the Club by 22 November 2025.
I am the exclusive legal representative of the Player. All future communications with respect
to this matter should be directed to me. Any communication sent directly to the Player without
copying me will be deemed invalid. This letter is written without prejudice to my client’s rights
and remedies, all of which expressly remain reserved.”
4.
The attached termination agreement mentioned in the above letter of 21 November 2025,
read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“This termination agreement is entered into between Kasetsart Football Club (hereinafter
referred to as the “Club”) and Mr. Taiga Kitajima, Nationality Japanese […] (hereinafter
referred to as the “Player”) on 22 November 2025 under the terms and conditions below:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22475
1. The Club and the Player mutually and amicably agree to terminate, on this date, the
Football Player’s Employment Contract signed on 1 July 2025 between both parties.
2. The Club confirms that the Club has no economic right to the Player on or after this date.
3. The Club shall provide the necessary cooperation with the Player, its new club, the new
association, including cooperation to issue of the International Transfer Certificate, when
the Player registers with the new club.
22 November 2025 made in duplicate, with each of the parties in possession of a copy.”
5.
On 23 November 2025, the Player sent a “final request letter” to the Club stating the
following (quoted verbatim):
“Although the Player has sent the request letter on 21nd, the Club has not any reply to it.
As mentioned in the request letter, the Club has failed to take necessary procedures for VISA
for the Player, and his sightseeing VISA will be expired on 24 November 2025. Thus, we finally
request the Club again to mutually terminate the football player employment contract by the
attached draft agreement. Unless we reach the mutual termination agreement by 13:00 on
23 November 2025, we will terminate the contract on 23 November 2025 with just cause
under Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP.
Therefore, I request again the Club to return the attached termination agreement with the
authorized signature of the Club by 13:00 on 23 November 2025.”
6.
On 23 November 2025, the Player sent a letter by means of which he terminated the
Contract. In particular, he stated that “this letter serves as the official termination letter against
[the Club] of the [Contract].” The Player alleged that the Club did not provide him with a
work visa despite his multiple requests. In addition, he argued that the salary of October
2025 remained outstanding. In addition, the Player granted the Club a 15-day deadline to
remedy its default and to pay the outstanding October salary as well as the November
salary that would fall due before the expiry of such deadline. He further underlined that
“this constant default to pay the monthly amount for the Player shall strengthen just cause for
the abovementioned termination with just cause.”
7.
On 1 December 2025, the Club sent a release letter to the Player stating the following:
“1. The Club and the player mutually and amicably agree to terminate, on this date, the
Football Player’s Employment Contract signed on 1 July 2025
2. The Club confirms that The Club has no economic right to the Player on or after this date.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22475
3. The Club shall provide the necessary cooperation with the Player and it’s new club
belonged, included cooperation to issue of the International Transfer Certificate, when the
Player registers with new club.”
8.
On 4 December 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting the amount
of THB 141,166.66 corresponding to “over two months” by no later than 19 December 2025.
9.
On 8 December 2025, the Player sent a new default notice to the Club stating that “as we
repeatedly notified, the contract was already terminated. Thus we would not agree with your
proposed agreement.” In this regard, the Player proposed to the Club the following
settlement:
“The Club and the Player mutually and amicably confirm, on this date, that the Football
Player’s Employment Contract signed on 1 July 2025 (the “Contract”) was terminated on 23
November 2025.
The Club confirms that the Club has no economic right to the Player on or after 24 November
2025.
The Club shall pay THB 141,166.66 plus 5% interest as of each payment dates (as shown in
the Appendix) by 19 December 2025.
When the Club fails to pay the amount in the preceding paragraph by the stated deadline,
the Club shall pay THB 366,333.34, the residual value of the Contract, as the compensation
due to the termination with just cause by the Player pursuant to Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP.
The Club shall provide the necessary cooperation with the Player, its new club, the new
association, including cooperation to issue of the International Transfer Certificate, when
the Player registers with the new club.”
10. On 20 February 2026, the Player signed a new employment contract (hereinafter: the New
Contract) with the Bhutani club Paro valid for the “Bank of Bhutan Premier League 2026 & AFC
Challenge League 2026.”
11. The Player’s new salary under the New Contract corresponded to USD 1,200 per month.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22475
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 29 December 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
13. The Player lodged a claim with FIFA for overdue payables.
14. The Player submitted that the Club failed to arrange the necessary work visa on his behalf
despite his repeated verbal requests. As a result, he remained in Thailand under a tourist
visa only. He further asserted that by November 2025 he realized that, upon the imminent
expiry of his tourist visa, his continued stay in Thailand would become unlawful.
15. In this regard, on 21 and 23 November 2025 the Player “requested to return the draft of the
termination agreement with the authorized signature of the Club” so he could leave the Club
and the country.
