Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13911
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ibrahim
Mansour Ibrahim Elsayed
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahim Mansour Ibrahim Elsayed, Egypt
Represented by Bander Omar Tarkoni
RESPONDENT:
Al Mustaqbal, Libya
Represented by Muah Tashani
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13911
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 18 November 2023, the Egyptian player Ibrahim Mansour Ibrahim Elsayed (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Libyan club Al Mustaqbal (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract valid for the 2023/2024 season
(hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
According to the information retrieved from the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
2023/2024 season in Egypt runs from 27 July 2023 to 15 August 2024.
3.
Item 4 of the Contract reads as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Item (4): salary
1- The [Club] shall pay to the [Player] monthly salary an amount of dollars 11,000 (NINE
thousand DOLLARS) to be:
5000$ upon signing the contract
1500$ after eighth match
1500$ after eighth match return stage
1000$ before last match
The Player is entitled to financial reward not exceeding one thousand dollars in the event
of promotion to the Premier League”.
4.
Item 9 of the Contract reads as follows, quoted verbatim:
“1. This contract supersedes all prior agreements or negotiations between the two
parties. Any thing that is not covered by this contract shall be subject to the provisions of
the Libya Labor Law, the complementary ministerial decisions. Any provision in this
contract violating to the Law shall be deemed null and void and shall not affect the other
items of the contract. Any amendment to this contract by an unauthorized body shall
also be null and void.
2. Any dispute which may occur between the two parties on this contract or its
interpretation shall be subject to the jurisdiction of LFF”.
5.
On 21 November 2023, the Club sent a letter to the Ministry of Interior requesting, inter
alia, permission for the Player to enter Libya in order to fulfill his contractual obligations.
6.
On 13 December 2023, the Player was issued a visa valid until 12 January 2024.
7.
From 16 to 20 December 2023, the Player participated in training sessions with the Club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13911
8.
On 23 December 2023, the Player and the Club signed a termination agreement
(hereinafter: the Termination Agreement), which reads as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Pursuant to the contract executed on 18th November 2023 and the subsequent
performance evaluation, both parties have unanimously agreed to terminate the
contract amicably.
Termination Basis:
In accordance with Article 8, Section 4, which allows contract termination if both parties
mutually agree, and Section 5 (e), which permits termination if the second party fails to
fulfill essential obligations stipulated in the employment contract.
Justification:
The [Player] did not exhibit the anticipated athletic performance as observed in the video
presented to the club. The video, recorded a while ago, did not accurately reflect the
player’s current capabilities.
Termination Agreement:
Both parties hereby confirm the termination of the contract. The player expressly waives
any claims for the advance payment or any additional financial obligations, effective
immediately upon the signing of this [agreement].
Any contradictions between the Arabic and English text the Arabic version shall prevail
mother tongue”.
9.
On 24 December 2023, the Player sent a letter to the Egyptian Embassy in Libya reporting
on the situation he allegedly faced the previous day. The letter reads, inter alia, as follows:
“In detailing the sequence of events, Mr. Abdelfattah, a member of the Club, initially
connected with me through an Egyptian individual named ‘Islam Mohamed’ offering me
the opportunity to provide my services as a professional footballer for the 2023-2024
season. Upon my initial acceptance, they subsequently forwarded an employment
contract dated 18 November 2023, which encompassed all the essential elements of our
agreement. According to the terms outlined in the contract, the club committed to
remunerating me a total amount of USD 11,000 ("eleven thousand dollars") for the entire
duration of the season. After reviewing and signing the employment contract, I promptly
transmitted it directly to the Club. Upon their receipt of the signed contract, the club
initiated the necessary arrangements for my travel and subsequently furnished me with
a flight ticket.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13911
Upon my arrival at the club in Libya, they requested that I join the training sessions
before fulfilling the terms agreed upon in the contract, particularly with regard to the
signing fee. Despite their requests, none of our agreed-upon terms were implemented.
Instead, they demanded that I provide my services by participating in training sessions
and matches, all the while failing to uphold the rights outlined in the employment
contract.
On 23 December 2023, without providing any justifying reasons, the Club unilaterally
requested to terminate the contract. However, I refused to do so and insisted that they
fulfill their obligation to provide me with all my remuneration outlined in the
employment contract. In response, five individuals associated with the club brought me
to an empty room and subjected me to physical assault, including beatings and verbal
abuse. They forced me to sign numerous documents of which I was unaware of the
contents. Under duress and to ensure my safety, I signed these documents without
knowledge of their content”.
