Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16755
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Matthew
Rudolf-Maria Steenvoorden
BY:
Angela COLLINS, Australia
CLAIMANT:
Matthew Rudolf-Maria Steenvoorden, the Netherlands
Represented by De Vvcs
RESPONDENT:
Terengganu FC, Malaysia
Represented by Fozi Addhwa
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16755
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 February 2024, the Dutch player Matthew Rudolf-Maria Steenvoorden (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Malaysian club Terengganu FC (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 30
April 2025.
2.
According to schedule A of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
monthly salary of MYR 69,000, payable no later than the 7th day of the following month;
and a signing bonus of MYR 69,000.
3.
Additionally, schedule B, lit d) of the Contract stipulated, inter alia, the following:
“i) Other benefits as agreed upon between the Club and the Player:
- A return Economy class flight tickets (once) will be provided for player, 1 spouse and 1 kid.
Flight ticket must be use by the player. The club not responsible to pay compensation to the
player. A flight ticket (agent) one way only, for come to assist contract player signing.
ii) House / accommodation (Worth RM 2,000.00 monthly). Player have to find personally a
house and club will pay monthly to the player”.
4.
Article 7 of the Contract established:
“ARTICLE 7: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES If there are complaints regarding the terms and
conditions of service under this Contract, the following procedure shall apply:
1. A notice of complaint must be submitted in writing to the Club Manager or the Club's Chief
Executive Officer if the Player has a complaint.
2. The matter must be discussed at the next Club meeting or within fourteen (14) days after
receiving the said notice, whichever is earlier.
3. If the complaint is not formally answered by the Club or the decision made by the Club
does not satisfy the Player, then the Player reserves the right to refer the complaint to the
NDRC in accordance with NDRC regulation.
4. If the Player or his representative is still not satisfied with the NDRC decision, then the Player
can appeal to the NDRC Appeal within ten (10) days after receiving the grounds of decision
for the NDRC decision.
6. No Club, New Club, Officer, Player or representative will file any proceedings related to
status, transfer and contract or any complaint related to the Regulation on Status and
Transfer of Players in any court of law. Any dispute relating to the status, transfer, contract
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16755
and any grievance regarding the status and transfer of the Player, shall be submitted to the
jurisdiction of the NDRC or the FAM Status Committee.
7. Disputes involving non-Malaysian players arising out of or relating to this Contract may be
brought to FIFA DRC or the local NDRC. All other disputes arising out of or relating to this
Contract will be referred to the FAM NDRC or FAM Status Committee. The decision of FIFA DRC
and NDRC or the Status Committee is final and binding on both parties”.
5.
On 8 July 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default by email and requested MYR
251,500 plus 5% interest as from the due dates, corresponding to:
- MYR 34,500 for half of the monthly salary of April 2024;
- MYR 69,000 for the signing bonus; - MYR 69,000 for May 2024;
- MYR 69,000 for June 2024;
- MYR 10,000 for the total housing allowance for the months of February, March, April, May
and June 2024, i.e. MYR 2,000 each month.
6.
In the same letter, the Claimant gave 15 days to the Respondent to remedy the default.
Also, he warned the Club that the failure to comply with such payment constituted just
cause to terminate the Contract.
7.
On 24 July 2024, the Claimant sent a second default notice to the Claimant stating that he
had only received one salary and gave the Respondent 15 days to pay the total balance of
MYR 182,500 plus 5% interest. The said letter reads, inter alia, as follows:
“So as a consequence, for the May salary amounting to RM 69,000.00, is now only 50 percent
paid. You therefore still owe RM 34,500.00 to the player.
The salary for June, amounting to RM 69,000.00 is also not paid yet.
For the record, we note that salaries should have been paid by the 7th of the following month.
The signing fee to the amount of RM 69,000.00.-- is already due from the date of signing the
contract, being 1 February 2024.
The agreed monthly housing cost contribution in the amount of RM 2,000.00 is due from the
effective date of the contract. For the months of February, March, April, May and June, this
implies an amount of RM 10,000.00.”
8.
