Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16846
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Mark Herold Goulon
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mark Herold Goulon, France
Represented by Duarte Costa
RESPONDENT:
Johor Darul Ta'zim Football Club, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16846
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 May 2022, the French player Mark Herold Goulon (hereinafter, the Claimant or the
Player) and the Malaysian club Johor Darul Ta'zim Football Club (hereinafter, the Respondent
or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 1
January 2023 until 30 November 2023.
2.
Pursuant to Schedule A of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of USD 15,000 “(…) paid no later
than the 7th of the following month”.
3.
Furthermore, in accordance with Schedule B of the Contract, the Player was also entitled
to the following benefits:
- USD 15,000 as sign-on fee;
- MYR 3,000 per month as house allowance;
- 4 economic flight tickets; and
- A car for personal use.
4.
Pursuant to Clause 9.4:
“During the valid term of the Contract, if the Club receives an amount that meets the Release
Clause fee as stated in Schedule C, the Club must allow the Player to negotiate and conclude a
contract with the New Club.
i.
5.
The Release Club may only be activated at the end of the current Season or at the beginning
of the new Season. The Release Clause shall not be activated during the second transfer
window of the season”.
In this respect, Schedule C of the Contract provides as follows:
“1. The amount of the release clause must be mutually agreed between the Player and the Club
upon signing of this contract. The amount agreed must be stated in this Schedule.
2. The Player’s Release Clause fee is RM 20,000,000.00”.
6.
On 7 and 8 November 2022, the Player and an alleged spokesperson of the Club had the
following WhatsApp conversation:
[Player]: “I’m not coming bro. Too tired after game”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16846
[Club]: Shares a PDF version of the Contract and types “There you go. I’m still laughing, why
don’t trust me? Call me later I have also something else for you”.
[Player]: “Ok I call you later”.
7.
On 1 February 2023, the Player and the Malaysian club Negeri Sembilan Football Club
concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2023 until 17 December 2023.
8.
In accordance with this new contract, the Player was entitled to receive USD 9,000 per
month.
9.
Furthermore, the Schedule B of this new contract provided the following:
“The Club will provided (sic) to the Player a monthly payment of RM 2,500.00. The Player is
responsible to find his own Transportation & Accommodation”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 20 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. The Player initially argued that the Club failed to provide him with a flight ticket to Malaysia
and that he therefore had to purchase it himself. According to the Player, upon his arrival
in Malaysia, he was denied access to the Club and was not allowed to train.
12. Moreover, the Player sustained that after several phone calls, on 20 January 2023 the
manager of the Club orally informed that the latter had decided not to execute the Contract
nor register it with the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM), and that he was free to seek
a new club. According to the Player, he requested the Club an official communication in
this regard, to no avail.
13. The Player sustained that, during January 2023, he requested several times to be integrated
in the Club’s activities, and that the Club repeatedly denied his requests.
14. Based on the above, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without just
cause on 20 January 2023, and consequently claimed being entitled to compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of MYR 20,000,000 pursuant to Clause 9.4 and Schedule
C of the Contract. In this respect, the Player argued that although the aforementioned
clause is described as a “release clause”, its meaning does not align with its literal
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16846
interpretation. According to the Claimant, “(…) the player and the club agreed upon this clause
to establish a compensation mechanism aimed at providing certainty and reducing the potential
for disputes over damages (…). Thus, it should be respected and treated as a pre-determined
compensation mechanism”.
15. The Player further argued that “(…) the called release clause is clear, specific, and agreed upon
by both parties, and was to be considered essentially a predetermined compensation
mechanism for breach of contract, allowing the player to leave in exchange for the fixed sum
due to the club as compensation, as well for the club’s breach, since it puts a monetary value on
the early termination of the contract”.
16. Subsidiarily, the Player argued to be entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of USD 180,000 and MYR 33,000, representing the residual value of the Contract
as follows:
- USD 165,000 as remuneration (i.e., USD 15,000 for January to November 2023);
- USD 15,000 as sign-on fee; and
- MYR 33,000 as house allowance (i.e., MYR 3,000 for January to November 2023).
17. In addition, the Player also claimed being entitled to an additional amount of USD 90,000
based on the egregious circumstances of the case. In particular, the Player denounced that
he:
i. Hadn’t his contract registered in the Malaysia FA;
ii. Was prevented for attending the teams trainings;
iii. Have been banned from the Club environment;
iv. Was extremely pressured to find a new club by himself, alone in his country; and
v. Didn’t get paid one single dollar for his contract.
18. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the above, the Claimant player respectfully requests FIFA to:
i.
Determine that the “professional player’s contract” signed on 9 May 2023 between
claimant player and respondent club, is valid and binding.
ii.
Determine that the respondent club unilaterally terminated the employment contract with
the player, without just cause.
iii.
