Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19134
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alexandre
Xavier Pereira Garcia Guedes
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Alexandre Xavier Pereira Garcia Guedes, Portugal
RESPONDENT:
Al Faisaly, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Gorka Villar
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19134
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 July 2024, the Portuguese player Alexandre Xavier Pereira Garcia Guedes
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the Saudi club Al Faisaly (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from the signing date until 30 June 2025.
2.
Article 5 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following:
“Article 5. Remuneration
5.1. Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any
taxes, bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Salary from 20/07/2024 until 31/07/2024
Monthly salary 01/08/2024 until 30/06/2025
Currency
USD
USD
Amount
9,677
26,393
The Club shall pay to the Player each monthly salary payment by the last day of each
month for a total of:
-
Salary from 20/07/2024 until 31/07/2024 (Nine thousand and six hundred and
seventy seven USD).
-
Monthly Salary 01/08/2024 until 30/06/2025 (Twenty six thousand and three hundred
and ninety three USD).
[…]
5.3. Fixed financial payments
The Club shall pay to the Player the contract advance for a total of (Fifty Thousand USD)
to be paid on 01/09/2024.
[…]
5.5. Penalty Clause
1. In case the player opts for the termination of the contract with the club after
01/01/2025, the player shall pay penalty clause equivalent to two (2) months salary
to the club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19134
2. In case the club opts for the termination of the contract with the player after
01/01/2025, the club shall pay penalty clause equivalent to two (2) months salary to
the player.”
3.
Article 12 of the Contract provided the following:
“Article 12. Termination
1. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this
Contract, provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the Club to fuliy comply with its financial obligation(s).
2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause and there is no agreement on
the amount, compensation for breach of contract is payable in accordance with Art. 17
of the FIFA Regulations.
3. The Club shall not terminate the contract due to the Player sustaining an injury during
play or training.
4. The validity of the Contract may not be made subject to a successful medical
examination and/or the grant of a work permit.
5. The Club shall not suspend, interrupt or delay the Player’s remuneration due to the
Player sustaining an injury during play or training. The Contract may not be terminated
by either party during the sporting season in any circumstances, with the exception of
cases where: (a) there is just cause; and/or (b) the Parties have agreed to terminate the
Contract before the date of its expiry by mutual consent.
6. The Player shall not, under any circumstances, waive salaries for work already
performed.
7. The Club shall notify the Committee in writing of any termination of this Contract
without delay and within three (3) working days at the latest. The Club shall also notify
the League Organiser wherever so required under the relevant League Organiser
regulations.”
4.
On 29 November 2024, the Player purportedly placed the Club in default due to
outstanding remuneration. However, it is noted that no copy of this correspondence is
available on file.
5.
On 5 December 2024, the Player addressed a further communication to the Club, referring
to his previous letter dated 29 November 2024. In this correspondence, the Player
acknowledged an error in the initially claimed amount and demanded payment of USD
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19134
92,375. This sum comprised half of the August 2024 salary, the full salaries for September,
October, and November 2024, as well as a portion of the signing fee. The Player requested
that payment be made no later than 14 December 2024.
6.
On 12 December 2024, the Club responded to the Player, asserting that the outstanding
amounts had been settled in full. In support of this claim, the Club submitted two payment
confirmations: one in the amount of USD 79,179 and another of USD 11,667.
7.
On 25 January 2025, the Club sent an email to the Player, stating as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“Following our virtual meeting with your agency, we expressed our intention to activate
Article 5.5 (penalty clause) of the employment contract signed on 20/07/2024. This was
further outlined in the email sent, which included a draft termination agreement. The
draft aimed to establish a clear framework and payment schedule for the amounts
related to the penalty clause and any outstanding dues.
However, your representatives have expressed their disapproval of both the proposed
agreement and the payment schedule.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 5.5 of the employment contract, which grants the
club the right to terminate the contract after 01/01/2025 by paying compensation
equivalent to two months' salary, the club hereby informs you that the contract is
terminated.
The club will proceed to pay the amount corresponding to the compensation, along with
any outstanding dues.
Kindly provide your bank details to facilitate the transfer of the compensation amount.”
8.
On 26 January 2025, the Club invited the Player to its premises to resolve any remaining
matters and to return the Club-provided accommodation and vehicle. The Club also
requested that the Player indicate his preferred date for the issuance of a return flight
ticket.
9.
