Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-10261
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 September 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Ismael Silva Lima
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Al Faisaly Club, Saudi Arabia
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Ismael Silva Lima, Brazil
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-10261
I. Facts of the case
1. The player Ismael Silva Lima, born on 1 December 1994, and the Saudi club, Al Faisaly concluded
an employment contract valid as from 20 July 2021 until 19 July 2023 (cf. clause 6.1 of the
contract).
2. According to art. 5 par. 1 of the contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD
66,667 net for the season 2021/2022.
3. In addition, following clause 5.2 of the contract, the player was entitled to a sign-on fee of USD
400,000, payable on 20 July 2021.
4. According to art. 6 par. 4 of the contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD
83,334 net for the season 2022/2023.
5. In addition, following clause 6.4.2 of the contract, the player was entitled to a sign-on fee of USD
400,000, payable “on 20 July 2021” (note: this is likely a typo, since it’s included in a section of the
contract related to the season 2022/2023. Thus, it probably refers to 20 July 2022).
6. Art. 8 of the contract stipulated the following obligation for the player:
“[to] 7. Apply his best efforts, with punctuality and without reservation, to the maximum of his
capabilities, in performing the activities and obligations provided for in this Contract, unless his
health prevents him from doing so
(…)
14. The Player must allow himself to be treated by a doctor/physiotherapist/chiropractor designated
by the Club. Nevertheless, the Player shall have the right to a second opinion by an independent
medical
specialist
of
choice
if
he
contests
the
opinion
of
the
Club's
doctor/physiotherapist/chiropractor. If there are still different opinions, the Player and the Club agree
on accepting an independent third opinion (e.g. from a FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence), which will
be binding on both Parties. The costs of any such third independent opinion will be covered by the
Club”
7. Art. 9 of the contract stipulated the following procedure for disciplinary sanctions:
“(..)
1. In the event that the Player commits a violation of any of his obligations under this Contract or the
applicable regulations, the Club may impose disciplinary sanctions against the Player. The Club shall
duly charge the Player and shall notify him in writing of the details of such charges. The Player shall
be provided with an opportunity to respond to the charges.
(…)
3. Fines for minor offences which are imposed by the Club on the same day as the offence may not
exceed the amount corresponding to one (1) day of the fixed monthly remuneration payable to the
Player (the amount to be calculated by dividing the monthly salary by 30)
(…)
5. The Club shall notify the Player in writing at least 7 days prior to the hearing. The Player may be
represented in disciplinary proceedings by a person (of any nationality) authorized by the Player for
that purpose".
8. Art. 13 par. Of the contract stipulated the following:
2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause, following amount will have to be paid:
( .. . .... ........ ). If there is no agreement on the amount, compensation for breach of contract is
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-10261
payable in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations."
9. On 5 June 2022, the club sent an email to the player, informing him that he had to provide a
justification for his absences without permission on 3 and 4 June 2022.
10. On 7 June 2022, the player replied to the cluib, indicating that he informed the sports director
and “then an unforeseen event happened” because he was solving “a very important thing”.
11. On the same date, the club replied and further requested to request for a further explanation
for his absences on 5 and 6 June 2022.
12. On 1 August 2022, the club sent a “deduction letter” due to the player’s absences, informing the
player that due to his absences from 27 to 29 July 2022, as well as for his absences from a preseason medical tests as well as from boarding a flight on 25 July 2022. The club notified a
deduction of 30% of the player’s salary for July 2022, in accordance with parss. B.3, B4 and B.5
of the “SAFF List of Penalties”.
13. On 23 September 2022, the player, via his legal representative, sent a first default notice to the
club, where he requested the payment of a total outstanding amount of USD 634,228.36 and
granted 15 days to pay said amounts. In said letter, the player complained about illegal fines
imposed against him in June, July and August 2022, which he deemed illegal as he could not
defend himself. In said letter, the player acknowledged that he was absent from 27 July 2022
until 31 July 2022, but justified said absence since the club did not pay him his sign on fee, which
was outstanding since 20 July 2022.
