Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18167
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Meysam Shah Makvand Zadeh
BY:
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina)
CLAIMANT:
Meysam Shah Makvand Zadeh, Iran
RESPONDENT:
Mohammedan Sporting Club Limited, Bangladesh
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18167
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 October 2022, the Iranian player Meysam Shah Makvand Zadeh (hereinafter, the
Player or the Claimant) and the Bangladeshi club Mohammedan Sporting Club Limited
(hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as from
15 October 2022 until 31 July 2023.
2.
In accordance with the “Schedule I” of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) the following fixed remuneration:
3.
On 24 November 2022, the Player put the Club in default via WhatsApp, requesting the
payment of the October and November 2022 salaries.
4.
On 7 February 2023, the Club send the following letter to the Player:
“It has been reported against you that you not attend practice without informed head coach
and team manager. Previously 3/4 times you don’t attend the practice, and our club
management notice you verbally. After last game you come to the practice field but don’t
attend practice. This is unexpected and non-player cheap behaviour for international
professional player.
In players code of conduct your attitude and approach is misconduct. You need to submit
your written explanation and answer of show cause why disciplinary action should not take
against you.
Your explanation must be reaching the undersigned within 48 hours”.
5.
On 10 February 2023, the Club sent another letter to the Player, stressing inter alia as
follows:
“It has been reported against you that you were not going to Mymensing for attending the
match against Uttara Azampur on 10.02.2023. With your concern our head coach
announced our squad with you. You also ensure our trainer Mr. Sandi You, Sandi and Roger
will go to club at 6.30AM with club car. In the morning trainer Sandi knock your door till 18
minutes but you don’t open the door. Absent from game match is a great misconduct and
violate the FIFA rules. You are contract player of [the Club] and if you don’t participate the
match and practice, what you want?”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18167
6.
On 13 February 2023, the Club sent a third letter to the Player, insisting in its previous
demands, and informing the Player that the Club “want you will play next game on 18
February 2023 [sic]”. The Club again demanded the Player an explanation in writing within
24 hours.
7.
Also on 13 February 2023, the Player replied to the aforementioned communication,
informing the Club as follows:
“I really apologise for my unconditional fault and I concern to u something.
On Monday suddenly I heard club wants to release me after 3 games on that time presents
of club coaching staff and team manager Mr. Nokib.
Can u tell me please how being a professional player could control is motivation for rest of
matches.
And that time I was also injured all official and coaching staff knew that.
Next day I didn’t attend training for injury but I went to ground.
From that day I was very upset and I went for sleep late night. For that reason I didn’t wake
up early morning. And when I wake up team left for ground. Same time I call and message
everybody wants to know the match location I wanted to go there by car on my money. But
no one replied me.
If club wants to release me no problem u can release me with my full money as per contract
10 months.
With ur concern I want to tell u, I will not sign any papers until Im not getting my full salary
For my English is not good and also for by behavior I really apologize”.
8.
On 15 February 2023, the Club acknowledged receipt of the Player’s aforementioned letter,
and accused the Player of lying. The Club insisted in the content of its previous letters, and
stressed that “You didn’t tell to team physio and team manager about your injury and when we
sent you 3 show case letter then you want to play and coming to practice. This incident clearly
shows that you have resorted to lying. You have no injury and you are trying to hold the club
hostage”. The Club demanded the Player’s explanations in writing within 48 hours.
9.
On 19 February 2023, an alleged spokesperson of the Club sent the following WhatsApp to
the Player’s agent:
“[The Player] was sick. He is good now our doctor treatment him”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18167
10. On 25 February 2023, the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract. According to the
termination notice:
“At first, it was reported verbally by the coaches, team manager, and other officials that you
were not obeying their commands and instructions during the practice session and match,
which is really unacceptable from a professional player. As a reference to this matter, we
can help to remember the moment of the match with the Bahaundhara Kings, you received
a yellow card in the 'Independence Cup 2022' Quarter-Final Match due to your unusual
behavior and ignoring the instructions passed to you by the coach.
After observing all your activities, we show-caused you 4 (four) times for not participating in
training sessions and a match. Also, among all the show-caused letters, you only answered
the letter dated 13-02-2023 which is beyond our club rules and ethics as well. It is found
that you are continuously breaching clause no. 7 of your contract with Mohammedan
Sporting Club Ltd., whereas as per clause no. 11 of your contract, you agreed to abide by
the rules of the club.
In light of the above, Mohammedan Sporting Club Ltd. authority finds all such activities as
a serious breach of rules set out by the club and you are deemed to be in unilateral breach
of this contract. Also it is found you are doing all this thing deliberately. In this circumstance,
as per clause no. 11 of the contract, the club is terminating the contract with you without
just cause”.
11. On 13 October 2023, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Indian club
Churchill Brothers FC Goa.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 10 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
13. The Player argued that, in the first week of February 2023, he verbally informed the Club
that he was injured. The Player submitted that, instead of providing medical care, the Club
coerced the Player to attend training sessions and represent the Club in games that took
place during the injury period.
14. According to the Player, the injury prevented him from attending certain training sessions
and he was ordered to train individually. Moreover, the Player denied having been absent
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18167
in the match played on 10 February 2023, claiming that he was not selected for this match
due to his injury.
