Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-23202
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Marko
Dugandzic
BY:
Angela COLLINS, Australia
CLAIMANT:
Marko Dugandzic, Croatia
Represented by Hrvoje Raic
RESPONDENT:
Al Tai, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-23202
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 September 2023, the Croatian player Marko Dugandzic (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Saudi club Al Tai (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of its signature until
30 June 2025.
2.
Art. 5 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“Article 5. Remuneration
5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any
taxes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, bank fees, foreign exchange charges or any other
deductions or withholdings of whatever nature in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia):
Payment type
Monthly salary (First Season)
Monthly salary (Second Season)
Currency
EUR
EUR
Amount
Net 100,000
Net 83,333
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.
On 31 January 2025, the Player and the Club (hereinafter: the Parties), concluded a
termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement) to terminate their
employment relationship.
4.
Art. 2 of the Termination Agreement provided (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 2
The club shall pay the player the overdue salary for January 2025 in the amount of 83,333
Euro NET (January salary).
In addition to the aforementioned, the club shall also pay the player all the remaining
salaries of his contract as compensation in installments as follows:
- 83,333 Euro NET (February salary).
- 83,333 Euro NET (March salary).
- 83,333 Euro NET (April salary).
- 83,333 Euro NET (May salary).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-23202
- 83,333 Euro NET (June salary).
*Each payment is processed at the end of the due month”
5.
On 15 January 2026, the Player placed the Club in default and requested the payment of
EUR 83,333 net corresponding to the last instalment (June salary) under the Termination
Agreement. The Player granted a 10-day deadline to the Club to comply with the payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 27 February 2026, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
7.
In his claim, the Player argued that despite having put the Club in default, it failed to comply
with the payment of EUR 83,333 net corresponding to the last instalment (June salary)
under the Termination Agreement.
8.
Consequently, the Player requested (quoted verbatim):
“In view of the foregoing and given that the Respondent still has not paid the
requested amounts to the Claimant, the honorable chamber is respectfully requested:
I. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant overdue payables of
net EUR 83,333.00 (eighty-three thousand, three hundred and thirty-three euros),
which matured on 30/6/2025, within 45 days as from the date of notification of the
decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
II. to condemn the Respondent to pay all relevant taxes, state contributions and
surcharges, on top of the above-mentioned net amount, within 45 days as from the
date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent;
or alternatively
to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax
certificates concerning the payment of all the above specified net amounts alongside
all the net amounts already paid to the Claimant during the term of the Employment
contract, within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter
of the reference to the Respondent; and
III. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of
5% per year on the aforementioned amount specified in point I. starting from the
1/7/2025 until the effective date of the payment, within 45 days as from the date of
notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-23202
IV. to impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, all in the light of article
12bis. of the FIFA RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Club
9.
In its reply, the Club submitted that on 27 February 2025, the Claimant entered into a new
employment contract with FC Seoul, thus securing alternative employment while still being
contractually linked to the Club. Notwithstanding the Player’s engagement with the new
club, the Club stressed that it continued to comply with its financial obligations and paid
the Player’s salaries for February, March, April and May 2025, with only the remuneration
for June 2025 remaining outstanding.
10. According to the Club, in order to properly assess any possible residual value and
determine the extent of the Player’s alleged financial loss, it requested that the Player
provide a copy of his employment agreement with FC Seoul. The Club maintained that such
documentation was essential for evaluating whether any set-off should apply between the
remuneration received under the new contract and the amounts allegedly due under the
previous one. However, the Player refused to disclose the new contract and also rejected
the settlement mechanism proposed by the Club.
11. The Club argued that the Player bore the burden of proof with respect to any damages and
that his refusal to provide the new employment contract prevented a proper assessment
of his actual financial loss. In the Club’s view, such conduct constituted a clear breach of
the Claimant’s duty to mitigate damages, as consistently required under art. 17 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) as well as
under recognized CAS jurisprudence. The Club further emphasized that any remuneration
earned under a subsequent contract must be taken into consideration when calculating
compensation, and that allowing the Player to claim full remuneration while concurrently
receiving a salary from FC Seoul would unjustifiably lead to unjust enrichment.
12. Consequently, the Club requested:
“In light of the above, the Club respectfully requests that:
1. The Player’s claim for full outstanding salary be rejected.
2. Any compensation, if due, be calculated strictly in accordance with Article 17 of the
FIFA RSTP.
3. All earnings under the Player’s contract with FC Seoul be duly considered and
deducted.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-23202
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 27 February 2026 and
submitted for decision on 14 April 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.
14. 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 (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 Croatian player and a Saudi club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
16. 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 she 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
17. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which
she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-23202
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note that it
concerned overdue payables arising from the Termination Agreement.
19. The Player argued that the Club failed to comply with the payment of EUR 83,333 net
corresponding to the last instalment (June salary) under the Termination Agreement.
20. The Club argued that the Player bore the burden of proof with respect to any damages and
that his refusal to provide the new employment contract prevented a proper assessment
of his actual financial losses. In the Club’s view, such conduct constituted a clear breach of
the Claimant’s duty to mitigate damages.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to assess whether the
Player had the obligation to mitigate his financial losses, whether he failed to comply with
such obligation, and, consequently, the amounts ultimately due by the Club.
22. The Single Judge noted that the Club did not dispute its obligation to pay the outstanding
amount claimed by the Player.
23. With respect to the Club’s argument that the Player was required to mitigate his alleged
damages due to having entered into new employment, the Single Judge observed that the
Parties concluded the Termination Agreement, through which they mutually agreed to
bring their contractual relationship to an end.
24. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the principle of mitigation of damages applies
exclusively in situations involving a unilateral breach of contract. Since the Contract was
terminated by way of the Termination Agreement, executed by mutual consent of the
Parties, no breach can be established. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the
concept of mitigation of damages is not applicable to the present dispute.
25. Moreover, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that the Termination
Agreement contained no clause imposing any obligation on the Player to mitigate potential
losses in the event he entered into a new employment contract.
26. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Club should be held liable to pay the
outstanding remuneration.
27. As a consequence, and in line with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single
Judge awarded the Player EUR 83,333 net corresponding to the last instalment (June salary)
under the Termination Agreement.
28. In addition, and taking into consideration the Player’s request for relief as well as the
constant practice of the Football Tribunal, she decided to award interest at a rate of 5% p.a.
as from 1 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-23202
29. Lastly, and concerning the Player’s request to order the Club to pay all the taxes above the
net amount awarded or to provide the tax certificates in relation to this amount, the Single
Judge noted that there was no contractual basis to accept this request, therefore she
rejected this claim of the Player.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
30. 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.
31. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment
of the amount sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the Club
at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
32. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Club 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.
33. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations,
she has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and bearing
in mind that this is the second offence by the Club within the last two years, the Single
Judge decided to impose a reprimand on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b)
of the Regulations.
34. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
35. 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.
36. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-23202
37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club 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 Club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
38. The Club 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 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
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-23202
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Marko Dugandzic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Tai, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
-
EUR 83,333 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2025
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand 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. 10
REF. FPSD-23202
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. 11