14. On 11 October 2022, the player, via his legal representative, sent a second letter to the club.
15. On 25 October 2022, the player sent a third letter to the club.
16. On 31 October 2022, the club replied to the player, indicating that, as to the salary deductions,
the player was absent on 27 July 2022 and then missed fours flights on 25 July 2022, 28 July 2022,
3 August 2022 and 6 August 2022. In said letter, the club argued that in relation to the salary
deductions for June, it was determined that the player was absent for four days and that,
additionally, he missed the roll call at the start of the season. The club further elaborated that,
in July, he was absent for six days, and in August, he was absent for a total of 25 days. According
to said letter, all of these absence were communicated to him through email notifications, while
the club noted that his lack of response or provision of unacceptable excuses led to the
application of regulations and subsequent salary deductions as stipulated in the list of penalties
and sanctions of SAFF.
17. On 19 of November 2022, the club informed the player that training would resume after the
World Cup break on 29 of November 2022.
18. On 27 November 2022, the club sent a reminder to the player regarding the training resumption
on 29 November 2022.
19. On 28 of November 2022, the club provided the player with an airplane ticket to return.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-10261
20. Between 30 November 2022 until 5 December 2023, the club sent various letter to the player
notifying him of his absence since 29 November from training sessions, which included a
summon to immediately join the first team training of the club.
21. On 5 December 2022, the player’s father in Brazil had a home accident with a shaving blade and
was admitted to the hospital. The player attached a copy of a hospital report.
22. On 6 December 2022, the club sent a formal notice to the player, urging him to resume training
and reminding him that he was in breach of his contractual commitments. The letter also stated
that his behavior toward the club was considered abusive under Article 14 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). (Annex 14)
23. On 7 December 2022, the player sent a fourth default notice to the club.
24. In said notice, the player explained that his absence since 29 November 2022 was due to
psychological issues, and attached a medical report to said notice. The player explained that he
was suffering from anxiety and mental distress, making it difficult for him to adapt to work. The
player also granted a 15-day medical leave starting from 1 December 2022. In addition, the
player also raised concerns about unpaid salaries for June, July, and August 2022, amounting to
USD 134,228.36, and attributed this non-payment to alleged illegal fines imposed by the club.
The player granted 10 days to remedy the default.
25. Between 7 December 2022, 9 December 2022, 10 December 2022, 11 December 2022,12
December 2022, the club sent new letters to the player, notifying him of his absences and asking
him to provide reasons for his repeated absences.
26. On 13 December 2022, the club received a report from the head coach, Mr. Ante Mise,
requesting disciplinary measures against the player for failing to meet his contractual
obligations and respecting the team.
27. On 14 December 2022, the club once again requested the player to join the club for a medical
examination with the club's doctor to determine his health status, as indicated in Article 8.14 of
the contract.
28. In this respect, the club sent 32 default notices to the player (referred to as “deposition request”).
29. On 18 December 2022, the legal representative of the player sent a medical request of his doctor
in Brazil, by means of which he granted him 15 days for health recovery from 16 December
2022.
30. The medical report stated the following:
“(..) the patient reports he Is been having symptoms of anxiety for the last couple of months with
progressive worsening. He is been also isolating himself from others (…). In addition, he frequently is
under mental distress with associated tachycardia, insomnia and significant physical indisposition
during day time (…)
He is been experiencing difficulty to adapt to the country he is currently living in, which seems to be
related to all his symptoms.
Today he was submitted to another psychiatrist evaluation. (…)
So that, I prescribed pregabalin and psychotherapy in order to improve his symptoms.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-10261
Therefore, after the last medical evaluation, he needs excuse from his work activities for 15 more
days for health recovering. (…)
Dr Vicente Linhares Neto, MD
Psychiatrist”
31. On 1 January 2023, the club sent a termination letter to the player, with the following contents:
“(…)
Thirdly: We remind the player of his duties among which is joining the training sessions of the first
football team, as the player is absent for more than two weeks, although the club booked the player
a flight ticket to return to Saudi Arabia and sent him a notification to immediately join the team, but
unfortunately, the player failed to return.
We refuse the excuse of having a psychological issue, because the player is used to absence from
training sessions after each vacation granted to him to fly to Brazil.
The club had requested the player to immediately join the club to undergo a medical checkup and
close supervision by the club's doctor by his letter dated on 14 December 2022 but as usually the
player failed to join the club. (…)
Therefore, AL-FAISALY FC had paid the player attention to join the first team trainings immediately
and if he considers himself suffering psychologically, which we are doubtful about, the player is legally
obliged to come to be assessed, treated and supervised by the doctor of the club in accordance with
Article 8 Paragraph 14 of the concluded contract between the two parties.