16. In addition, as the Club did not reply to any of his letters, the Player considered that he had
just cause to terminate his Contract with immediate effect on 23 November 2025. In
particular, the Player alleged that “it is clear that the failure to procure working visa by the
Club for the Claimant for the long period since the commencement of the Contract shall be just
cause for the termination of the Contract under Article 14.1 of the FIFA RSTP. In addition to the
failure of visa, the Club caused constant and repeated late payments. Finally on 23 November
2025, the amount of the overdue payables was over two months. This strengthen just cause for
the early termination by Article 14.1 of the FIFA RSTP on 23 November 2025. What is more, the
Club has not satisfied its financial obligation after 15 days grace period by both of the
termination letter and the demand letter. Namely, the circumstances of this case allow for early
termination with just cause, as provided for by Article 14bis of FIFA RSTP”
17. The Player reiterated that the Contract was terminated on 23 November 2025.
18. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“Accordingly, the Claimant respectfully submits and requests the DRC to order the Club to
pay:
a. the outstanding amount equivalent to THB 141,166.66 in unpaid salaries plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the deadline of each payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 17,500 as from 1 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 70,000 as from 1 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22475
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 53,666.66 as from 1 December 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
b. the compensation equivalent to THB 366,333.34 plus 5% interest as from 24 November
2025.
In pursuance of Articles 24.1 and 24.2 of the FIFA RSTP, the Claimant further requests the
imposition of the following consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts within 45
days upon the Club:
a. imposing a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
to three entire and consecutive registration periods.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
19. Despite being invited to do so, the Club did not reply to the claim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22475
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 29 December 2025 and submitted for decision
on 26 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.
21. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Japanese player and a Thai club.
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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. 8
REF. FPSD-22475
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that this is a claim
of a Japanese player against a Thai club for breach of contract. The Chamber noted that
the Player alleged having just cause to terminate the Contract due to (i) the non-issuance
of the visa, and (ii) the outstanding salaries.
26. The Club, on the other hand, did not respond to the claim, entailing that the Chamber’s
decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
27. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and determine the consequences thereof.
28. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the following events that took place before the
termination of the Contract:
-
On 21 November 2025, the Player sent the Club a letter requesting them to sign a
mutual termination agreement otherwise he would terminate the Contract with just
cause on 23 November 2025 and the Club would have to pay outstanding salaries
and compensation. The mutual termination agreement attached in his letter of 21
November 2025 did not mention any compensation payable to the Player for such
termination.
-
On 23 November 2025, the Player sent a notice to the Club asking them to sign the
mutual termination agreement by 13h00, otherwise he would terminate the
Contract.
-
On 23 November 2025, the Player terminated his Contract and put the Club in default
for the salaries of October 2025 and November 2025 with a 15-day deadline.
29. The Chamber recalled that according to art. 14 of the Regulations, only a breach or fault of
significant gravity justifies the termination of a contract.
30. In the present case, the Chamber noted that the Player alleged that, despite his repeated
requests, the Club failed to obtain a work visa for him, and that he was “nearly expiring his
sightseeing visa on 24 November 2025.” However, the majority of the Chamber considered
that the Player did not provide any evidence establishing that he was in fact residing under
a tourist visa, that he had made multiple requests to the Club for the issuance of a work
visa, or that he would have fallen into an irregular immigration status as of 24 November
2025. The majority of the Chamber observed that no proof supporting these assertions
was submitted.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22475
31. In addition, the Chamber observed that in his letter of 21 November 2025, the Player did
not request the Club to issue his work visa or pay the alleged outstanding salaries, but
rather asked it to release him and sign a mutual termination agreement that did not include
any kind of monetary compensation. The same applies to his letter of 23 November 2025
sent before the termination.
32. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Player terminated his Contract only 42 hours
after that letter was sent alleging that he had just cause to do so due to (i) the alleged issue
with his working visa and (ii) the outstanding salary of October 2025.
33. In view of the above, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Player did not have just
cause to terminate the Contract, as (i) there is no evidence whatsoever that the Club failed
to obtain a work visa for him, nor that the Player had repeatedly requested the Club to do
so, (ii) at the time of termination, only one monthly salary was outstanding, and (iii) no
default notice was issued to the Club prior to the termination- only a request to conclude
a mutual termination agreement.
34. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber concluded that there was no evidence on file
showing that the Club’s conduct constituted a serious breach that could justify the Player’s
premature termination.
35. Having stated the above, the Chamber observed that at the time of the termination there
were outstanding salaries equivalent to THB 141,166.66. In particular, the Chamber noted
that the balance of the September 2025 salary, as well as the salary of October 2025 of THB
70,000 and the pro rata salary of November 2025 of THB 53,666.66 remained outstanding.
36. Finally, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 17,500 as from 1 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 70,000 as from 1 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 53,666.66 as from 1 December 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22475
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22475
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Taiga Kitajima, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kasetsart FC, must pay the Claimant the following amount:
- THB 141,166.66 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 17,500 as from 1 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 70,000 as from 1 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 53,666.66 as from 1 December 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22475
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