Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16486
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Youssef
Ezzejjari Lhasnaoui
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
CLAIMANT:
Youssef Ezzejjari Lhasnaoui, Spain
Represented by Elite Law Sa
RESPONDENT:
Visakha FC, Cambodia
Represented by Serge Vittoz
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16486
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 December 2023, the Spanish and Moroccan player Youssef Ezzejjari Lhasnaoui
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the Cambodian club Visakha FC (hereinafter:
the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment agreement (hereinafter: the
Contract).
2.
In accordance with Clause 2 of the Contract:
“2.1 This contract shall last 5 months and 24 days, commencing from the December 8 th, 2023
and ending on the May 31st, 2024.
2.2 If party ‘B’ score 15 Goals during the term stated in Clause 2.1, this contract shall be extended
to the second year from June 01st 2024 to May 31st, 2025 with monthly net salary of USD 7,500
(Seven thousand and five hundred dollars).”
(the term between 8 December 2023 and 31 May 2024 is hereinafter referred to as the
Initial Term)
3.
Furthermore, pursuant to Clause 3 and 4 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to
pay the Claimant inter alia (i) a monthly net salary of USD 6,000; (ii) a bonus “paid to each
player when the club defeats any other club in Cambodian League Premier”; (iii)a bonus “paid
to each player when the club ranks 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the Cambodian League Premier and other
international games that the club wins as per the division by the coach and club leadership,”;
and (iv) an accommodation allowance for the term of the Contract of USD 500 per month.
4.
During the Initial Term, the Claimant scored 10 goals in the Cambodian Premier League
matches and 4 goals in the Hun Sen Cup. The Claimant scored 1 additional goal on 15 March
2024 in a match between the Respondent and Prey Veng FC (hereinafter: the Prey Veng
Match).
5.
On 15 May 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant an end-of-contract agreement, which
stated inter alia as follows:
“The Parties hereto agree to terminate the position of [the Claimant] as Senior Player based to
Employment Contract dated on December 08th, 2023 and to end all the duties of [the Claimant]
in the [Respondent] from the date of signing this agreement.
[...]
Phnom Penh, May 31, 2024”
6.
Upon request from the FIFA general secretariat, the Claimant indicated that, on 20 July
2024, the Claimant entered into a new employment contract with the Indonesian club PS.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16486
Barito Putera (hereinafter: the New Club), valid as from 1 August 2024 until 30 June 2025. In
the new contract, the New Club undertook, inter alia, to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of USD 4,000 net, due at the end of each month. Furthermore, the New Club undertook to
pay the Claimant a housing allowance of IDR 5,000,000 “during contract on Club home base.”
7.
Thereafter, the Claimant reported that, on 28 December 2024, the New Club loaned the
Claimant to the Indonesian club Madura United FC. In accordance with the loan agreement,
the New Club and Madura United FC shared in the cost of the Claimant’s salary, with
Madura United FC absorbing USD 1,500 net and the New Club continuing to cover USD
2,500 net per month. The Claimant emphasized that his earnings remained unchanged for
purposes of mitigation.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 8 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
9.
The Claimant alleged that the Respondent terminated the Contract without just cause.
10. Concerning the goals threshold established in the Contract, the Claimant argued that the
Contract did not specify that the 15 goals detailed in Clause 2.2 needed to be achieved in
an official match or in a specific competition. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that he
indeed achieved his 15th goal during the Prey Veng Match on 15 March 2024, a match which
the Claimant described as a friendly match, and that this goal scored by the Claimant in the
Prey Veng Match should therefore be credited toward the 15 goals condition.
11. Accordingly, the Claimant asserted that the achievement of reaching 15 goals triggered the
exercise of the second year of the Contract in accordance with Clause 2.2.