Order the respondent club to pay to claimant player, as compensation for breach of
contract:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16846
a. 2.000.000.00 RM as agreed compensation as provided in contract Professional’s
player’s contract – Schedule C plus 5% interest as from 31 January 2023;
Subsidiarily,
b. The amount of 180.000 USD as the residual value of the contract, plus interest of 5% as
of 31.01.2023 until the date of effective payment, as well 33.000,00 RM, as the
allowance amount as contractually defined in Schedule B plus 90.000 USD as additional
compensation for the reason provided in points 97 to 109 of the claim. These payments
shall be made on a net basis, free of any taxation, the Respondent being responsible
for filling and payment of all taxes relating to any payment due to the Claimant.
iv.
Order the Respondent to bear any costs incurred with the present procedure”.
b. Position of the Respondent
19. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
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 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 20 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 23 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 of the January 2025 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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC 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 Malaysian 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 (January 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16846
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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract and its consequences.
26. The DRC initially observed that the Player argued that the Club never provided him with a
flight ticket to Malaysia, and that he therefore had to incur in this cost to travel there. In
addition, the Chamber observed that, according to the Player, upon his arrival in Malaysia
he was denied access to the Club and was prevented to train. The Player further argued
that, on 20 January 2024, the Club’s manager orally informed him that the Club had decided
not to execute the Contract nor to register it with the FAM. According to the Player, he
requested the Club an official communication in this regard, to no avail, and he was
repeatedly denied being integrated in the Club’s activities despite his several requests.
Based on the foregoing, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract on 20
January 2023, and claimed to be entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation
for such purported breach of contract.
27. The members of the Chamber also noted that the Club failed to reply to the claim despite
being invited to do so. Therefore, the DRC underscored that the decision will be made
based on the arguments and evidence on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Regulations).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16846
28. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its main task was to determine whether,
as argued by the Player, the contract was terminated by the Club. Only in such a case would
a further analysis on the existence or otherwise of just cause and its potential
consequences be necessary.
29. The DRC also underscored that, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
the Player bore the burden of proving that the unilateral termination of the Contract, from
which he now seeks compensation, took place.
30. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber could not help but note that the only
allegation made by the Player that has been proven in the case at hand is the conclusion
of an employment contract with the club on 9 May 2022.
31. In this regard, the DRC noted that, although the player claimed to have had to pay for the
cost of the flight ticket to travel to Malaysia, there was no evidence of such payment or any
travel itinerary on file.
32. Furthermore, the Player did not provide any evidence regarding his alleged exclusion from
the Club's activities. In this regard, although the player claimed to have repeatedly asked
the Club to allow him to participate in its activities, the DRC noted that there was no
evidence on file to this effect either.
33. Finally, according to the Player, on 20 January 2023, the Club allegedly informed him orally
that the Contract would not be executed and that it would not be registered with the FAM.
The Player also claimed to have requested a written communication to this effect from the
Club, although the Chamber again noted that the Player did not provide any evidence in
support of any of the foregoing allegations.
34. In light of the foregoing, and recalling the content of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
the Chamber determined that the Player failed to prove that the Contract was unilaterally
terminated by the Club, and therefore decided to reject the Player’s claim for compensation
for breach of contract, as no breach of contract could be established in the case at hand.
35. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber did not overlook the fact that
the Player was able to sign a new employment contract with another Malaysian club on 1
February 2023. In other words, the DRC considered that the Player’s explanations regarding
his travel to Malaysia could make sense. Nonetheless, the Chamber stressed that this was
not sufficient to confirm his allegations regarding the alleged unilateral termination of the
Contract, which were not substantiated at all.
36. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the above is irrespective of the
Player’s entitlement to his monthly remuneration after the entry into force of the Contract
until the conclusion of his new employment contract with the Malaysian club Negeri
Sembilan Football Club. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the Respondent did not reply
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16846
to the claim, and therefore did not submit any evidence of compliance with the financial
terms of the Contract.
37. Accordingly, in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, and taking into
account that the Contract entered into force on 1 January 2023 and that the Player signed
the new contract on 1 February 2023, the DRC decided that the Player is entitled to receive
his remuneration and house allowance for January 2023 (i.e., USD 15,000 and MYR 3,000,
respectively), together with the sign-on fee of USD 15,000.
38. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the DRC in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5%
per annum, both on the monthly salary and the sign-on fee, as from 31 January 2023 in line
with the Player’s petitum.
39. Lastly, and so as not to contravene the legal principle of ne ultra petita, the Chamber
decided not to award interest over the house allowance.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16846
44. 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
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16846
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mark Herold Goulon, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Johor Darul Ta'zim Football Club, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 31
January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
- MYR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration.
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. 11
REF. FPSD-16846
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to article 57 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. article 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