Also on 24 July 2024, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the latest email by the
Claimant, as well as confirmed the debt of (i) half salary of May 2024, i.e. MYR 34,500, (ii)
the monthly salary of June 2024 i.e. MYR 69,000, (iii) the signing bonus, i.e. MYR 69,000 and
(iv) the housing allowance for February-June 2024 amounting to MYR 10,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16755
9.
On 6 September 2024, the Claimant sent a third default notice to the Respondent,
requesting the payment of MYR 215,000 granting the Respondent with 15 days to remedy
the default and reiterating that the nonpayment constituted just cause to terminate the
Contract. This letter reads, inter alia, as follows:
“The salaries for July and August, amounting to RM 138,000.00 are not paid. The signing fee
to the amount of RM 69,000.00.-- is also still due. The agreed monthly housing allowance in
the amount of RM 2,000.00 is also not paid for May, June, July and August, so this implies an
amount of RM 8,000.00.
As a consequence we formally invite Terrenganu Football Club to pay the total amount due
of RM 215.000.00 plus 5% interest from the due dates within fifteen (15) days on the bank
account of the Player.
In case the full and timely payment is not made within 15 days from the date of this e-mail,
we reserve the right to terminate the contract with just cause and shall file a claim before the
FIFA Football Tribunal in accordance with FIFA Regulations in force.”
10. On 26 September 2024, the Claimant terminated the Contract citing just cause due to
outstanding remuneration according to art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
11. Also on 26 September 2024, the Respondent answered the correspondence sent by the
Claimant stating, inter alia, as follows:
“The club promise to make the salary payments for July and August (RM 138,000.00) as well
as the housing allowance from May until August (RM 8,000.00) on 1 October 2024 (Tuesday).
Regarding the payment of other outstanding amounts, the club will settle them after
discussions are held with your side.”
12. Also on 26 September 2024, the Club issued another letter, inviting the Player to retract
from his termination.
13. On 30 September 2024, the Claimant answered to the Club stating, inter alia, that his
termination was final.
14. On 1 October 2024, the Player concluded an employment agreement with the Croatian club
HNK Gorica, valid as from the date of the signature until 30 June 2025. According to this
contract, the Player would be entitled to a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,000 net for a
total remuneration of EUR 7,000 net in the entire period.
15. On 8 October 2024, the Respondent sent a letter addressed to the Claimant’s
representatives asking for their assistance in verifying his bank account details to transfer
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16755
the outstanding salary, as well as proposing payment of two monthly salaries in advance
for the Player to return to the team (i.e., October and November).
16. In the same letter, the Club also asked to schedule a meeting to explain some aspects of
the medical condition of the Claimant.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 24 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
18. According to the Claimant, at the time of the termination (i.e., 26 September 2024), the
following amounts were outstanding:
• 3 monthly salaries (i.e., July, August and September 2024) for a total of MYR 207,000;
• Signing bonus of MYR 69,000;
• 5 monthly housing allowance (i.e., May, June, July, August, September 2024) for a total of
MYR 10,000.
19. As a result, the Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause and that
he was entitled to receive a compensation for breach of contract in the total of MYR
505,780, broken down as follows:
• Salary: MYR 69,000 x 7 (i.e., October 2024 to April 2025) = MYR 483,000;
• Housing allowance: MYR 2,000 x 7 (i.e., October 2024 to April 2025) = MYR 14,000;
• Flight tickets from Terengganu-Amsterdam allegedly for the Player, wife and kid = MYR
8,780.
20. The Claimant indicated that the mitigated amount of EUR 7,000 per his new contract should
be deducted from such compensation.
21. The Claimant provided evidence of having paid for flight tickets for him, his wife and kids
amounting to MYR 8,870.
22. Consequently, the Claimant requested (quoted verbatim):
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine that
the terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just cause on 26 September
2024 and to order the Club to pay him the following amounts:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16755
-RM 207.000,00 as outstanding salaries + 5% interest as from the relevant payment dates
until the
date of effective payment;
- RM 69.000,00 corresponding to the signature fee + 5% interest as from the relevant due date
until the date of effective payment;
-RM 10.000,00 as outstanding housing allowances + 5% interest as from the relevant payment
dates until the date of effective payment;
-RM 505.780,00 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as
from 26 September 2024 until the date of effective payment less the mitigated compensation
of EUR 7.000,00.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
23. In its reply, the Respondent challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction based on article 7 of the Contract,
which allegedly provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Association of Malaysia (hereinafter: the Malaysian NDRC).
