Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19526
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Djair Terraii
Carl Parfitt-Williams
BY:
Frans DE WEGER, The Netherlands
CLAIMANT:
Djair Terraii Carl Parfitt-Williams, Great Britain (United Kingdom)
Represented by Tarsh Khanna
RESPONDENT:
Club Glentoran, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19526
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The player Djair Terraii Carl Parfitt-Williams (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), who was born in Bermuda (British Overseas Territory); and
•
The club Glentoran FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), which is based in
Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) and affiliated to the Irish Football Association
(IFA).
2.
On 15 September 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Employment Contract) valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2025.
3.
The Employment Contract stated that the Player was born in Bermuda.
4.
On 18 September 2024, the Club initiated a transfer instruction in the Transfer Matching
System (TMS) to sign the Player from his previous club, the Greek club Makedonikos FC
(Transfer ID: 927857). In this transfer instruction, the Player was listed as a British citizen.
5.
On 19 September 2024, the Player was registered with the Club.
6.
In January 2025, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages with an alleged representative
of the Club regarding his future with the team.
7.
On 23 January 2025, the Club issued a “Settlement Letter” with the aim of reaching an
agreement with the Player for the early termination of the Employment Contract.
Accordingly, the Club proposed to pay the Player the following amounts:
•
•
•
GBP 2,384.04 on 31 January 2025;
GBP 2,384.04 on 28 February 2025;
GBP 2,980.05 on 31 March 2025.
8.
The Player confirmed that he countersigned this letter on the same date, thereby
confirming the mutual termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
9.
On 3 April 2025, the Player signed a new employment agreement with the Finnish club, FC
Haka Oy, valid from that date until 31 October 2025. Accordingly, the Player was entitled to
a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,500.
10. On 1 May 2025, the Player sent the Club a default notice, acknowledging that the final
instalment of GBP 2,980.05 had not been paid.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19526
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 4 June 2025, the Player submitted a first claim against the Club to FIFA, identifying
himself as a British citizen. The claim was registered under ref. no. FPSD-19491.
12. On 6 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the abovementioned
claim, but informed the Player that it appeared to lack an international dimension.
Consequently, the Player was informed that the dispute was seemingly outside of the
Football Tribunal’s scope of jurisdiction, and that the case would therefore be closed.
13. On 6 June 2025, the Player submitted a new claim to FIFA. The Player insisted that the
dispute had an international dimension, based on the allegation that he was Bermudian,
and the Club was affiliated to the IFA.
14. Regarding the substance of the matter, the Player submitted copies of messages
exchanged with Club representatives in January 2025 and claimed that he had signed the
Termination Agreement under duress, coercion or undue influence.
15. The Player stated that the Termination Agreement should be set aside, entitling him to the
residual value of the Employment Contract (i.e., the balance of the salary for the months of
January to May 2025) minus the GPB 4,768.08 that the Club had already paid under the
Termination Agreement.
16. The Player’s request for relief was as follows:
“On these grounds, the Claimant hereby respectfully requests the FIFA DRC:
a. In relation to the breach of the Mutual Termination Agreement (Article 12bis claim):
•
Declare that the Respondent has breached its payment obligations under the
Mutual Termination Agreement dated 23 January 2025;
•
Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the outstanding amount of GBP
2,980.05, representing the third and final instalment due under the MTA,
originally payable on 31 March 2025;
•
Order the Respondent to pay default interest at 5% per annum on the overdue
amount of GBP 2,980.05 from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
b. In relation to the invalidity of the MTA and the resulting unjust termination (Article 14
claim):
•
Declare that the Mutual Termination Agreement is null and void on grounds
of coercion and lack of true consent, and that the Respondent is accordingly
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19526
liable for unjust termination without just cause, in breach of Article 14 of the
FIFA RSTP;
•
Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant full compensation for breach of
contract, in the amount of GBP 12,750 gross, representing unpaid wages from
23 January 2025 to 31 May 2025, calculated as a) 1 week of January 2025: GBP
750;b) February 2025: GBP 3,000;c) March 2025: GBP 3,000;d) April 2025: GBP
3,000;and e) May 2025: GBP 3,000;
•
Subtract the amounts already paid by the Club under the MTA (GBP 4,768.08)
from the above compensation sum, and accordingly order payment of the
balance of GBP 7,981.92 gross;
•
Order the Respondent to pay default interest at 5% per annum on the
compensation amount of GBP 7,981.92 from 1 June 2025 (the day after expiry
of the original contract) until the date of effective payment;
c. Pronounce any other decision that the Chamber may deem fit in light of the facts and
circumstances of the present matter”.
17. On 6 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the new claim and
requested that the Player submit a copy of his international passport to confirm his
nationality.
18. On 7 June 2025, the Player replied to the abovementioned letter, insisting that he holds
Bermudian nationality and that he plays for the Bermudan national team. He submitted a
copy of the passport issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
which lists his nationality as “British Overseas Territories”.
