Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4646
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Khaleem
Shaquille Hyland
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member
Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member
CLAIMANT:
Khaleem Shaquille Hyland, Belgium
Represented by Paul Alan Mohamed
RESPONDENT:
Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Nasr Eldin Azzam
Page 3
REF FPSD-4646
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 13 September 2020, the Belgian and Trinidadian player Khaleem Shaquille Hyland
(hereinafter: the player) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Batin (hereinafter: the club) concluded
an employment agreement, valid as from 30 September 2020 until 29 September 2022.
2.
Based on the contract, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts:
Sporting season 2020/2021: the total amount of USD 1,100,000 net, as follows:
• USD 250,000 net as advance payment, according to the club due on 30 September 2020;
• USD 850,000 net, divided into 12 monthly salaries of USD 70,833 each, according to the
club due between 30 September 2020 and 30 September 2021;
Sporting season 2021/2022: the total amount of USD 1,000,000 net, as follows:
• USD 150,000 net as advance payment, according to the club due on 30 September 2021;
• USD 850,000 net, divided into 12 monthly salaries of USD 70,833 each, according to the
club due between 30 September 2021 and 29 September 2022.
3.
On 16 December 2021, the DRC decided in case FPSD-3108/pmu, a dispute between the
player and the club, to award the player the amount of USD 504,262.02 (corresponding to
the salaries in the period between February and June 2021 in the amount of USD 354,262.02,
plus an amount of USD 150,000 due on 13 August 2021), as well as a flight ticket in the
amount of EUR 1,030.74. The grounds of said decision were communicated to the parties on
11 January 2022.
4.
During the proceeding the matter in the case FPSD-3108/pmu, the player amended his claim
and, despite originally requesting outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract, withdrew his request for outstanding remuneration.
5.
The club explained that in the period before the decision in case FPSD-3108 was passed, it
tried to settle the dispute with the player, however to no avail.
6.
In April 2021, the player participated in two World Cup qualification matches for the national
team of Trinidad and Tobago, and that as a result, he agreed with the club that he would
absent between 21 March and 6 or 7 April 2021, so that he could be back to play for the
club in its next match on 10 April 2021.
7.
What is more in the period between 8 April and 12 April 2021, the player kept in contact
with the club, explaining that he would return late to the club, due to transit and COVIDissues.
8.
On 5 April 2021, the club requested the player to return to the club’s premises, as he was
absent for a longer period that the authorized one.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4646
9.
On 12 April 2021, due to transit and COVID-issues, the player managed to return to the club.
10. On 17 April 2021, the player put the club in default for the outstanding amount of USD
141,666 (February and March 2021 salaries), providing it a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its
default. As a result, the club, on 28 April 2021, paid the requested amount.
11. On 22 April 2021, a disciplinary hearing was held in relation to the player’s late return after
his participation in two matches of the national team of Trinidad and Tobago, however the
club accepted the player’s explanation and took no further action.
12. After the club’s last match on 30 May 2021, the player again reported for international duty
with the national team of Trinidad and Tobago on 5 and 8 June 2021, despite the club being
reluctant to release him.
13. On 15 June 2021 (and later also on 18 and 22 June 2021), the FIFA normalization committee
of the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association requested the club to release the player to
join the national team of Trinidad and Tobago for the CONCACAF Gold Cup residential
training camp and matches to be played during a period between 24 June 2021 up to
potentially 2 August 2021.
14. On 16 June 2021, the club informed the player that he would need to join the club’s
preseason training camp on 1 July 2021 and wished to be informed by 20 June 2021 from
which city the player would return to Saudi Arabia.
15. On 23 June 2021, the player reports for international duty training camp with the national
team of Trinidad and Tobago and played in two CONCACAF Gold Cup qualifiers on 3 and 6
July 2021.
16. On the same day, 23 June 2021, the player put the club again in default for the outstanding
amount of USD 212,499 (March, April and May 2021) and bonuses in the amount of SAR
125,000, providing a 24 hours’ deadline to remedy its default.
17. On 27 June 2021, the player’s representative requested the club to release the player,
however the club did not reply.
18. On 1 July 2021, the player put again the club in default, for several unspecified outstanding
salaries.
19. After his international duties with the national team of Trinidad and Tobago, the player,
despite being owed the outstanding salaries for May, June and July 2021, indicated to the
club that he would return to the club’s premises, however that he needed assistance to enter
Saudi Arabia, i.e. help with the correct travel documentation as well as a flight ticket from
Belgium to Saudi Arabia, which the club however did not do.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4646
20. On 19 July 2021, the player put the club in default for the outstanding salaries for the month
of April and May 2021 (USD 141,666), the outstanding bonus of SAR 125,000 and the
allegedly outstanding advance payment for the season 2021/2022 (USD 150,000), providing
it a 3 days’ deadline to remedy its default.