24. Also, the Club considered the Claimant’s claim to be premature based on the grievance
procedures stipulated in the Contract.
25. As to the substance, the Club stated that the Claimant’s termination of contract was without
just cause, because he abused the process in bad faith.
26. Moreover, the Club indicated that according to its letter dated 8 October 2024, it made
immediate steps to settle the outstanding amounts and even proposed the Claimant to
return to the Club and he did not respond.
27. Consequently, the Club argues that the Claimant terminated the Contract without just
cause.
28. The Club also added that (i) the Contract does not establish an amount of compensation,
(ii) art. 17 of the Regulations is not applicable because the Player did not have just cause,
and (iii) the amount claimed by the Player is exorbitant. Hence, the Club stated that no
compensation shall be awarded.
29. The Club argued that “in any event”, the Clamant shall only be entitled to receive the
amount of MYR 286,000, broken down as follows:
- MYR 207,000 as outstanding salaries for July, August and September 2024;
- MYR 69,000 as signing bonus;
- MYR 10,000 as outstanding housing allowance.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16755
30. Regarding the Claimant’s new contract with HNK Gorica, the Club argues that there was
inducement for the Player to breach his contract.
31. The Club requested FIFA to reject the Claimant’s claim. However, it should be noted that
the Respondent did not file a counterclaim.
c. Replica of the Claimant
32. In his rejoinder, the Claimant stated that based on article 7.7 of the Contract, FIFA has
jurisdiction.
33. The Claimant also denied that the claim was premature as argued by the Club.
34. As to the substance, the Claimant insisted that he terminated the Contract with just cause
under art 14bis of the Regulations, after sending 3 default notices to the Respondent.
35. Similarly, the Claimant stated that article 9.7 of the Contract entitled him to unilaterally
terminate the Contract in case of nonpayment of two monthly salaries.
36. Lastly, the Claimant reiterated the requests he made in his claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
37. In its final comments, the Club reiterated the arguments previously made in its response.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 October 2024 and submitted
for decision on 23 April 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.
39. 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 (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Dutch player and a Malaysian club.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16755
40. At this point, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the
Football Tribunal to deal with the present claim. In particular, the Respondent contended
that, by virtue of article 7 of the Contract, (i) the Malaysian NDRC was competent for the
adjudication of any dispute arising therefrom; and (ii) the Claimant’s claim was premature
based on the grievance procedures stipulated therein.
41. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that parties may deviate from FIFA’s jurisdiction
where there is a clear and exclusive clause in favour of civil courts and/or a NDRC that
complies with the FIFA regulations.
42. Consequently, the Single Judge proceeded to analyse whether the Contract contained such
a clear and exclusive clause. In doing so, the Single Judge referred to the wording of article
7 of the Contract, which stated as follows:
“ARTICLE 7: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES If there are complaints regarding the terms and
conditions of service under this Contract, the following procedure shall apply:
1. A notice of complaint must be submitted in writing to the Club Manager or the Club's Chief
Executive Officer if the Player has a complaint.
2. The matter must be discussed at the next Club meeting or within fourteen (14) days after
receiving the said notice, whichever is earlier.
3. If the complaint is not formally answered by the Club or the decision made by the Club
does not satisfy the Player, then the Player reserves the right to refer the complaint to the
NDRC in accordance with NDRC regulation.
4. If the Player or his representative is still not satisfied with the NDRC decision, then the Player
can appeal to the NDRC Appeal within ten (10) days after receiving the grounds of decision
for the NDRC decision.
6. No Club, New Club, Officer, Player or representative will file any proceedings related to
status, transfer and contract or any complaint related to the Regulation on Status and
Transfer of Players in any court of law. Any dispute relating to the status, transfer, contract
and any grievance regarding the status and transfer of the Player, shall be submitted to the
jurisdiction of the NDRC or the FAM Status Committee.