The player failed to join the club despite the letters sent by the club, which constitutes a breach of
obligations (…)
Whereas the constant absence of the player is considered to be abusive behavior in accordance with
Article 14 Paragraph 2 of FIFA Regulations. (…)
Consequently, Al Faisaly club notifies by this letter the termination of the contract with player Ismael
Silva.”
32. On 24 January 2023, the player sent a sixth notice to the club in response to the termination of
the contract, emphasizing his improved health and readiness to resume his duties, while also
addressing issues related to fines and unpaid salaries. The notice establish a deadline for the
club to address the overdue payments and requests further flight arrangements.
33. On 2 August 2023, the player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-10261
II. Proceedings before FIFA
34. On 18 May 2023, Al Faisaly lodged a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal against the player
for breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of compensation in the
amount of USD 1,750,000, detailed as follows:
USD 1,500,000 corresponding to the player’s salary for the season 2022/2023;
USD 250,000 corresponding to additional compensation (i.e. 83,334*3).
35. According to the club, it has consistently honored its financial obligations to the player.
36. However, Al Faisaly argued that the player has developed a habit of being absent and leaving
the training sessions and team camps whenever there is a break in the Saudi championship.
37. The club explained that, initially, the player did not participate in the training sessions with the
first team during the summer preseason period, being absent from 27 July 2022, to 26 August
2022, for a duration of 30 days.
38. The club stated that the player was absent from 29 November 2022 until 1 January 2023, without
a valid reason.
39. The club attached a copy of a receipt from “Alrajhi Bank”, dated 8 December 2022, indicating a
transfer of USD 70,834 to the player’s bank account in Brazil, as well as a receipt dated 4
November 2022, for the amount of USD 83,335.
40. On 22 June 2023, the player provided his reply and simultaneously lodged a counterclaim.
41. The player requested the payment of the following amounts, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
due dates:
Outstanding remuneration: USD 230,062.36, corresponding to his salaries from June to
December 2022;
Compensation: USD 500,004.
Legal expenses: USD 50,000
42. The Player denied breaching the contract and rejected the Club's claim that the contract was
terminated with just cause.
43. The Player argued that the Club owed him overdue payments for various months, including
June, July, August, November, and December 2022. The player explained that the club allegedly
deducted fines from his salaries for alleged absences, leading to unpaid dues. In this respect,
the Player claimed that the Club's deductions from his salary were illegal and unauthorized fines
for absence, leading to significant amounts being withheld.
44. The Player contended that the Club's deductions were made in bad faith, with fines ranging from
around 20% to 80% of his salary for different months due to alleged absences.
45. In particular, the player justified his request for outstanding remuneration as follows:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-10261
Month
Due Salary
Amount Paid
Amount Due
Absence
Days
Discount/Fine
Explanation
June 22
USD 66,667
USD 33,423.50
USD
33,243.50
3, 4, 5
50%
Player fined
for 3 days of
absence
July 22
USD
72,777.86
The player
acknowledged
that he only
worked for 19
days and thus
made his prorata
calculation
from the
original salary
of USD
83,333.
USD 36,258.86
USD
36,559.00
27, 28,
29, 30
50%
Player fined
for 4 days of
absence
August 22
USD 83,334
USD 18,817
USD
64,517.00
01-25
80%
November 22
USD 83,334
USD 70,834
USD
12,500.00
29, 30
20%
December 22
USD 83,334
USD 0
USD
83,334.00
31
N/A
Total
USD
389,447.20
USD 159,333.22
USD
230,113.98
-
-
Player fined
for 25 days of
absence
Player fined
for 2 days of
absence
Player was on
medical leave
for the entire
month
46. The player highlighted that his medical condition, diagnosed by a psychiatrist, required
medical treatment, and explained that he was eager to return to fulfil the contract after
receiving medical clearance.
47. The player rejected the imposition of sporting sanctions against him.
48. In response to the counterclaim, the club asserted that it had consistently fulfilled its financial
commitments towards the player, paying salaries and advances stipulated in the contract.
49. The club provided a document to support that it paid the November 2022 salary. The player's
habit of absenteeism during breaks in the Saudi championship was highlighted, including his
absence from training during the pre-season period from 27/07/2022 to 25/08/2022.
50. Despite the club's attempts to facilitate his return, the player repeatedly missed training
sessions, resulting in 69 days of unexcused absence out of 180 working days.
51. The club emphasized the player's refusal to cooperate with medical evaluations.
52. The club deemed the player's behaviour abusive and a just cause for contract termination.
Accordingly, the club insisted in his request for compensation.