15. The Player claimed that the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract due to the Player’s
alleged failure to attend training sessions and a match. In this regard, the Player contended
that at no time did the Club mention “termination” in its default notices, but only that the
foreseeable consequences of the alleged violations would be “suspension and disciplinary
action”, and that there was not an internal investigation prior to the termination of the
Contract. The Player further contended that, even in case the Player did breach his
contractual obligations, such breach was not persistent, and the unilateral termination of
the Contract was not an ultima ratio measure.
16. Based on the above, the Player submitted that the Club terminated the Contract without
just cause, and therefore claimed to be entitled to USD 51,000, representing the residual
value of the Contract. In this regard, the Player confirmed having received the total amount
of USD 34,000 when the Contract was unilaterally terminated.
17. The Player requested the following relief:
“On these grounds, [the Player] hereby respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to rule that:
1) The claim of the Claimant is admissible.
2) FIFA Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the Claim.
3) The Respondent terminated the Player Contract without just cause.
4) The Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant overdue salaries and compensation
amounting to USD 51,000 (fifty one thousand US dollars) with 5% legal interest per
annum as from 25 February 2023 until the date of effective payment”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
18. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18167
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 she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 February 2025 and
submitted for decision on 28 May 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.
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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), she is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Iranian player
and a Bangladeshi club.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
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 she 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
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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18167
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 and the legal
consequences arising therefrom.
25. The Single Judge noted that, according to the Player, the Club unilaterally terminated the
Contract without just cause on 25 February 2025 due to his alleged absences in training
sessions and matches. In this regard, the Player claimed that the Club was aware of his
injury, and instead of providing him with medical care, it coerced the Player to attend
training sessions and matches. Moreover, the Player argued that, even if he had breached
his obligations, the termination was not an ultima ratio measure.
26. The Single Judge also noted that the claim remained uncontested by the Club and,
therefore, underlined that the decision will be made based on the arguments and evidence
on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
27. In this context, and considering that it remained uncontested that the Club unilaterally
terminated the Contract on 25 February 2023, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task
was to determine whether the Club had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract
and, if not, what are the legal consequences that follow.
28. The Single Judge started by recalling the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal, according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a
certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words,
only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the
continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be
terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in
order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure.
29. With the above in mind, the Single Judge noted that, according to the Club’s termination
notice dated 25 February 2023, the Club terminated the Contract due to the Player’s alleged
absences in three training sessions and a match played on 10 February 2023.
30. In this regard, the Single Judge first noted that the Player failed to provide any evidence of
having informed the Club about his alleged injury during the first week of February 2023.
31. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Single Judge also noted that, although the Club
accused the Player of being absent in the match played on 10 February 2023, the Player
submitted evidence of not having been selected to participate in said game, namely, the
match sheet of the game, thus refuting the Club’s claim of his alleged absence in this match.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18167
32. As to the alleged absences in training sessions, which were not proved, the Single Judge
noted that although the Player failed to submit enough convincing evidence of his injury,
he did provide evidence of having replied to the Club’s default notices and having informed
it that he was sick and instructed to train alone. In fact, the Single Judge noted that, on 19
February 2023, a Club’ spokesperson informed the Player’s agent that the Player was sick,
and that he was being treated by the Club’s doctor. In other words, the evidence submitted
by the Player confirmed that the Club was aware that the Player was not fit to train.
33. Accordingly, the Single Judge determined that the Player’s alleged absences in training
sessions (if any) were justified and known by the Club.
34. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge underscored that, even if it was to be
considered that the Player was absent without a valid justification as asserted by the Club
in its termination letter, the Club’s unilateral termination of the Contract departed from the
ultima ratio principle. In particular, the Single Judge considered that a short absence in,
according to the Club, 3 training sessions, cannot be deemed as a substantial breach of an
employment contract, capable of triggering the consequences of an unlawful termination.
35. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club did not have a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, and therefore determined that the Club is held liable
for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
36. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
37. The Single Judge observed that, according to the Player, the total value of the Contract was
USD 85,000, i.e., USD 8,500 per month from October 2022 to July 2023. In addition, the
Player confirmed that he had received USD 34,000 when the Club unilaterally terminated
the Contract on 25 February 2025.
38. Thus, the Single Judge determined that the outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to
USD 8,500, for February 2023.
39. 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 8,500.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18167
40. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from 25 February 2023
until the date of effective payment.
41. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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 to the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
42. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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 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.
43. 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.
44. 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 Claimant 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 42,500 (i.e., the residual value of the
Contract from March to July 2023) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
45. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Football Tribunal 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.
46. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player did not sign any new contract during
the relevant period.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18167
47. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
48. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 42,500, i.e., USD 8,500 times 5, as the residual value of the
Contract, which the Single Judge considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
49. 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 25 February 2023 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18167
d. Costs
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18167
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Meysam Shah Makvand Zadeh, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Mohammedan Sporting Club Limited, must pay to the Claimant the
following amount(s):
- USD 8,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 25
February 2023 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 42,500 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as from
25 February 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18167
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. 14