Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18994
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Danilo
Moreno Asprilla
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Danilo Moreno Asprilla, Colombia
Represented by Melanie Schärer
RESPONDENT:
Alsafa Club, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18994
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 August 2024, the Colombian player Danilo Moreno Asprilla (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Saudi club, Alsafa Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a signon fee of USD 20,000 and a monthly salary of USD 18,000.
3.
On 25 March 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD
97,439.76 setting a time limit expiring on 9 April 2025 in order to remedy the default.
4.
On 15 April 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract, citing just cause.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 22 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause based on art. 14bis
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
7.
The Claimant alleged that, as of the date the default notice was sent, he had received only
USD 47,398.94 out of the total amount of USD 144,838.70 that was contractually due at
that time.
8.
The Claimant further argued that, after the default notice was sent, he received only one
monthly salary, in the amount of USD 18,000, corresponding to March 2025.
9.
The Claimant contended that he is also entitled to a compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of USD 36,000.
10. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
“Accordingly, the Claimant demands that the Respondent pay the following amounts:
- USD 97,439.76 in outstanding debt, pursuant to the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
plus 5% annual interest on the outstanding amount from the respective due dates until full
payment,
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18994
- USD 36,000 as compensation for breach of contract, in accordance with Articles 14, 14bis
and 17 of the FIFA Regulations. This amount shall accrue 5% annual interest from one day
after the termination date of the employment relationship (15 April 2025), i.e., from 16 April
2025 until full payment (cf. Article 339(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations and Article 104(1)
of the Swiss Code of Obligations).”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. Despite of being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to respond to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18994
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. 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 22 April 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.
13. 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 (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 Colombian player and a Saudi club.
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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. 5
REF. FPSD-18994
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
18. The Chamber first recalled that, according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with
just cause, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations. Therefore, the Claimant argued that he
is entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation.
19. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber determined
that the decision shall be taken based on the documentation available in the case file (i.e.,
the statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
20. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether the
Claimant had just cause to terminate the Contract and its consequences.
21. First, the Chamber pointed out that art. 14bis of the Regulations establishes:
“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 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). Alternative provisions
in contracts existing at the time of this provision coming into force may be considered.”
22. Then, the Chamber observed that the Claimant terminated the Contract, citing that the
Respondent had failed to pay him approximately 5.4 monthly salaries along with the signon fee of the Contract. In particular, the Claimant submitted that he received only USD
47,398.94 out of the USD 144,838.70 allegedly due at the time of the default notice, thereby
claiming that the Respondent had failed to pay him an outstanding amount of USD
97,439.76.
23. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that clause 5 of the Contract stipulated that the
Claimant was entitled to a USD 18,000 monthly salary payable by the last day of each month
and a USD 20,000 sign-on fee payable in two equal instalments on 30 August and 15
September 2024.
24. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that on 25 March 2025, the Claimant sent a notice of
default requesting the payment of USD 97,439.76, and informed that, in case of nonpayment, he would terminate the Contract with just cause, based on art. 14bis of the
Regulations. Additionally, the Chamber observed that on 15 April 2025, i.e., 21 days after
sending the notice, the Claimant terminated the Contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18994
25. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to terminate
the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, as (i) the Respondent failed to pay him
more than two monthly salaries, (ii) he sent a notice of default granting 15 days to comply
with the payment and (iii) the Respondent failed to remedy its breach
ii. Consequences
26. 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.
27. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, amounts to USD 97,439.76.
28. In this respect, the Chamber observed that on the notice of default dated 25 March 2025,
the Claimant requested the payment of USD 97,439.76 which were outstanding at the time.
29. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Claimant acknowledged that, following the
issuance of the default notice, he received the amount of USD 18,000 corresponding to his
salary of March 2025. However, the USD 97,439.76 remained unpaid.
30. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber 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
97,439.76.
31. In addition, 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 16 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
32. Having stated the above, 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 for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
33. 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 Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18994
34. 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)).
35. 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. In this regard, the Chamber
noted that the Contract was terminated on 15 April 2025, and that it was valid until 31 May
2025. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 36,000 (i.e., 2 times
USD 18,000) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
36. 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 player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
37. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
38. The Chamber 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.
39. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant a compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 36,000.
40. 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 16 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Sporting sanctions
41. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18994
against the Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited
provision stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting
sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the
protected period.
42. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
43. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Claimant was born on 12 January 1989 and
the Contract with the Respondent was concluded on 3 August 2024. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Claimant terminated the Contract with just cause on 15 April 2025.
The DRC then confirmed that the breach of contract by the Respondent occurred within
the protected period.
44. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had already been held liable of
breaching other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, for
example in cases FPSD-16246, FPSD-16593 and FPSD-18735.
45. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Respondent shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 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 article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18994
49. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that 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.
50. In view of the above, the DRC 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
formal decision.
51. 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
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18994
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Danilo Moreno Asprilla, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alsafa Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 97,439.76 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 April 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 36,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
April 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18994
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. 12