On the same day, 26 January 2025, the Player replied to the Club:
“WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER:
Dear Sir,
I herein inform you that due to your decision to breach the contract concluded with the
player A. Guerra the latter had no other option but to travel to Portugal early in the
morning.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19134
Evidently, A. Alexandre will not only lodge a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal
against AI Faisaly FC to demand the outstanding monthly salaries and the applicable
compensation but also to be duly reimbursed of the amounts expended to by the
airplane tickets to permit his return from the KSA to Portugal.
Lastly, I kindly inform you that A. Guerra left the keys of the house and car provided by
the club in the referenced property.
I remain at your disposal for any further clarification.
ALL RIGHTS OF THE PLAYER ARE HEREIN RESERVED.”
10. On 29 January 2025, the Player concluded a new employment agreement with the
Portuguese club, Marítimo da Madeira – Futebol, SAD (hereinafter: Maritimo), valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2026.
11. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, the Player is entitled to the following fixed monthly
remuneration:
•
•
EUR 5,153.56 for the season 2024/2025; and
EUR 13,200.06 for the season 2025/2026.
12. On 6 February 2025, the Club transferred to the Player two additional payments in the
amounts of USD 47,678 and USD 52,785, respectively.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 5 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
14. In his submission, the Player asserted that the Club had terminated the Contract without
just cause and, as a result, should be held liable for the payment of compensation.
15. Firstly, the Player argued that the Club could not invoke Article 5.5 of the Contract to justify
the termination, invoking the principle of exceptio non adimpleti contractus. According to the
Player, the Club was in default due to outstanding financial obligations and, therefore, was
not entitled to rely on the termination clause.
16. Secondly, the Player referred to Article 12.5 of the Contract, contending that no mutual
agreement to terminate the employment relationship had ever been reached. He further
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19134
argued that Article 12.5 should prevail over Article 5.5, as it specifically governs the
conditions for termination.
17. Thirdly, the Player challenged the validity and enforceability of Article 5.5, claiming that it
lacked specificity – particularly with respect to the due date for payments – and failed to
exclude the right to further compensation. He also contended that the provision for two
months’ compensation was contrary to Swiss law and FIFA regulations and was
disproportionate in light of the residual value of the Contract.
18. In light of the foregoing, the Player requested the following amounts:
•
USD 49,207 net as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
o
o
o
•
USD 1,529 net as part of the signing fee;
USD 26,393 net as the December 2024 salary;
USD 21,285 net as the prorated January 2025 salary.
USD 79,179 net as compensation for breach of contract, calculated as follows:
o
USD 136,221.94 as the residual value of the Contract;
o
Minus USD 25,767 as mitigation, corresponding to the value of the Player’s
new employment contract with Maritimo;
o
Plus USD 25,767 as additional compensation;
o
Minus USD 52,786 paid by Club on 6 February 2025.
19. The Player further requested that the Football Tribunal declare that any financial award be
without prejudice to a potential future claim for taxes. Additionally, the Player requested
that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Club.
20. The Player submitted the following request for relief:
“In view of the above, the Player submits to the following requests for relief to the
attention of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST– To accept and uphold the present Claim;
SECOND– To confirm that the Club terminated the Employment Contract without just
cause;
THIRD– To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 1,529 (one
thousand five hundred and twenty-nine US dollars) net as outstanding signing-on fee,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19134
plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 2
September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH– To order the Club to pay to the Player default interest at the rate of 5% (five
percent) annually applicable over the December monthly salary of USD 26,393 (twentysix thousand three hundred ninety-three US dollars) net and calculated considering the
period between 1 January 2025 and 6 February 2025;
FIFTH - To order the Club to pay to the Player default interest at the rate of 5% (five
percent) annually applicable over the January monthly salary of USD 26,393 (twenty-six
thousand three hundred ninety-three US dollars) net and calculated considering the
period between 1 January 2025 and 6 February 2025;
SIXTH– To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 79,179 (seventynine thousand one hundred seventy-nine US dollars) net due as compensation plus
default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 26 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
SEVENTH– To ban the Club from registering any new player(s), either nationally or
internationally, for 2 (two) entire and consecutive registration periods;
EIGHTH– To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately (cf. Art. 21, par. 1 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); and
NINTH–To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of costs.”
b. Position of the Club
21. On 12 June 2025, the Club submitted its response to the Player’s claim.
22. The Club recalled the financial terms of the Contract, with particular emphasis on Article
5.5, which it described as a reciprocal, balanced, and unambiguous buy-out clause, or, in
the alternative, a valid liquidated damages clause.
23. In response to the Player’s arguments, the Club submitted the following:
•
Article 5.5: (i) allows either party to terminate the Contract from 1 January 2024
onwards; (ii) does not require proof of breach or just cause; (iii) implies the
payment of a fixed and identical amount (two net monthly salaries); and (iv)
operated as a self-contained and balance exit mechanism, freely negotiated.
