Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17856
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Dhekra Mahfoudh
BY:
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Dhekra Mahfoudh, Tunisia
Represented by Mr Hamouda Bouazza
RESPONDENT:
Altaraji Club, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17856
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 May 2024, Dhekra Mahfoud (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and Altaraji Club
(hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until 30 May 2025.
2.
According to art. 5 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
remuneration of USD 2,400 net, a weekly accommodation / food allowance of SAR 300 net
and the following additional payment:
3.
On 23 December 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD
19,800 plus SAR 9,600, corresponding to the following amounts, and setting a deadline of
15 days:
-
USD 2,400 – salary of August 2024;
USD 2,400 – salary of September 2024;
USD 2,400 – salary of September 2024;
USD 2,400 – salary of September 2024;
SAR 9,600 – accommodation / food allowance for “23 weeks”;
USD 9,600 – “bonus” for “23 weeks”.
4.
On 29 December 2024, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant, requesting the default
notice to be sent “in both Arabic and English, as the contract itself is drafted in both languages”.
5.
On 30 December 2024, the Claimant sent a translated version of the default notice (in
Arabic and French) to the Respondent, reminding the latter that the deadline to remedy
the alleged breach was 7 January 2025.
6.
On 6 January 2025, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, correcting the latter as
to the conditions contained in the Contract. Namely, the bonus of USD 300 not being
monthly, but rather payable at the end of the season as a one-time lump sum payment.
Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had received “two monthly salaries
since the beginning of the Contract, namely half a salary on 26 September 2024 and one and a
half salaries on 3 October 2024”, as well as “10 rental/food allowances”.
7.
On 9 January 2025, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17856
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 20 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to pay a number of salary
instalments and food allowances, despite having been put in default thereof.
10. Specifically, the player argued that she only received the salary of July 2024, and a one-time
payment of SAR 600 in respect of the accommodation and food allowance, with all
remaining instalments remaining unpaid.
11. The Claimant thus asserted that she had a just cause to terminate the Contract due to
overdue payables in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
12. The Claimant equally acknowledged that the bonus of USD 300 as indicated in art. 5 of the
Contract was indeed a lump sum payment at the end of the season, and not a weekly or
monthly payment.
13. In conclusion, the Claimant formulated the following request for relief (without specifying
net or gross):
-
USD 12,000 outstanding remuneration;
SAR 6,300 as accommodation / food allowance;
USD 12,300 plus SAR 5,700 as compensation for breach of contract;
Interest as from the individual due dates, with the exception of the accommodation
allowance and compensation, for which interest was requested as from the date of
termination.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent provided no formal reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17856
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 20 January 2025 and submitted for
decision on 10 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
16. 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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 Tunisian player
and a Saudi Arabian club.
17. 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. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 January 2025, the January 2025 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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 the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
19. 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. 5
REF. FPSD-17856
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the basis of the present dispute was the lawfulness of the contractual termination,
following an alleged breach of contract by the Respondent.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that it its task was to whether the Claimant
had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract before its term, and what the
consequences of a potential breach of contract by the Respondent leading thereto may be.
22. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Claimant, she terminated the contract with
just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
23. The Respondent failed to provide a response to the claim, leaving the Claimant’s allegations
unchallenged.
24. The Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, pursuant to
which, in the case of a club unlawfully failing 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 (s)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).
25. The Claimant claims not having received her remuneration in the amount of USD 12,000,
corresponding to the period between August 2024 and December 2024, as well as 23
accommodation allowances (as from third week of July 2024 until the date of termination.
26. Furthermore, the Claimant provided proof of having put the Respondent in default of the
relevant amounts, which are in excess of 2 monthly salaries, granting a deadline of 15 days.
27. In the absence of a challenge by the Respondent as to the allegation of non-payment, the
Single Judge established that the amounts in dispute indeed remained unpaid.
28. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to terminate
the Contract prematurely on 9 January 2025.
ii. Consequences
29. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
30. 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 five salaries and
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17856
23 accommodation allowances of SAR 300 each under the contract, amounting to
USD 12,000 plus SAR 6,900.
31. As the Claimant limited his request to SAR 6,300 in respect of the accommodation
allowances, in accordance with the general legal principle of ne iudex eat ultra petita
partium, the amount presently awarded corresponded to that requested by the Claimant –
i.e., SAR 6,300.
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
USD 12,000 plus SAR 6,300.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of USD 2,400, as from 1 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 2,400, as from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 2,400, as from 1 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 2,400, as from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 2,400, as from 1 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of SAR 6,300, as from 9 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
34. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 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, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned 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.
35. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17856
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
36. As a consequence, the members of 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.
37. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, 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 USD 12,300, or five monthly salaries between January 2025
and May 2025, plus USD 300 as a lump sum payment under art. 5.3 of the Contract, plus
SAR 6,000 (accommodation allowances during the Contract’s residual term) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
38. 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 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.
39. Indeed, the Claimant remained unemployed following the contractual termination. As a
result, neither mitigation nor additional compensation were applicable in the case at hand.
40. Lastly, the Single Judge once again referred to the Claimant’s request for relief, noting that
the petitum was limited to SAR 5,700 in respect of the accommodation allowances payable
in the case at hand.
41. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 12,300 plus SAR 5,700 to the player (i.e. residual value of the Contract), which was
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
42. 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 10 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17856
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. In continuation, and 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. In this regard, he highlighted that,
against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due
time shall consist, in principle, of a ban from registering new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amounts are paid.
44. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded
where the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of art. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
45. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 8 August 2024 and notified on 26 August 2024, a transfer ban has been imposed
on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the case with
reference FPSD-14978.
46. Accordingly, the Single Judge established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one
already being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the
Regulations, in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the
Regulations.
47. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
its consideration and a formal decision.
48. 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.
d. Costs
49. 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17856
50. 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.
51. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17856
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Dhekra Mahfoudh, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Altaraji Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 12,000 plus SAR 6,300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as
follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,400 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,400 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,400 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,400 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,400 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of SAR 6,300 as from 9 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
- USD 12,300 plus SAR 5,700 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 10 January 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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17856
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 12