21. On 20 July 2021, the player eventually returned to Saudi Arabia, however, was not allowed
to join the first team on the pre-season training camp with the club in Egypt. Instead, he was
forced to train with the youth team and the club signed a new foreign player.
22. During the same month, July 2021, the club was allegedly under the impression that the
player had terminated his contract on 21 July 2021, which is however denied by the player.
23. On 21 July 2021, the player sent a letter to the club, in which he explained the ‘grounds for
unilateral breach of contract and or possible termination for just cause under art. 14bis’ and
that he ‘wishes to lodge claim with FIFA under art. 14bis RSTP for unilateral breach of contract
on grounds of just cause and contractual payments owed under the current contract plus
compensation for damages’.
24. On 10 August 2021, the club indicated to the player its wish to facilitate a transfer to another
club.
25. What is more, in the period after August 2021, the player was isolated from the club’s first
team and the club – according to the player - only every now and then met its contractual
obligations towards him, i.e. it paid his accommodation costs and car costs.
26. On 9 November 2021, the player put the club in default for the outstanding salaries for the
period between August and October 2021, providing it with a 2 days’ deadline to remedy its
default, however to no avail.
27. On 13 November 2021, the player put the club in default for the outstanding salaries for the
months of August, September and October 2021 in the total amount of USD 212,499,
providing it with a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to no avail.
28. On 27 November 2021, the player served in a hand a termination notice to the club, by means
if which he terminated his contract. In reply, the club allegedly threatened the player that he
would be denied an exit visa to leave the country, however said visa was later on provided to
the player.
29. On 28 November 2021, the player also served a notification of unilateral termination of his
contract to the club via email.
30. After the unilateral termination of the contract, the player informed FIFA that he remained
unemployed.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4646
II. Proceedings before FIFA
31. On 23 December 2021, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player
32. In his claim, the player explains that the club was always late with making salary payments,
which eventually lead to the decision passed under number FSD-3108/pmu, as well as that
the club refused to help him with the Saudi entrance visa, that he was de-registered from the
league and that he was forced to train with the youth team of the club.
33. According to the player, the majority of the problems between him and the club arose as the
club did not timely pay him his salaries and was not happy with his international duties for
the national team of Trinidad and Tobago.
34. What is more, the player explains that in November 2021, the salaries for the months of
August, September and October 2021 were outstanding, as a result of which he is entitled
to the outstanding salaries and compensation for breach of contract.
35. The requests for relief of the player, were the following:
Outstanding salaries in the total amount of USD 283,332, broken down as follows:
• USD 70,833 as outstanding salary for the month of August 2021, plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 2 September 2021;
• USD 70,833 as outstanding salary for the month of September 2021, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 2 October 2021;
• USD 70,833 as outstanding salary for the month of October 2021, plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 2 November 2021;
• USD 70,833 as outstanding salary for the month of November 2021, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 2 December 2021;
• SAR 26,376 as reimbursement for the costs of a flight ticket.
Compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 556,664, broken down as
follows:
• The residual value of the contract, i.e. USD 566,664, corresponding to 8 monthly
salaries of USD 70,833 each for the period between December 2021 and July 2022,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 November 2021.
What is more, the player also requested USD 15,000 as legal costs.
b. Position of the club
Page 7
REF FPSD-4646
36. In its reply, the club contested the competence of FIFA to deal with the matter at hand, as
the player had already previously lodged a claim in connection with the alleged termination
of the contract (case FPD-3108), as a result of which the matter at hand should be declared
inadmissible due to the principle of res iudicata. What is more, according to the club, the
player violated the estoppel principle.
37. Further, the club argues that, since it appealed the decision in the case FPSD-3108 before
CAS, the current matter should be suspended until CAS issues an award.
38. What is more, the club explained that the contract between the parties was valid between
13 September 2020 and 29 September 2022 and that in the period between 30 September
2020 and 1 May 2021, the player had received a total amount of SAR 2,796,868, which
corresponds to USD 745,737.98. The club explains that this covers the advance payment of
USD 250,000, as well as 7 monthly salaries for the period between October 2020 and April
2021), i.e. an approximate amount of USD 496,000.
39. Additionally, the club argues that the player was released for international duty with the
national team of Trinidad and Tobago in the period between 20 and 29 March 2021, under
the condition that the player would return after said period, taking into account that at the
time, Saudi Arabia had a mandatory quarantine period.
40. The club explains that the player did not return in time and that as a result, on 5 April 2021,
it sent a letter to the player, asking him to return. The club explains that eventually, the player
sent a voice message via WhatsApp, informing the club that he stayed in Trinidad and Tobago
after the match with the national team to see his family. What is more, the club explains that
the player could easily leave Trinidad and Tobago without much travel restrictions.