12. Subsidiarily, should the threshold be considered not to have been met, the Claimant
argued that the Respondent deliberately and in bad faith declined to include the Claimant
in the final 3 matches of the season, after the Claimant had played 11 of 13 league season
matches and scoring goals in 10 of said 11 league matches, with an additional 4 goals
scored in 4 championship games.
13. Furthermore, and also on a subsidiary basis, the Claimant argued that Clause 2.2 of the
Contract was potestative, being entirely in control of the Respondent and thus, said clause
shall be deemed null and void, and “as a result, [the DRC] shall determine that the Contract
had to run until 31 May 2025.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16486
14. The Claimant argued that the residual value of the Contract amounted to USD 96,000,
consisting of the monthly salary of USD 7,500 and monthly allowance of USD 500 over the
remaining (extended) contract term from 1 June 2024 until 31 May 2025, which would be
mitigated by USD 40,000 which the Claimant earned for the overlapping period from his
new employment contract.
15. The Claimant’s request for relief was as follows:
“PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
In view of the foregoing, [the Claimant] respectfully requests FIFA to rule as follows:
I.
The claim filed by [the Claimant] before the FIFA DRC against [the Respondent] is
upheld.
II.
[The Respondent] is condemned to pay [the Claimant] compensation for breach
of contract in the amount of USD 56,000 (fifty-six thousand US Dollars) net plus 5%
interest p.a. since 31 May 2024 until the date of full and effective payment, or the
amount that FIFA shall deem fair and appropriate to this case.
III.
[The Respondent] is condemned to pay [the Claimant] a further compensation for
breach of contract in light of the specificity of sport in the amount of USD 40,000
(forty thousand US Dollars) net plus 5% interest p.a. since 31 May 2024 until the
date of full and effective payment, or the amount that FIFA shall deem fair and
appropriate to this case.
Alternatively to point III.,
[the Respondent] is condemned to pay [the Claimant] a further compensation for
breach of contract in light of the specificity of sport in the amount of USD 22,500
(twenty-two thousand US Dollars) net plus 5% interest p.a. since 31 May 2024 until the
date of full and effective payment, or the amount that FIFA shall deem fair and
appropriate to this case.
IV.
[The Respondent] is imposed the relevant sporting sanctions under Art. 24 of
the FIFA RSTP up to the date when the due amounts are paid.
V.
All the above-mentioned amounts are ordered to be paid “net” of Cambodian
taxes.
VI.
[The Respondent] shall bear any and all the possible costs of this procedure.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16486
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s arguments, submitting that: (i) the
Claimant did not reach the 15 goals required to exercise the contract extension under
Clause 2.2 of the Contract and therefore the Contract expired 31 May 2024; (ii) the
Respondent did not act in bad faith to prevent the Claimant from reaching the 15-goal
threshold; and (iii) Clause 2.2 was valid and binding on the parties.
17. With regard to the 15 goals condition, the Respondent argued that the Prey Veng Match
was an unofficial training match, which – unlike the requirements of a friendly match – was
not registered with the Cambodian federation, and the players dressed in training gear
rather than the official club uniforms. The Club argued that the goal scored therein should
therefore not be counted toward the 15 goals trigger of Clause 2.2.
18. With regard to the bad faith allegation, the Respondent argued that following the
Claimant’s 14th goal, in a subsequent match the club’s coach had fielded the Claimant in the
80th minute and offered the Claimant an opportunity for a penalty kick, but the Claimant
declined on account of an injury.
19. With regard to Clause 2.2, the Respondent denied that the condition was purely
potestative, arguing that the potestative element rendering a clause null and void required
the arbitrary will of a party without any element of objectification.
20. Moreover, the Respondent contested that it terminated the Contract without just cause.
Rather, the Contract naturally expired on 31 May 2024 and that the Club’s letter sent on
15 May 2024 was part of standard practice to avoid legal disputes or misunderstandings in
connection therewith.
21. The Respondent’s request for relief was as follows:
“VI. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
Based on the above, [the Respondent] respectfully requests FIFA to issue a decision as
follows:
I.