19. The Player requested that FIFA proceed with the case, due to its international dimension.
20. On 23 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Player that the matter in
question raised a preliminary procedural issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Football
Tribunal and would therefore be submitted for an expedited decision in accordance with
art. 19 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19526
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
21. Firstly, the Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chairperson)
determined whether he was competent to deal with this case.
22. In doing so, he noted that this matter had been ultimately presented to FIFA on 6 June 2025
and submitted for a preliminary decision on 30 June 2025. Taking into account the wording
of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the Chairperson determined
that this edition of the Procedural Rules was applicable to this matter.
23. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 19 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, the
Chairperson confirmed his competence to decide, in an expedited manner, whether this
case is affected by any preliminary procedural matter (i.e., whether the Football Tribunal
obviously lacks jurisdiction or if the claim is time-barred). Likewise, the Chairperson
highlighted that if the claim is not affected by any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA
general secretariat would be ordered to continue the procedure (cf., art. 19 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
24. The Chairperson then 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 employment-related disputes
between players and clubs with an international dimension.
25. At this point, the Chairperson recalled that the wording of the article in question clearly
implies that the first condition that needs to be compulsorily fulfilled in order for FIFA to
be competent to hear an employment related dispute between a club and a player is that
the said dispute has an international dimension. This means, in other words, that in case
the player has the same nationality from the country where the club that holds his
registration is based, the relevant dispute must be considered a purely internal (national)
matter to be decided by the competent authorities in the respective country.
26. If the parties are of the same nationality (or even if they have a second nationality), an
international dimension is only established if the player can prove that they were
considered a foreigner in the country concerned 1. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of both
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) also recognises that the party
invoking the international dimension bears the burden of producing conclusive and
substantial evidence proving that they were not hired as nationals 2.
See, for example, CAS 2014/A/3682 Lamontville Golden Arrows Football FC v. Kurt Kowarz & Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
1
2
See, for example, CAS 2010/A/2255 René Salomon Olembe-Olembe v. Kayserispor Kulübü Dernegli; CAS
2010/A/2071 IFA v. FAI, Kearns & FIFA; and CAS 2016/A/4441 Jhonny van Beukering v. Pelita Bandung Raya & FIFA.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19526
27. In other words, if the player is a national of the country in which the club is based, the
dispute is considered to be of a purely national nature and therefore outside the Football
Tribunal’s jurisdiction. According to the Chairperson, this is because the mens legis of the
rule is to protect the parties’ access to justice and fair proceedings, while also respecting
the autonomy of the member associations and the national dispute resolution system.
28. Therefore, where the player is registered under the same nationality as the club, or both
parties indeed share the same nationality / seat, the minimum requirement of the
international dimension is not met.
29. According to the Chairperson, this is precisely the case at hand, since the Player is British
(as the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda does not confer a state nationality) and the
Club is based in the Northern Ireland (i.e., part of the United Kingdom). Therefore, the
Chairperson confirmed that both parties shared the same (state) nationality.
30. Furthermore, the Player’s participation in the Bermudian national team is insufficient to
prove that he was not considered a national within the system and/or that his access to
justice was harmed. Similarly, the Chairperson emphasized that the concept of sporting
nationality for eligibility purposes differed from that used to determine the Football
Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
31. The Chairperson was further reassured in his conclusion by the Football Tribunal’s previous
confirmation of the absence of an international dimension in cases involving clubs from
Gibraltar (also a British Overseas Territory) and British citizens (see, for example, FPSD3466, FPSD-3467, FPSD-3468, FPSD-3529, FPSD-10562). The same rationale was also
applied in cases involving clubs based in China PR and players with Chinese nationality and
passports issued by Hong Kong (see Commentary on the Regulations, Edition 2023 – p. 4446).
32. Further, the Chairperson acknowledged that CAS had also confirmed this approach in an
award issued on 18 March 2024, when it upheld a previous decision passed by the Football
Tribunal 3. In that case, the Sole Arbitrator dealing with the dispute between a British player
and a club based in Gibraltar (British Overseas Territory), ruled that:
3
•
the wording of art. 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations is clear and reinforced by
the consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS in similar cases;
•
the existence of the international dimension was conditional on the player being
a foreigner in the club’s country;
•
the fact that the parties shared the same British nationality and the player was
registered as a British national was considered to be a decisive argument; and
CAS 2023/A/9957 Carlos Patrick Simeon v. Lynx Football Club Limited.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19526
•
in conclusion, there was no international element for players with nationalities
of independent countries which have more than one member association of FIFA
incorporated within their territory.
33. The Chairperson emphasized that the Football Tribunal had adhered to the above
reasoning for several years and continues to do so. As a result, the Chairperson decided
that, for the British player (even if born in Bermuda) playing for the club based in Northern
Ireland, there is no international dimension.
34. In conclusion, the Chairperson decided that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction
to hear the claim of the Player.
35. In continuation, the Chairperson 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 Chairperson decided that no
procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
36. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chairperson recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19526
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Djair
Terraii Carl Parfitt-Williams.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19526
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. 10