•
If interpreted as a liquidated damages clause, the award of 30% of the residual
value of the Contract is neither symbolic nor excessive.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19134
•
There are no mandatory minimum requirements for the calculation of
compensation, and Article 5.5 was freely and validly negotiated between the
parties.
•
The principle exception non adimpleti contractus does not apply in this case
because (i) the Club did not demand any performance by the Player but simply
exercised a contractual right; (ii) Article 5.5 does not impose any obligation on
the Player; (iii) the Club acted in good faith and settle all outstanding debts; (iv)
an expansive application of the principle would render the termination clause
ineffective.
•
Article 12.5 does not override Article 5.5, as (i) Swiss law requires a systematic
interpretation of the contract as a whole; (ii) Article 5.5 constitutes a specific
exception to the general termination mechanism; (iii) the Player’s interpretation
would again nullify the termination option agreed upon by the parties; (iv) FIFA
and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) jurisprudence support the validity of
termination clauses. Therefore, Articles 5.5 and 12.5 are complementary rather
than mutually exclusive.
24. The Club further explained that it experienced temporary financial difficulties during the
second half of 2024, during which it remained in communication with the Player. It asserted
that on 6 February 2025, it paid a total of USD 100,463, covering the Player’s salaries for
December 2024 and January 2025, as well as the two-month compensation (USD 52,786)
pursuant to Article 5.
25. The Club also referred to a draft termination agreement it had sent to the Player during
their email exchanges, clarifying that its intention was solely to establish a payment
schedule, not to force a mutual termination or amend the terms of Article 5.5.
26. The Club reiterated the validity and enforceability of Article 5.5 and emphasized that the
Player had accepted the payments made by the Club, thereby benefiting from the
contractual arrangement.
27. The Club submitted the following conclusions and request for relief:
“In light of the arguments, facts, and legal principles set out above, Al-Faisaly FC
respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to issue a decision with the
following conclusions:
1.
To dismiss the entirety of the claim filed by Alexandre Xavier Pereira Garcia
Guedes as unfounded in both fact and law.
2.
To declare that the contract was validly terminated by the Club in accordance
with Clause 5.5 of the Employment Contract, which grants both parties a
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19134
reciprocal right of early termination as from 1 January 2025, upon payment of a
fixed compensation equivalent to two net monthly salaries.
3.
To confirm that the Club duly fulfilled all its financial obligations, having paid to
the Player:
a.
b.
c.
the outstanding salary for December 2024;
the pro rata salary for January 2025;
and the agreed two-month compensation pursuant to Clause 5.5.
4.
To reject the Player’s request for any additional compensation under Article 17.1
of the FIFA RSTP.
5.
To reject the Player’s request for default interest, given that no outstanding debt
or late payment remains.
6.
To reject the Player’s request for sporting sanctions, as there has been no breach
of contract without just cause, no violation of the protected period, and no
conduct by the Club that could justify disciplinary measures.
7.
To confirm that the present proceedings are free of charge in accordance with
Article 25(1) of the FIFA Procedural Rules.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. 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 5 May 2025 and submitted for decision on 14
August 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.
29. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 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 Brazilian player and a Saudi club.
30. 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. 26 of the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19134
July 2025 edition 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
31. 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
32. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract filed by the Player against the Club.
34. The Player alleged that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause on 25 January
2025 and, consequently, should be held liable for the resulting consequences. In this
context, the Player sought payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
35. The Club, in contrast, maintained that it had lawfully terminated the Contract by exercising
the option provided under Article 5.5 of the Contract.
36. Accordingly, the DRC recognised that its task was to determine the effective date and legal
justification of the termination, as well as the consequences arising therefrom.
37. As a starting point, the Chamber recalled that the Contract contained the following
provisions governing early termination:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19134
“5.5. Penalty Clause
3. In case the player opts for the termination of the contract with the club after
01/01/2025, the player shall pay penalty clause equivalent to two (2) months salary
to the club.
4. In case the club opts for the termination of the contract with the player after
01/01/2025, the club shall pay penalty clause equivalent to two (2) months salary to
the player.”
[…]
“Article 12. Termination
1. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this
Contract, provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the Club to fuliy comply with its financial obligation(s).
2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause and there is no agreement on
the amount, compensation for breach of contract is payable in accordance with Art. 17
of the FIFA Regulations.”
3. The Club shall not terminate the contract due to the Player sustaining an injury during
play or training.