10. On 28 December 2023, the Club apparently issued the Player with plane tickets to return
to Egypt.
11. On 2 January 2024, the Player sent a default notice to the Club in which he:
•
requested to be provided with proof of his registration with the Club after signing
the Contract;
•
acknowledged that the Club had failed to pay his salaries for November and
December 2023 and the USD 5,000 sign-on fee;
•
acknowledged that the Club had forced him to sign termination documents
against his will and without knowledge of their contents; and
•
demanded that the Club provided proof of registration and payment of the
outstanding remuneration within the following 15 days, under penalty of
termination and litigation before FIFA.
12. On 26 January 2024, the Player sent an e-mail to the Club in which he acknowledged that
his previous notice had remained unanswered. Consequently, he prompted the Club to
compensate him for the damage suffered within the following 5 days.
13. On 28 January 2024, the Player reiterated his request to the Club, with a copy to the Libyan
Football Federation (LFF).
14. In parallel, on 7 January 2024, the Player signed a new contract with the Egyptian club
Mekady Sports Club for a period of one year and six months (i.e., the 2023/2024 and
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13911
2024/2025 seasons). Accordingly, the Player would be entitled to a total remuneration of
EGP 10,000, to be paid as follows:
•
EGP 5,000 for the 2023/2024 season; and
•
EGP 5,000 for the 2024/2025 season.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 4 March 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. The following is a brief
summary of the parties’ respective positions.
a. Claim of the Player
16. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause on
23 December 2023, the same date in which he was forced to sign documents of unknown
content, under duress. Referring to Swiss Law and to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal
Tribunal (SFT) on the issue, he argued that any such documents (if submitted by the Club)
should be considered invalid and disregarded.
17. In support of his argument, the Player referred to his letter to the Egyptian Embassy and
the default notices sent to the Club, which allegedly documented the “illegal situation” and
the Club’s abusive behaviour towards him.
18. Furthermore, the Player stated that the Club did not register him after signing the Contract,
which, according to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, also constituted a breach of
contract. Likewise, he claimed that the Club’s failure to pay his sign-on fee of USD 5,000
also constituted a breach of contract per art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP), as it amounted to almost half of the value of the Contract,
i.e., approximately 8 times his monthly salary.
19. In light of the above, the Player requested to be awarded the following amounts:
•
USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration, calculated as follows:
-
•
USD 5,000 as the sign-on fee;
USD 750 as November 2023 salary; and
USD 750 as December 2023 salary.
USD 6,000 as compensation for breach of contract, equivalent to the residual value
of the Contract for the period between January and June 2024;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13911
USD 4,500 as additional compensation (i.e., six months’ salary) due to the
“aggravating circumstances”, namely:
•
-
the impact of the early termination on his sporting career;
-
the negative impact on his market value; and
-
the Club’s bad behaviour by ignoring the correspondence and preventing him
from participating in the Club’s agenda.
•
5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amounts from the due dates until the date
of payment.
•
USD 2,000 as contribution towards legal costs.
b. Reply of the Club
20. On 19 April 2024, the Club filed its reply to the Player’s claim.
Jurisdiction
21. As a preliminary matter, the Club emphasized that (i) the Player was a North African
national and was therefore hired as a “local player”; and (ii) the Contract was an “internal
work contract, not a professional player contract, and it is a contract submitted to the Libyan
authorities for visa and residency purposes”.
22. Furthermore, the Club referred to Item 9 of the Contract and argued that any dispute, such
as the present one, should be dealt with by the LFF.
Substance
23. The Club also submitted its version of the facts and, in particular, of the termination of the
Contract. It alleged that the Player’s remuneration indeed amounted to USD 9,000 (instead
of the USD 11,000 mentioned due to a “printing error”) and that the Contract was
terminated by mutual consent because “he did not exhibit the anticipated athletic
performance”.
24. The Club submitted a copy of the Termination Agreement allegedly signed by and between
the parties by mutual consent, together with a photograph taken on the same occasion. In
doing so, the Club denied having committed any act of violence against the Player and
insisted that they had decided to end their relationship on good terms, which ultimately
led to his transfer to the subsequent club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13911
c. Unsolicited comments of the Player
25. On 24 April 2024, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that the submission
phase in this case had been closed and asked the Player confirmation of his current
employment situation (cf., art. 23 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal).
