Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19393
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Jordan Lamela Garrido
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Jordan Lamela Garrido, Spain
Represented by Fábio Rego & Gonçalo de Castro
RESPONDENT:
Sporting Club Bengaluru, India
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19393
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 September 2024, the Spanish player Jordan Lamela Garrido (hereinafter, the Player or
the Claimant) and the Indian club Sporting Club Bengaluru (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 18
September 2024 until 31 May 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 1 of Schedule I of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) a total remuneration of EUR 22,000, payable
in 9 equal monthly instalments on the 10th of the subsequent month.
3.
On 3 March 2025, the Player suffered an injury in his knee during a match.
4.
On an unspecified date, the Player returned to Spain for the summer holidays.
5.
On an unspecified date, the Player sent a WhatsApp message to the Club informing it that
his knee injury was more serious than initially expected. In his message, the Player stated
that he had torn his ACL and needed surgery, following a visit with an orthopedist in Spain.
The Player also shared with the Club a budget of EUR 7,800 for the operation.
6.
On 29 April 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to pay
USD 12,222.22 as outstanding remuneration for the months of November 2024 to March
2025 (i.e., USD 2,444.44 each) and EUR 7,800 as reimbursement for the medical costs
associated with his injury.
7.
On 15 May 2025, unilaterally terminated the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 27 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
9.
In his claim, the Player argued that he had a just cause to terminate the Contract based on
the Club’s non-payment of his remuneration and after having put it in default, to no avail.
10. Based on the above, the Player claimed to be entitled to the outstanding remuneration that
remained unpaid at the time of termination, as well as to compensation for breach of
contract, in the total amount of USD 17,111.08.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19393
11. Moreover, the Player contended that the Club has also failed to reimburse the medical
expenses associated with his knee injury, despite having sustained said injury while under
the Club’s sporting remit. The Player argued that these expenses amount to EUR 7,800
(surgery) and EUR 3,840 (8 months recovery).
12. The Player requested the following relief:
“The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall:
a) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the overdue amount of USD 12,222.22
gross corresponding to the:
-
USD $ 2.444,44 gross for November´s monthly salary; (due on 10 December 2024);
USD $ 2.444,44 gross for December´s monthly salary; (due on 10 January 2025);
USD $ 2.444,44 gross for January´s monthly salary;(due on 10 February 2025);
USD $ 2.444,44 gross for February´s monthly salary; (due on 10 March 2025);
USD $ 2.444,44 gross for March´s monthly salary;(due on 10 April 2025);
b) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the following amount as
compensation:
- USD $ 4.888,88 gross (corresponding to the payments he was expected to receive until
the end of the contract, specifically the April salary due on 10 May and the May salary
due on 10 June.)
c) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the following amount as Additional
Compensation - subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue
payables:
- USD $ 7.333,32 gross (which is based on multiplying monthly salary by three).
d) In the global amount of USD $ 24.444,44 gross;
e) Plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue dates until effective payment.
f) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the following amount – the cost of
the operation:
- €7,800.00 (borne by the Player on 8 May 2025).
g) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the following amount – the cost of
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19393
rehabilitation following surgery: €3,840.00.
h) In the global amount of € 11.640,00.
i) All according to the “PLAYER AGREEMENT”, signed by the parties, the FIFA Statutes and
regulations, as well as the specificity of sport.
j) Impose to the Respondent Club sportive and disciplinary sanctions”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. On 27 May 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Club, granting it a
deadline until 16 June 2025 to provide its position on the claim.
14. On 2 June 2025, it was confirmed that a technical issue affected the proper notification of
the claim to the Club. As a consequence, and after having duly resolved this technical issue,
the Club was granted a new deadline until 23 June 2025 to reply to the claim.
15. On 27 June 2025, and in the absence of a reply from the Club, the FIFA general secretariat
notified the Parties about the closure of the submission phase of the proceeding and the
submission of the case to the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber for a formal
decision.
16. On 2 July 2025, the Club informed that a “technical glitch” had prevented it from receiving
the correspondences notified via the Legal Portal and requested to be granted an
extension of 21 days to reply to the claim.
17. On 3 July 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Club that all correspondence as
of 2 June 2025 relating to this case was correctly notified via the Legal Portal to the Club,
with no further technical issues having been confirmed.
18. In light of the above, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Club that its request for an
extension of the deadline could not be granted.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19393
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single
Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 27 May 2025 and submitted
for decision on 3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 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.
20. 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 July
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Spanish player
and an Indian club.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
22. 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 he may
consider evidence not filed by the Parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
23. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19393
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Single Judge 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 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.
25. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his 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.
26. The Single Judge 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).
27. The Single Judge noted that the Player claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the months of November and December 2024, as well as January,
February and March 2025. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Player provided
written evidence of having put the Club in default on 29 April 2025, i.e., at least 15 days
before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 15 May 2025.
28. The Single Judge 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, Single Judge noted that the Club failed to reply to the claim despite
being invited to do so, and therefore no proof of compliance with the aforementioned
financial terms was submitted.
29. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and the Club is
therefore held liable for the legal consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the legal consequences
arising from the breach of contract committed by the Club.
31. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to 6 salaries under
the Contract, amounting to EUR 14,666.64 for the months from November 2024 to April
2025 (i.e., EUR 2,444.44 x 6).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19393
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge 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., EUR 14,666.64 as
detailed ut supra.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following their
respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
o November 2024 salary in the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 December 2024;
o December 2024 salary in the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 January 2025;
o January 2025 salary in the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 February 2025;
o February 2025 salary in the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 March 2025;
o March 2025 salary in the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 April 2025; and
o April 2025 salary in the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 May 2025.
34. Having stated the above, the Single Judge noted that the Player also requested to be
awarded EUR 7,800 as reimbursement for the medical expenses he allegedly incurred in
relation to his knee injury.
35. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the Player only provided two invoices, without
submitting any proof of payment. Accordingly, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to
support that the Player did incur in such expenses, the Single Judge decided to reject the
Player’s request for reimbursement of medical expenses.
36. The Single Judge then turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable by
the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to the “positive interest”
principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of each case, and with
due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
37. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the Contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in the event of
breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19393
38. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall be equal to the
residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the Player signed a
new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
39. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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
Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 2,444.44 (i.e., the month of May 2025)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
40. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
41. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
termination of the Contract.
42. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of
EUR 2,444.44 to the Player as the residual value of the Contract, which was considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at
stake.
43. At this point, the Single Judge took note of the Player’s request to be awarded additional
compensation. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i.) and ii.) of the
Regulations, and underscored that the compensation granted is equivalent to the residual
value of the Contract, and that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract.
44. Accordingly, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s request for additional compensation.
45. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of 15 May 2025 (i.e., the date of
termination) until the date of effective payment.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19393
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19393
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jordan Lamela Garrido, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sporting Club Bengaluru, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 14,666.64 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 February 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,444.44 as from 11 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
- EUR 2,444.44 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 15 May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19393
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19393
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13