4. The validity of the Contract may not be made subject to a successful medical
examination and/or the grant of a work permit.
5. The Club shall not suspend, interrupt or delay the Player’s remuneration due to the
Player sustaining an injury during play or training. The Contract may not be terminated
by either party during the sporting season in any circumstances, with the exception of
cases where: (a) there is just cause; and/or (b) the Parties have agreed to terminate the
Contract before the date of its expiry by mutual consent.
6. The Player shall not, under any circumstances, waive salaries for work already
performed.
7. The Club shall notify the Committee in writing of any termination of this Contract
without delay and within three (3) working days at the latest. The Club shall also notify
the League Organiser wherever so required under the relevant League Organiser
regulations.”
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19134
38. With the above in mind, the DRC proceeded to analyze the parties’ respective arguments
and points of disagreement, with the objective of determining whether the termination
was valid and, if not, what the legal consequences should be.
A.
THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TWO ARTICLES AND THE QUESTION OF PRECEDENCE
39. The Player argued that Articles 5.5 and 12.5 were in conflict and that Article 12.5 should
prevail. Conversely, the Club maintained that the Contract must be interpreted as a whole
and that Article 5.5, being more specific, should take precedence.
40. According to the Chamber, while the Contract’s wording could have been clearer in stating
that Article 12.5 operates without prejudice to Article 5.5, it would be logical to interpret
Article 5.5 as prevailing. Article 12.5 provides that the Contract may only be terminated
before its expiry by mutual consent. When read in conjunction with Article 5.5, the
Chamber concluded that it could be interpreted as a pre-agreed compensation clause,
whereby the parties consented in advance to a termination option under specific
conditions.
41. The Chamber also agreed with the Club that accepting the Player’s interpretation would
render Article 5.5 ineffective.
42. Therefore, irrespective of the assessment of Article 5.5’s validity, the DRC concluded that
the Player’s argument that it was overridden by Article 12.5 could not be upheld.
B.
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EXCEPTION NON ADIMPLETI CONTRACTUS
43. The DRC then acknowledged that the Player further argued that the Club could not invoke
Article 5.5 due to its outstanding financial obligations at the time. The Club contested the
relevance of this principle, asserting that Article 5.5 did not impose reciprocal obligations
on the Player and that any default did not affect the Club’s right to terminate.
44. In this regard, the Chamber sided with the Club. In the Chamber’s view, the existence of
outstanding payments does not preclude the Club from exercising a contractual right to
terminate, although it may affect the Player’s performance obligations.
45. The Chamber also accepted the Club’s argument that it settled its debts within the deadline
set by the Player, and therefore, in principle, should not be barred from exercising an
unrelated contractual right.
C.
NATURE OF ARTICLE 5.5 (AND THE TERMINATION)
46. Having stated the above, the Chamber observed that the Player contended that the Club
unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause. The Club denied this, asserting that
it had exercised a valid buy-out clause.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19134
47. On this point, the Chamber found the Player’s position more persuasive.
48. The Chamber recalled its jurisprudence in respect to termination / liquidated damages
clause, as detailed in the Commentary on the Regulations – Edition 2023 (hereinafter: the
Commentary) (p. 176):
“In contrast with liquidated damages clauses, ‘buy-out’ clauses grant a right to the player
to terminate the contractual relationship prematurely in return for payment of a
predetermined sum that is stipulated in the contract. In this case, parties are not
setting an amount of compensation to be paid to compensate for a breach, but
rather are agreeing in advance upon the conditions of a ”mutual termination”, i.e.
consent is given in advance to terminate the contract in the future in return for a
specified payment.
The key practical difference between a liquidated damages clause and a buy-out clause
is that in the case of the former, there may still be a breach of contract (thus possibly
triggering sporting sanctions), whereas in the case of the latter, there is a pre-agreed
mutual contract termination which cannot trigger sporting sanctions.”
(emphasis added by the Chamber).
49. Taking the above into account, and considering the wording of Article 5.5, the Chamber
concluded that this provision constituted a liquidated damages clause. However, the
Chamber emphasized that this clause did not, in itself, authorize termination but rather
stipulated the amount payable in the event of termination - i.e., it functioned as a
compensation clause.
50. According to the Chamber, this interpretation is further supported by the title of Article 5.5,
which is labeled “penalty clause,” indicating that it referred to financial compensation
payable upon early termination.
51. Accordingly, the DRC found that Article 5.5 was a liquidated damages clause and could not
serve as a valid legal basis for the Club’s termination. Based on the evidence on file and the
Club’s own submissions, the Chamber concluded that the Club still terminated the Contract
unilaterally on 25 January 2025 without just cause.