26. On 1 May 2024, the Player submitted a copy of his new contract with Mekady Sports Club,
together with unsolicited comments on the Club’s reply.
27. On 10 May 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Player’s latest
correspondence and informed him that the admissibility of such unsolicited comments
would be examined by the DRC in due course.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. 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 4 March 2024 and submitted for decision on
30 May 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
29. 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 RSTP
(February 2024 edition), the DRC is – in principle – competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Egyptian player and a Libyan club.
30. At this point, the DRC acknowledged that the Club had challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction to
enter into the substance of this case by stating that (i) the Player was registered as a “local
player”; and (ii) the Contract contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the LFF.
31. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each issue in turn.
Registration as “local player”
32. The Chamber first emphasized that, notwithstanding any possible registration of the Player
as a “local player” within the boundaries of the LFF – whose regulations are not available in
the file – the Player is Egyptian and the Club is Libyan. Consequently, the DRC confirmed
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13911
that the present case had an international dimension and fell within the scope of art. 22,
par. 1, lit. b) of the FIFA RSTP (February 2024 edition).
Jurisdiction clause
33. The Chamber then recalled that the claim at hand was submitted by the Player on 4 March
2024 and that, in accordance with the RSTP (edition February 2024) (hereinafter: the
Regulations), this edition was applicable to the case at hand. However, pursuant to art. 26,
par. 1 of the Regulations, “art. 22 par. 1, b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as
from 1 January 2025. Any other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”.
34. Consequently, the Chamber determined that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
RSTP (edition of May 2023), FIFA is in principle competent to hear an employment-related
dispute between a club and a player with an international dimension. However, the parties
may explicitly opt in writing that such a dispute be decided by an independent arbitration
tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the association
and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Such an arbitration clause must be included
either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the
parties. The independent national arbitration body must ensure fair proceedings and
respect the principle of equal representation of coaches and clubs. It shall also respect the
principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard
Regulations, which entered into force on 1 January 2008.
35. In casu, the DRC acknowledged that, while it was true that the Contract contained a
jurisdiction clause in favour of the LFF, it was for the Club to prove that such federation in
fact has a structured dispute resolution system and, most of all, that the relevant body(ies)
complied with the FIFA standards as set out in the abovementioned Circular no. 1010 and
NDRC Standard Regulations.
36. In this regard, the Chamber found that the Club had failed to meet its burden of proof.
Consequently, the DRC decided that the Club’s objection to FIFA’s competence to deal with
the matter in question should be rejected.
37. In parallel, the DRC also referred to art. 23 of the Procedural Rules and emphasized that
the unsolicited comments filed by the Player on 1 May 2024 were inadmissible.
b. Burden of proof
38. 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 TMS.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13911
c. Merits of the dispute
39. Having been 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
40. The Chamber moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a claim
by the Player against the Club for breach of contract.
41. In a nutshell, the Chamber observed that the Player argued that the Club terminated the
Contract prematurely and without just cause and then forced him to sign a waiver /
financial release. As such, he claimed entitlement to outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract, including additional compensation for the
aggravating circumstances.
42. The Club, on the other hand, disputed the Player’s narrative and stated that the termination
was mutually agreed between the parties. It relied on the Termination Agreement to deny
any debt to the Player.
43. Against this background, the DRC determined that its task was to establish the context
surrounding the termination of the Contract and the ensuing consequences.
Termination
44. The Chamber first highlighted that both parties confirmed that they had signed the
Termination Agreement on 23 December 2023, but put forward contrasting narratives as
to the context of that event. The Player argued that he signed the document under duress
and after being physically assaulted by the Club, while the latter denied the allegations and
stated that the Player signed the document of his own free will.
45. In light of the above and for ease of reference, the DRC recalled that the Termination
Agreement stated, inter alia, as follows:
“Justification:
The [Player] did not exhibit the anticipated athletic performance as observed in the video
presented to the club. The video, recorded a while ago, did not accurately reflect the
player’s current capabilities.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13911
Termination Agreement:
Both parties hereby confirm the termination of the contract. The player expressly waives
any claims for the advance payment or any additional financial obligations, effective
immediately upon the signing of this [agreement]”.
