Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19118
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Chems Eddine Nerier
BY:
Michele COLUCCI, Italy
CLAIMANT:
Chems Eddine Nerier, Algeria
Represented by Global Sport Consulting
RESPONDENT:
Shabab Al Ghar, Libya
Represented by Muah Tashani
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19118
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 September 2024, the Algerian player, Chems Eddine Nerier (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Libyan club, Shabab Al Ghar (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the date of signature until the end of the 2024/2025 season.
2.
The parties set out the Player‘s remuneration in clause 4 of the Contract.
3.
According to the Player, clause 4 of the Contract stipulated (quoted verbatim from the
English translation submitted by the Claimant):
“Article 4:
The total value of the contract for the entire contractual period is USD 33,000.
Accordingly, the First Party agrees to pay the Second Party tye following amounts:
o First installment upon signature of the contract eqaul to USD 16,500 USD, payable
upon signing.
o Second installment: USD 16,500, payable at the biginning of the second phase of the
league (phase retour).”
4.
According to the Club, clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the Contract stipulated (quoted verbatim from
the English translation submitted by the Respondent):
“Article 4. Financial Compensation
1. The two parties agreed to set the value of this contract for the entire period at a total
amount of 33,000 dollars, in letters/ thirty-three thousand dollars and no more.
2. The first party is committed to paying the value of this contract according to the
following mechanism:
A. An amount of 16,500 dollars, in letters / sixteen thousand and five hundred dollars#
To be paid as a contract advance to the second party from the total value of the contract
immediately upon signing it, if the two parties agree to that, and this value is considered
a salary advance.
B. An amount of 16,500 dollars, in letters / sixteen thousand and five hundred dollars#,
divided into two instalments, as a monthly salary paid to the second party from the total
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19118
value of the contract at the end of each calendar month throughout the term of this
contract. (…)”
5.
According to the Club, clause 4.5 of the Contract established:
“5. The second party shall pay a financial amount equivalent to three percent (3%) of the
total contract value. This amount will be deducted by the first party for the benefit of the
Libyan Football Federation, subject to approval by the Players' Status and Local Transfers
Committee.”
6.
On 24 April 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD 16,500
within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 5 May 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
8.
The Player argued that he was entitled to receive USD 33,000 for the 2024/2025 season,
divided into two instalments: the first was to be paid upon the signature of the Contract,
and the second was to be paid after the first phase of the 2024/2025 season.
9.
Nonetheless, the Player mentioned that the Club failed to pay him USD 16,500 for the
second instalment, although the 2024/2025 season had already ended.
10. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The player Chamseddine NERIER respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal to order
i. Club Shabab AL Ghar (AL Ghar Youth club) affiliated to the Libyan Football Federation
to pay the total amount of sixteen thousand five hundred dollars (USD 16,500.00) as
unpaid second salary installment plus 5% p.a. as from 22/04/2025 until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Impose any sanction to the Club you consider it appropriate.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19118
b. Position of the Respondent
11. On 29 May 2025, within the deadline granted by the FIFA general secretariat, the Club filed
its reply.
12. In this regard, the Club first stated that the 2024/2025 season was still in progress and had
not yet concluded. However, it further argued that after failing to qualify for the playoffs,
the Player requested to return to his home country.
13. According to the Club, it provided the Player with the final instalment of the Contract,
deducting the amount that had already been paid, but he refused to accept this payment
and insisted on receiving the full amount without any deductions.
14. Additionally, the Club asserted that clause 4.5 of the Contract established that the Club
must deduct 3% of the total contract value from the Player’s contract for the benefit of the
Libyan Football Federation (LFF), amounting to USD 990. Furthermore, the Club asserted
that it paid the Player, at his request, LYD 2,000, which, according to the Club, is equivalent
to USD 365 and must also be deducted from the second instalment.
15. In this context, the Club alleged that, when the Player requested to terminate the Contract
and return to his home country, the Club agreed to pay him the amount, but with
deductions for both the amount already paid to him and 3% of the contractual value,
totalling USD 15,145. Nonetheless, the Club argued that the Player refused to accept this
payment and instead insisted that the full instalment be paid.