41. In addition, the club explains that the player contradicted himself in explaining why he
returned late to Saudi Arabia, and that he did not took the necessary diligence to make sure
that his return to Saudi Arabia would be possible, as a result of which he missed a match of
the club on 10 April 2021 and another one a few days later.
42. Further, the club explains that the player, when he returned to the club on 12 April 2021,
immediately went to club’s gym to practice, without quarantining, and thus endangering his
teammates.
43. The club also explains that the decision from the disciplinary hearing which took place on 22
April 2021, would be communicated after the player would have returned from his second
call up for the national team of Trinidad and Tobago in July 2021, but but was interrupted
due to the player’s unilateral termination of the contract.
44. Also, the club explains that the default letter of the player dated 23 June 2021 was
unfounded, as the player had no contractual right to claim the bonus of SAR 125,000 and as
only the salary for May 2021 was outstanding. Also, the default letter of 19 July 2021 cannot
Page 8
REF FPSD-4646
be considered, as there was not entitlement for the player to a bonus of SAR 125,000 and
also because the amount of USD 150,000 was only due on 30 September 2021. Also, the
club indicated that the player did not proof that he was forced to leave the hotel he was
staying in.
45. The club additionally explains that it deemed that the contract between the player and the
club had already ended in August 2021.
46. As to the substance of the claim, the club is of the opinion that the player did not have the
right to file a claim under art. 14bis, as this was already done in the previous case FPSD-3108.
47. What is more, the club remains of the opinion that the player had already terminated his
contract without just cause with the club on 21 July 2021 (as on that moment only the salary
for May 2021 was outstanding and because he gave unreasonable time limits), as a result of
which no compensation for breach of contract shall be due.
48. Additionally, the club points out that in July 2021, the player claimed amounts that were not
due to him and also never contested any amounts that were paid to him in SAR. Furthermore,
the club explains that the player was not dissatisfied with the arrears in salary payments that
sometimes occurred, and at one point even confirmed that the late payments are ‘a normal
oversight of the club’.
49. As to the termination of the contract made on 27 November 2021, the club explains that said
termination was not made in line with art. 14bis, as no 15 days’ deadline was granted to the
club to remedy its default. What is more, the club explains that the player acted in bad faith
and aimed at the termination of the contract, whereas the club tried to do everything it could
to avoid a termination of the contract.
50. Additionally, the club requests FIFA to determine that, in case it deems that the player had a
just cause to terminate the contract, none of the parties deserves the payment of
compensation for breach of contract or subsidiary, that the compensation due to the player
should be mitigated.
51. Lastly, the club indicates that ‘pre and post’ the termination letter dated 21 July 2021, it
received offers ranging between USD 200,000 and USD 600,000 for the player, which offers
where however all rejected by the player and his agent. Therefore, a mitigated compensation
would maximum amount to USD 1,000,000 -/- USD 600,000 = USD 400,000.
52. The requests for relief of the club were the following:
•
•
•
To declare the claim inadmissible, or
To suspend the proceedings before CAS issues an award in the appeal against the
case FPSD-3108, or
To reject the claim of the player, or
Page 9
REF FPSD-4646
•
•
To determine that none of the parties is entitled to compensation for breach of
contract, or
To order that the compensation for breach of contract due to the player should be
mitigated to USD 400,000.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
53. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 23 December 2021 and submitted for
decision on 24 March 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021
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.
54. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Belgian
/ Trinidadian player and a Saudi Arabian club.
55. However, the members of the Chamber took note of the noted that the club objected to the
admissibility of the present claim, alleging that an identical dispute between the parties had
already been decided upon by the Dispute Resolution Chamber in the decision FPSD-3108 on
16 December 2021 and, as such, FIFA would no longer be allowed to deal with the claim at
stake by virtue of the application of the legal principle of res judicata.
56. In view of the above, the Chamber held that it had to establish whether, considering the
general principle of res judicata, it could enter the substance of the matter and pass a
decision. Accordingly, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to briefly recall that, on the basis
of the principle of res judicata, a decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the
substance of a case in the event that another or even the same – competent – deciding body
has already dealt with the same matter by passing a final and binding decision.