D.
PROPORTIONALITY AND VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 5.5
52. Having established that Article 5.5 is a liquidated damages clause, the Chamber proceeded
with the assessment of its validity under FIFA regulations and relevant jurisprudence.
53. While parties are generally free to define the terms of their employment relationship, the
Chamber recalled that contractual stability is a cornerstone of the football industry. As a
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19134
result, employers and employees cannot unilaterally withdraw from a valid contract
without consequences.
54. Along the same lines, the early termination of a contract entails both financial and sporting
consequences. Although parties may agree on the effects of such termination,
jurisprudence imposes limits to ensure legal certainty and protect the principle of
contractual stability.
55. The Chamber once again referred to the Commentary (p. 174), which establishes the
following regarding the validity of compensation clauses:
“[T]he principles of reciprocity and proportionality play an important role in relation to
liquidated damages clauses. Both the DRC and CAS have repeatedly confirmed that any
amount of compensation stipulated in a compensation clause must be proportionate. If
the amount stipulated in the contract appears to be disproportionate particularly when
compared to the contractual remuneration of the player, the DRC will render the clause
non-applicable (i.e. invalid) and proceed to calculate the compensation due pursuant to
the factors set out in article 17, Regulations.”
56. The Chamber considered that the liquidated damages clause in question is clearly
reciprocal, as it applies equally to both the Player and the Club.
57. Regarding proportionality, the Chamber noted that the clause would only apply to
terminations occurring as of January 2025. Thus, had the Club invoked Article 5.5 on 1
January 2025, it would have owed two months’ salary as compensation, compared to six
months of remaining contractual obligations. The Chamber found that this standard
appeared to fall within the acceptable range established by jurisprudence.
58. The DRC noted that in the present case, the Club notified the termination on 25 January
2025. As a result, the Player would be entitled to his prorated salary for January plus two
months’ salary - amounting to nearly three months’ remuneration, as opposed to the six
months remaining under the Contract.
59. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Chamber was satisfied that this
outcome respected the principle of proportionality.
60. Furthermore, the DRC emphasized that the Player promptly mitigated his damages by
securing new employment. Hence, contrary to his claim, he would also not be entitled to
additional compensation, as the termination was not linked to any outstanding payables.
61. In conclusion, the Chamber was not persuaded by the Player’s argument that the liquidated
damages clause in Article 5.5 was disproportionate or abusive. The DRC therefore found it
applicable in this case, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19134
ii. Consequences
62. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber ruled that the Player was entitled to receive any
outstanding remuneration up to the date of termination, in addition to two months’ salary
as compensation.
63. In this context, the Chamber recalled that:
• On 5 December 2024, the Player claimed a total of USD 92,375, corresponding to
unpaid salaries for September, October, and November 2024 (USD 79,179), as well as
the outstanding portion of the signing fee (USD 13,196).
• Later in December 2024, the Club paid USD 90,846, leaving a remaining balance of
USD 1,529.
• On 31 December 2024, the salary for December 2024 fell due, increasing the Club’s
outstanding debt to USD 27,922 (i.e., the previous balance of USD 1,529 plus the
December salary of USD 26,393).
• As the termination occurred on 25 January 2025, the Player was also entitled to 25
days of salary for January 2025. This resulted in a total of USD 49,206.67 (i.e., USD
27,922 plus a prorated January salary of USD 21,284.67).
• On 6 February 2025, the Club paid USD 47,678, which it stated was intended to cover
the outstanding remuneration and the two-month compensation under Article 5.5.
64. In light of the above, the Chamber found that the Player remained entitled to a net amount
of USD 1,528.67 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the recognized
entitlements minus the amounts paid by the Club.
65. Given the uncertainty surrounding the breakdown of this outstanding amount, the
Chamber further decided that interest at the rate of 5% p.a. be applied from the date of
termination, i.e., 25 January 2025, until the date of effective payment.
With respect to compensation, the Chamber confirmed that the Club had fulfilled its financial
obligations pursuant to Article 5.5 of the Contract, and accordingly determined that no outstanding
amounts remained due.
66. Lastly, the Chamber pointed out that the amounts awarded were to be considered “net”.
However, any future claims related to tax liabilities should be assessed in accordance with
the applicable regulations and subject to the jurisdiction of the competent decision-making
body.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19134
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
70. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
71. The DRC 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
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19134
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alexandre Xavier Pereira Garcia Guedes, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Faisaly, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 1,528.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 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.
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. 18
REF. FPSD-19134
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. 19