16. Lastly, the Club stated:
“10. The club is dedicated to meeting its contractual obligations while adhering to the
terms of the contract and the regulations set forth by the Libyan Football Federation.
11. The club agrees to pay the final installment of the contract, which is $15,145.”
17. On 2 June 2025, outside the time limit granted, the Club submitted two documents: (i) the
original copy of a receipt, and (ii) the original and complete copy of the Contract.
18. On 3 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
correspondence and informed the parties that the correspondence submitted by the Club
on 2 June 2025 would be disregarded, based on art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules
Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19118
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 16 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 edition of 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
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 an Algerian player and a Libyan club.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the 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 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
23. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19118
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
25. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him the second
instalment of his salary as stipulated in the Contract, totalling USD 16,500.
26. Additionally, the Single Judge noted that the Club argued that the 2024/2025 season was
not yet over, but the Player requested to return to his home country and, therefore, the
Club attempted to pay him the last instalment, deducting (i) USD 990 to be retained in
favour of the LFF and (ii) USD 365 that had allegedly been paid to him in advance at his
request. The Club contended that, however, the Player refused to receive this amount.
27. In this context, the Single Judge first wished to remark that although the parties provided
two different translations of clause 4.2 regarding the payment of this second instalment –
the Player’s translation mentioned that USD 16,500 was to be paid at the beginning of the
second phase of the league, while the Club’s translation stipulated that this amount was to
be paid “divided into two instalments as a monthly salary paid (…) at the end of each calendar
month throughout the term of this contract” – it is undisputed by the parties that the Player
is entitled to this payment.
28. Consequently, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player is entitled to the full amount established in the Contract for this instalment, i.e., USD
16,500, or whether the two deductions mentioned by the Club should apply, i.e., the Player
is actually entitled to USD 15,145.
29. First, the Single Judge recalled that the Club argued that clause 4.5 of the Contract
established that “The second party shall pay a financial amount equivalent to three percent
(3%) of the total contract value. This amount will be deducted by the first party for the benefit of
the Libyan Football Federation, subject to approval by the Players' Status and Local Transfers
Committee.”. Based on this, the Single Judge observed that the Club stated that 3% of the
total value of the Contract must be retained in favour of the LFF and, therefore, USD 990
must be deducted from the Player’s salary.
30. At this point, the Single Judge noted that the Player failed to provide the full copy of the
original Contract, arguing that the Club had not given him the complete version, and the
copy he submitted did not include clause 4.5. For its part, the Single Judge highlighted that
the Club, within the time limit granted, only submitted an alleged translation of this
Contract, unsigned by the parties, failing to provide the full copy of the original contract.
31. In this regard, the Single Judge considered that an alleged translation of an unsubmitted
document cannot be relied upon to establish that clause 4.5 of the Contract indeed
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19118
included this provision. In the Single Judge’s view, it was the Club’s responsibility to provide
the full copy of the original document within the time limit granted, especially since the
Club intended to rely on a clause not included in the document provided by the Player.
32. Nevertheless, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge underscored that even if
he were to consider this clause, he could not establish that the Club was entitled to retain
this 3%, as it appears that this deduction was subject to the approval of a committee, and
the Club failed to provide any evidence in this regard.
33. Thus, the Single Judge decided that the Player is entitled to the USD 990 that the Club
argued should be deducted.
34. Regarding the USD 365 that the Club argued it paid the Player, the Single Judge also noted
that the Club failed to provide the original receipt within the deadline granted and only
provided an alleged translation that was not signed by the Player. In this respect, the Single
Judge remarked once again that it was the Club’s burden to provide the original and signed
evidence within the deadline.
35. Hence, the Single Judge determined that this deduction cannot apply either, based on art.
13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
36. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Player is entitled to USD 16,500, without
any deductions. Regarding interest, although the Player requested that it be applied as
from 22 April 2025, the Single Judge highlighted that he failed to provide any evidence to
support these allegations. Therefore, based on the standard practice of the Football
Tribunal, the Single Judge decided to award interest as from the date of the claim, i.e., 5
May 2025.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19118
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.
40. 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.
41. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19118
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Chems Eddine Nerier, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Shabab Al Ghar, must pay to the Claimant USD 16,500 as outstanding
remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 5 May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-19118
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. 11