53. In its duplica, the player insisted in his initial position.
54. The player considered that the club’s representation of the facts is misleading.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-10261
55. The player further argued that the club only paid part of his salary of November 2022, meaning
that USD 12,500 are still outstanding.
56. As to the document provided by the club, the player argued that said document is in fact a proof
that the Club did not correctly pay his salary regarding November 2022.
57. According to the player, the club imposed an unreasonable fine of around 20% of the Player's
salary for his 2-day absence in November. The player argued that the maximum fine the Club
could impose, based on the contract terms, was USD 5,555.60, while the actual deduction was
USD 6,944.40.
58. The player considered that the Club's assertion that it had a just cause for the contract
termination was done ins bad faith, since it disregarded his the Player's health issues and
medical leave. The player considered that the termination was illegal since it was done during
his leave, which ended on 23 January 2023.
59. The player was of the opinion that the club “that must be held liable for the premature termination
of the Contract without just cause, and not the [himself] that is the weaker and innocent party“.
60. The player insisted to be paid his outstanding dues and compensation as mentioned in his
replica and, in the alternative, should he pay any compensation, requested to reduce this
amount “to the minimum as possible”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-10261
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 18 May 2023 and submitted for decision on 21
September 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022 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.
2.
Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 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 Saudi club and a Brazilian player.
3.
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 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 15 February 2023, the October 2022 edition edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
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.
5.
Merits of the dispute
Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
6.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-10261
7.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the matter at stake concerns a breach of contract
without just cause, where the club unilaterally terminated the contract as from 1 January 2023 due
to the player’s absences.
8.
On the basis of the information gathered during the proceedings, the Chamber observed that the
parties started to have disagreements since July 2023, notably since the player’s initial absence
(starting on 27 July 2022 until 25 August 2022) during this month. The player argued that this
absence was due to the club’s delay in paying his sign-on fee, which was due on 20 July 2023.
9.
On this note, the Chamber considered that, in any case, being absent without prior notice for a
potential delay of 7 days in the payment of a contractual amount, is not a correct way to solve the
issue. Disputes and disagreements over payments are expected to be addressed through proper
communication (incl. default notices), negotiation, and potentially legal channels, rather than
through unilateral actions like being absent. The Chamber observed that this first unilateral action
led to a series of further disagreements, misunderstandings, and unilateral actions from both
parties.
10. In addition, the Chamber could only observed that the player’s argument in this respect is
contradictory, since in his justification, he only declared that he was absent because an “unforeseen
event happened” because he was solving “a very important thing”. In the view of the Chamber, this
excuse seems to be quite vague. Within the context of a professional contract, the Chamber
considered that it would be expected from the player to provide a more detailed explanation about
his absence.
11. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that, due to this absence, the club imposed a series of fines
on the player, particularly on 1 August 2022.
12. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, indeed, the contract provided a framework in its art. 9
for imposing fines and disciplinary sanctions in case of contractual breaches from the player. This
framework details the process for the imposition of fines and entitled the player a right to be heard,
as well as provides clear deadlines for the notifications as well as for the amounts. However, from
the evidence on file, the Chamber noted that there is no evidence that the player’s procedural rights
were respected. In addition, the fines imposed upon the player appear to be excessive and
inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in the contract. In addition, as observed by the Chamber,
the fines were imposed following the “List of Penalties and Sanction of SAFF”, but the club did not
provide a copy of said text.
13. In other words, as observed by the Chamber, in relation to the events of July-August 2023, both
parties committed contractual breaches: the player for his non-justified (or insufficiently justified)
absences, and the club for retaliating with abusive fines without respecting the player’s right to a
due process.
14. Thereafter, the Chamber observed that disagreements between the player and the club escalated.
According to the club, the player had to be available since 29 November 2022. At that moment, the
player was in Brazil. After many (almost daily) default notices sent by the club, the player explained
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-10261
that he had psychological issues, namely anxiety, which was diagnosed by a medical specialist.
According to the player, this was worsened by a home accident occurred to his father.
15. In relation to said issue, the Chamber emphasized that the FIFA Football Tribunal is not in a position
to directly assess mental health diagnoses. However, on initial examination, it appears that the
player's psychological challenges (anxiety) were primarily triggered by work-related factors or by his
work environment.
16. Being that the case, the Chamber understood that said issue should be resolved between the player
and the club, particularly by trying to communicate and finding mutually agreeable solutions.
17. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the contract stipulates (clause 14) a particular channel for
addressing medical issues. Accordingly, the player was contractually bound to seek treatment from
medical professionals designated by the club. However, the player unilaterally decided to be
diagnosed by a psychiatrist in Brazil, without even consulting the club. In the view of the Chamber,
clause 14 provides also sufficient rights to the player, as it entitles him with a right for a second
opinion. Thus, the Chamber considered that the player should have communicated with the club to
jointly appointing a medical doctor. The Chamber also noted that the clause does not prevent the
player from suggesting a doctor in Brazil, provided that the club would have agreed to it (and, in any
case, the player could have appointed a doctor of his choice as a second opinion).
18. All in all, the Chamber decided that it can be established that the player breached clause 14 of the
contract. This implies that he cannot rely on his mental health diagnostic as a reason to not return
to the club.
19. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the club served many default notices to the player (almost
on daily basis), asking for his return, prior to terminating the contract on 1 January 2023. It therefore
follows that the club clearly complied with the principle of ultima ratio.
20. In view of the above, the chamber conclude that the club terminated the contract with just cause.
ii. Consequences
21. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
22. However, before examining the consequences of this termination, the Chamber deemed relevant
to first examine the issue concerning the outstanding payments claimed by the player.
23. As previously mentioned, the club imposed a series of fines that did not follow the due process and
were abusive as to their amounts. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that said fines must be
disregarded and the player should receive his salaries in full.
24. Taking into account the evidence on file and the request of the player as well as the arguments of
the club, the Chamber calculated that the total amount of USD 230,113.98 net is overdue and should
be paid by the club to the player, as established in the following table:
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-10261
Month
Due Salary
Amount Paid
June 22
USD 66,667
USD
33,423.50
Amount
Due
USD
33,243.50
July 22
USD 72,777.86
(i.e. player only worked
for 19 day)
USD
36,258.86
USD
36,559.00
August 22
USD 83,334
USD 18,817
November 22
USD 83,334
USD 70,834
December 22
USD 83,334
USD 0
Total
USD 389,447.20
USD
159,333.22
USD
64,517.00
USD
12,500.00
USD
83,334.00
USD
230,113.98
25. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the club’s receipt from 4 November 2022 (corresponding to
one monthly salary) can be attributed to September or October 2022, which is consistent with the
fact that these months are not claimed by the player.
26. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as from the due dates until the date of effective payment.
27. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the club by the player 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,
with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up
to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised
over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
28. 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.
29. In this regard, the Chamber observed that art. 13 established that the compensation is payable in
accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations
30. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
player to the club had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-10261
Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration
of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
31. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the club, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until its term
32. In particular, the Chamber observed that, from the date of termination (1 January 2023) until 19 July
2023 (6.6 months), the player would earn USD 83,334*6.6 = USD 550,004.
33. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 550,004. serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
34. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the player had signed an employment contract with
another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant practice of the Chamber
as well as art. 17 par. 1 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
due by a player to his former club. In particular, the Chamber explained that its standard practice is
to calculate the average between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his
remuneration with the new club, for the exact same period of time comprised between the early
termination of the employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date of such
contract. In case substantial evidence thereof is provided by the club, the Chamber might
additionally grant the damaged club the non-amortised transfer fee paid for the player in breach
and/or the actual costs incurred by the damaged club in order to replace the leaving player.
35. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
36. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the payable compensation corresponds to USD 550,004,
corresponding to the residual value of the contract.
37. Lastly, taking into consideration the club’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award the club interest on said compensation at the rate of 5%
p.a. as of the date of the termination until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
38. 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.
39. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-10261
40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
41. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form.
42. 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
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of
the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-10261
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Al Faisaly, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Ismael Silva Lima, must pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, the amount of USD 550,004 as compensation for breach of
contract without just cause.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter Claimant, Ismael Silva Lima, is partially
accepted.
4.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Al Faisaly, must pay to the Respondent / CounterClaimant, Ismael Silva Lima, the amount of USD 230,113.50 as outstanding
remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 33,243.50 of as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 36,559 of as from 1 August 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 64,517 of as from 1 September 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 12,500 of as from 1 December 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 83,334 of as from 1 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the parties are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank accounts indicated
in the Bank Account Registration Form as available in the FIFA Legal Portal.
7.
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.
2.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in official matches up until the due
amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official
matches.
The Claimant / Counter-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.
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 or
by the end of the six months, when applicable.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the creditor in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-10261
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17