II.
Rejecting the Prayers for Relief sought by the Claimant, Mr Youssef Ezzejjari
Lhasnaoui, and dismissing the Claim in full;
Ordering the Claimant, Mr Youssef Ezzejjari Lhasnaoui, to bear any and all the
possible costs of this procedure.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
22. In his replica, the Claimant reiterated his request for relief.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16486
23. Moreover, the Claimant challenged the Respondent’s characterization of the Prey Veng
Match as a “training match” and that the match should be considered as an official match,
considering the exceptional circumstances. In fact, the match was played in the
Respondent’s stadium, was open to fans to be in attendance, and was organized by the
Respondent as a substitution for official matches the Respondent declined to participate
in, in protest of actions taken by the league.
24. The Claimant further pointed out that the Respondent should have specified that Clause
2.2 included only official matches, as it did elsewhere in the Contract, citing as examples
the bonus provisions which specified achievements specifically in the “Cambodian League
Premier.”
25. The Claimant disputed the Respondent’s rendition of offering the Claimant an opportunity
to take a penalty kick, denying that the Claimant complained of an injury impeding him
from taking the penalty, and characterizing the Respondent’s claim as “completely false.”
As a matter of fact, the Claimant argued that the Claimant was selected to shoot the first
penalty, but not the final one which never came to be due to the opponent missing enough
penalties for the Respondent to win the match, not requiring the fifth and final penalty kick
for which the Claimant was set to appear.
26. The Claimant cited the Club’s discretion and control to keep the Claimant from any further
scoring opportunities thereafter as the reason the Clause 2.2 is considered potestative
under FIFA jurisprudence.
27. The Claimant further addressed the 15 May 2024 letter sent by the Respondent, arguing
that the Respondent’s examples all had either similarly had contractual extensions in their
contracts or additional financial obligations as part of the termination.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
28. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its claim that the condition in Clause 2.2 was not
fulfilled and again denied the allegation that the Respondent prevented the Claimant from
being able to fulfil the triggering condition of said clause, arguing that any decision not to
field the Claimant was done without club management intervention.
29. The Respondent again requested that the claim be rejected.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16486
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 8 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 24 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
31. 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Spanish and Moroccan player and a Cambodian club.
32. 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, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
33. 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
34. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16486
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties were in dispute as to the extension of the Contract pursuant to Clause 2.2,
which in turn impacted the legal basis upon which the Claimant premised his claim against
the Respondent for termination without just cause.
36. Particularly, the Chamber noted that the parties were in dispute as to the interpretation of
Clause 2.2 regarding whether the 15 goals to be achieved by the Claimant during the Initial
Term needed to be scored during official matches.
37. Moreover, in the event of a finding that indeed only official matches would qualify and
therefore only 14 goals being credited, the Chamber noted that the parties were in dispute
as to whether the Respondent acted in bad faith by avoiding the Claimant’s participation in
matches in order to avoid triggering the contractual extension, as well as, subsidiarily,
whether Clause 2.2 in and of itself was valid and enforceable.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to detail whether Clause 2.2
had indeed been triggered and the consequences of such a finding.
39. To begin, the Chamber recalled that Clause 2.2 provided that:
“If [the Claimant] score[sic] 15 Goals during the term stated in [the Initial Term], this contract
shall be extended to the second year from June 01st 2024 to May 31st, 2025 with monthly net
salary of USD 7,500 […].”
40. The Chamber further recalled that the parties neither disputed the achievement of 14
“qualifying” goals, nor the fact that a 15th goal had taken place during the Initial Term;
rather, they disagreed on whether this 15th and final goal would be a “qualifying” goal for
purposes of the automatic Contract extension.