57. Having said that, the Chamber went on to analyse the evidence on file regarding the previous
decision allegedly passed in an alleged identical matter. In this respect, the Chamber observed
that indeed a decision had been passed by the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 16 December
2021 between the same parties, however that said case is currently appealed at before the
Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) and is thus not final and binding.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4646
58. The Chamber also turned its attention to the criterion of the object of the matter in dispute.
In this respect, it started by acknowledging that the identity of the subject matter is fulfilled
if the reason to claim and the relevant requests of the two claims are similar. When comparing
the claim previously lodged in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the one at hand,
the Chamber noted that both of them derived from the contract concluded between the
parties on 13 September 2020, however that the player in the claim nr. FPSD-3108
(eventually) only requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration, whereas in the current
matter with the nr. FPSD-4646, the player claims further outstanding salaries and additionally
claims compensation for breach of contract, as he deems that he terminated in force between
him and the club on 28 November 2021 with just cause.
59. Consequently, the Chamber held that the mentioned legal actions were based on the club’s
alleged violation of the same employment contract, however that the requests for relief were
different and also were focusing on different legal concepts, i.e. the non-compliance of the
contractual obligations by the club vs. establishing the consequences of an alleged breach of
the contract by the club. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the condition of identity of the
object of the matter in dispute is not fulfilled.
60. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that both legal actions indeed involve
identical parties to the dispute, however that the object of the disputes and requests for relief
are different. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the present case is not affected by res
judicata and FIFA is a position to deal with the current dispute. The claim is thus admissible.
It follows therefrom that there is no reason to put the matter at hand on hold until an award
in the appeal pending before CAS in the matter FPSD-3108 has been reached.
61. 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 December 2021, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
62. 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
Page 11
REF FPSD-4646
63. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
64. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination
of the contract by the player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial
obligations by the club as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
65. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid
by the club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had
in fact been fulfilled.
66. The Chamber first of all wished to point out that from the documentation on file, as well as
the contents of the case file in case FPSD-3108, that it appears that the contract remained
into force between the parties in the period after 21 July 2021, the date on which – according
to the club – the player had terminated the contract. The alleged termination letter dated 21
July 2021 is unequivocally entirely clear, and the player explicitly denies that he had
terminated the contract on said date and limited his claim in the case FPSD-3108 (eventually)
to outstanding remuneration.
67. What is more, in the period after 21 July 2021, the club apparently informed the player that
he had to train alone, and indicated that the player should start looking for new employment
at another club. Furthermore, it remained uncontested between the parties that the club –
albeit on an irregular basis – kept paying accommodation allowance and car allowance to the
player.
68. According to the members of the Chamber, all these elements lead to the conclusion that
the contract remained in force in the period after 21 July 2021.
69. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of
at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
70. The Chamber noted that the player claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the months of August, September, October and November 2021.
Page 12
REF FPSD-4646
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player has provided written evidence of having put
the club in default on 9 November 2021, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating
the contract on 28 November 2021.
71. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the club - which was not able to demonstrate at all
that it had made any payments to the player regarding his monthly salaries in the period
between August and November 2021 as it allegedly only made some payments regarding
housing and car allowances - does not prove at all the payment of the amounts claimed as
outstanding by the player.
72. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player, on 28 November 2021, had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the contract.
ii. Consequences
73. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
74. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 4 salaries under
the contract, amounting to USD 283,332.
75. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 283,332 (i.e. 4
times USD 70,833).
76. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective
payment.
77. What is more, the members of the Chamber decided that also the player’s request for the
reimbursement of the costs a flight ticket in the amount of SAR 26,376 can also be awarded,
as the player submitted documentary evidence that he effectively incurred said costs and
there is a contractual basis for awarding such claim. Moreover, the request is also in line with
the Chamber’s standing jurisprudence to award the player a flight ticket home after the
unilateral termination of the contract with just cause.
78. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
Page 13
REF FPSD-4646
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
79. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
80. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
81. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of USD 566,664 (i.e. the salaries due in the period between December 2021
and July 2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
82. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
83. However, in this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the player remained
unemployed and that therefore, no further mitigation shall be applied and no additional
compensation shall be granted to the player.
84. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 566,664
to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
Page 14
REF FPSD-4646
85. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim, i.e. 23 December 2021, until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full amount
due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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.
89. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
90. 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
91. 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.
92. 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4646
93. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-4646
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
4.
The claim of the Claimant, Khaleem Shaquille Hyland, is admissible.
5.
The claim of Claimant is partially accepted.
6.
The Respondent, Al Batin, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- USD 283,332 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective
payment as follows:
• on the amount of USD 70,833 as from 2 September 2021;
• on the amount of USD 70,833 as from 2 October 2021;
• on the amount of USD 70,833 as from 2 November 2021;
• on the amount of USD 70,833 as from 2 December 2021.
- SAR 26,376 as reimbursement of the costs of a flight ticket;
- USD 566,664 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 23 December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
7.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
8.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
9.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021
edition), if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
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.
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.
10. 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.
11. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Page 17
REF FPSD-4646
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 19