46. The Chamber’s first conclusion from the above was that the Termination Agreement did in
fact contain a clear and unequivocal waiver by the Player of any credit under the Contract.
47. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC also recalled that the mere signing of a contract (in
this case, the Termination Agreement) is not sufficient to ensure the enforceability of its
contents. In particular, the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) establishes that, in order to assess whether a transaction is
permissible, the court/deciding body is required to carry out a balancing of interests and
to consider whether the reciprocal claims waived by each party are of comparable value.
In other words, whether there is an appropriate equivalence between the parties’
reciprocal concessions, especially when a waiver is included in the relevant document.
48. On this topic, and contrary to the Club’s argument, the Chamber could not find in the case
at hand any reciprocal concession on the Player’s part that could counterbalance the waiver
of his entire remuneration under the Contract.
49. In this regard, the DRC considered decisive that:
•
at the time the Termination Agreement was signed, a significant part of the Player’s
remuneration was undisputedly outstanding (i.e., the sign-on fee);
•
the Player immediately challenged the legality of the Termination Agreement by
contacting the Egyptian Embassy and putting the Club in default on several
occasions, to no avail; and
•
the Club did not provide any documentation suggesting that the Player was in any
way interested in or benefitted from the early termination of the Contract, which –
on the contrary – appears to have been entirely at the Club’s initiative.
50. In fact, the Chamber outlined that the Termination Agreement expressly stated that the
basis for the early termination was the Player’s “capabilities”, which allegedly differed from
the Club’s expectations. This was also confirmed by the Club in its reply, which stated that
the Player (sic) “did not exhibit the anticipated athletic performance”. Likewise, the only
evidence the Club submitted in support of its position was the Player’s photograph which,
in the Chamber’s view, carried limited evidentiary weight to establish the Player’s consent
to the Termination Agreement and rebut the Player’s serious allegations of having signed
the agreement under duress.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13911
51. In the Chamber’s opinion, both the wording of the Termination Agreement and the overall
behaviour of the parties suggested that (i) the Contract was terminated at the sole initiative
of the Club and for purely subjective reasons that are not considered valid in the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal (i.e., poor performance); and (ii) the Player did not
receive any equivalent benefit by waiving his entire remuneration. This conclusion was also
irrespective of the fact that the Player signed a new contract with Mekady Sports Club,
which was seemingly a mere reaction to his unemployment, as it offered a significantly
lower remuneration and had no obvious sporting justification.
52. On the basis of the above, the Chamber was not satisfied that the Termination Agreement
was validly entered into between the parties. The DRC therefore decided that the
Termination Agreement was null and void and that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause.
Consequences
53. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
54. The DRC first noted that the Player argued that his total remuneration under the Contract
was USD 11,000. The inconsistency in the wording of item 4 notwithstanding, the Chamber
was of the opinion that the breakdown contained therein was sufficiently clear to establish
that the Player’s total remuneration was in fact USD 9,000 (as pointed out by the Club),
payable as follows:
•
•
•
•
USD 5,000 as sign-on fee;
USD 1,500 after the eighth match;
USD 1,500 after the eighth match return stage; and
USD 1,000 before the last match.
55. In the absence of any documentation regarding the timing of the national competition in
Libya, the Chamber considered that the only payment unequivocally outstanding at the time
of the termination was the sign-on fee. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Player
should be awarded such outstanding amount plus interest from the date of the signing of
the Contract (i.e., 18 November 2023) until the date of effective payment.
56. 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 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13911
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.
57. 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.
58. As a consequence, 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.
59. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable 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 4,000 (i.e., all the claimed instalments except for the sign-on fee) serves
as the basis for determining the amount of compensation due for breach of contract.
60. 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.
61. Indeed, the Player found employment with Mekady Sports Club. According to the relevant
employment contract, the Player was entitled to EGP 5,000 for the 2023/2024 season,
which was approximately USD 105.36 at the exchange rate at the time the new contract
was signed.
62. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reason, and therefore decided that no additional
compensation was applicable.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13911
63. 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 3,894.64 to the Player (i.e., USD 4,000 minus USD 105.36), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
64. 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 him interest on said compensation at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 December 2023 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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
70. 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,
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13911
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
71. 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.
72. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13911
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahim Mansour Ibrahim Elsayed, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Mustaqbal, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 November
2023 until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 3,894.64 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 23 December 2023 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. 16
REF. FPSD-13911
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17