41. In addition, the Chamber recalled certain principles of contractual interpretation pursuant
to its jurisprudence, namely that, when interpreting a contractual provision, the Chamber
aims to establish which was the common intention of the parties when concluding the
relevant contract. If this common intention cannot be determined, then the task of the
Chamber is to interpret the contractual provision pursuant to the rules of good faith, giving
such provision the meaning of how a reasonable, fair-minded person would have
understood the contractual clause at stake.
42. On the basis of the above, the Chamber found it crucial that Clause 2.2 did not specify that
the 15 goals had to be scored in official matches. The clause merely stated that the goals
had to be scored during the Initial Term. This lack of specification stood in contrast to other
clauses in the Contract – such as the bonus provisions – which did explicitly define the types
of matches relevant to their conditions. In the Chamber’s view, this indicated that the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16486
parties did not intend to restrict the types of matches that would count for the purposes
of Clause 2.2.
43. In addition, and insofar as relevant for the case, the Chamber underlined that it was
undisputed that the Prey Veng Match was part of a series of matches held by the
Respondent in lieu of the official league matches that would otherwise have taken place. In
other words, the Prey Veng Match was not simply part of a training session as implied by
the Respondent.
44. Consequently, even if the Respondent disputes that its intention under Clause 2.2 was to
include the Claimant’s goals in matches other than “official matches”, the Chamber
considered that a reasonable, fair-minded person would have understood Clause 2.2. of
the Contract to include goals scored in any match. The Chamber finds it was the
responsibility of the Respondent to have contracted accordingly and to have limited Clause
2.2 to “official matches" only.
45. The Chamber also felt comforted with its conclusion as the Contract was drafted by the
Respondent. As such, any ambiguity must necessarily be interpreted against it.
46. In light of the above considerations, the Chamber was satisfied that the 15th goal from the
Prey Veng Match should indeed be considered as a qualifying goal for purposes of Clause
2.2, and that the automatic extension was therefore triggered and the contractual term
extended through 31 May 2025.
47. Having established that Clause 2.2 was in fact triggered, the Chamber moved on to consider
whether the Contract was indeed terminated and by whom, and, in the affirmative,
whether the termination occurred without just cause.
48. In this sense, the Chamber recalled that the parties did not dispute the fact that the
Respondent sent the “End of Contract” agreement to the Claimant on 15 May 2024,
although the Respondent argued that it was merely a customary document sent to coaches
and players to provide clarity as to the end of contractual relationships, even those that
expired naturally.
49. Nevertheless, and considering that (i) the Chamber established that the Contract was to
run for another year through 31 May 2025, and (ii) the Claimant did not in fact sign the
proposed End of Contract agreement, it became clear to the Chamber that the Respondent
did appear to terminate the Contract on 31 May 2024, and that it provided no reason –
other than the argument that the term naturally expired – for terminating the Contract. As
such, the only possible conclusion is that the Respondent terminated the Contract without
just cause.
ii. Consequences
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16486
50. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
51. The Chamber first observed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination, with the Claimant solely requesting compensation for breach of contract.
52. As such, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable by
the Respondent 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to the “positive interest”
principle, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of each case, and with
due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
53. 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.
54. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this
respect, the Chamber 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)).
55. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 96,000 net (i.e., the monthly salary of USD 7,500 net
plus the monthly guaranteed allowance of USD 500 times 12 months remaining on the
Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
56. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Claimant’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16486
57. Indeed, the Claimant found employment with PS. Barito Putera. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, whose economic terms prevailed even with the Claimant’s
subsequent loan to Madura United FC, the Claimant was entitled to USD 4,000 net per
month plus a housing allowance which, upon conversion, equalled USD 308 net. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of
USD 43,080 net, that is, USD 4,308 net times 10.
58. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 52,920 net to the Claimant (i.e., USD 96,000 net minus USD 43,080 net), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
59. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 May 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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. 12
REF. FPSD-16486
64. 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
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16486
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Youssef Ezzejjari Lhasnaoui, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Visakha FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 52,920 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
31 May 2024 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. 14
REF. FPSD-16486
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. 15