7. Disputes involving non-Malaysian players arising out of or relating to this Contract
may be brought to FIFA DRC or the local NDRC. All other disputes arising out of or
relating to this Contract will be referred to the FAM NDRC or FAM Status Committee.
The decision of FIFA DRC and NDRC or the Status Committee is final and binding on
both parties.” (emphasis added by the Single Judge)
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16755
43. When considering the above, the Single Judge noted that, for disputes involving “nonMalaysian players” such as this one, the parties could refer to “the FIFA DRC or the local
NDRC”.
44. Consequently, the Single decided that the above clause was non-exclusive, or even
alternative, as it foresaw more than one decision-making forum. In other words, as the
parties evidently chose two forums (one of which was FIFA), the Single Judge was
comfortable to conclude that their intention was not manifestly to exclude the jurisdiction
of the Football Tribunal.
45. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Football Tribunal has
jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
46. Finally, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29
of the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
47. 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 she 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
48. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
49. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
(i) the Player terminated the Contract on 26 September 2024 due to overdue payables; and
(ii) the Club disputed the just cause for this termination.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16755
50. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to was to determine, based
on the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact
remained unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art.
14bis of the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled and/or if the Player had just cause in
accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations.
51. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that:
• On 8 July 2024, the Player demanded payment within 15 days of more than two salaries
(i.e., part of April, May and June 2024), the signing bonus and housing allowances;
• Within the above deadline, the Club only paid one salary;
• On 24 July 2024, the Player again demanded payment within 15 days of 1.5 monthsalary (i.e., part of May and June 2024), the signing bonus and housing allowances;
• Within the above deadline, the Club apparently paid the outstanding salaries;
• On 6 September 2024, the Player sent a third letter to the Respondent, requesting the
salaries for July and August 2024, the signing bonus and the same housing allowances,
within 15 days;
• No further payment was made by the Club, and the Player terminated the Contract on
26 September 2024.
52. In this sense, the Single Judge first noted that according to the Contract, the monthly salary
was payable no later than the 7th of the following month.
53. Consequently, the Single Judge considered that at the date of the last default notice on 6
September 2024, only one monthly salary (i.e., the salary of July 2024) was due.
54. In light of the above, and given that the literal wording of art.14bis of the Regulations refers
to two-months “salary”, the Single Judge concluded that the prerequisites were not formally
met.
55. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge recalled that the jurisprudence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber as detailed in the Commentary on the Regulations – Edition 2023
(pp.150 et seq.) establishes the following:
“Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this does not imply that
delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration cannot amount
to just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A player invoking other
outstanding remuneration to terminate their contract may still have just cause. The pertinent
circumstances will have to be assessed against the general definition of what constitutes a
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16755
just cause in accordance with the terms of article 14, along with the relevant general criteria
set out in jurisprudence and described above. Particular attention should be paid to factors
such as whether the outstanding amount is significant (i.e. that it is neither negligible nor
totally subordinated), the extent of the delay, the general attitude of the parties in the specific
case and other relevant factors.”
56. In this line, the Single Judge noted that the signing fee equalled to one monthly salary, i.e.
MYR 69,000 and was outstanding for more than 4 months, since the date of signing of the
Contract, i.e. 1 February 2024. The Single Judge also observed that the Club acknowledged
owing the Player his housing allowance for several months. Not to mention that the salary
for July 2024 was overdue and that the salary for August 2024 was due the day after the
notice was sent.
57. In addition, the Single Judge found it essential that the Player had already placed the Club
in default on other two opportunities, each of which a significant part of his remuneration
was outstanding and was not fully remedied.
58. Therefore, and as a result of the Club’s persistent failure to meet its financial obligations,
the Single Judge considered that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause under
art. 14 of the Regulations on 26 September 2024.
ii. Consequences
59. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
A. Outstanding Salaries
60. The Single Judge first noted that the Player claimed the salaries for July, August and
September 2024.
61. In this sense, the Single Judge observed that the Club bore its burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract but it failed to provide any proof
of payment.
62. Therefore, the Single Judge determined that the Player shall still be entitled to his
outstanding salaries, totalling MYR 207,000, plus interest as from the day following the
relevant due dates, as follows:
• MYR 69,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 August 2024;
• MYR 69,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 September 2024;
• MYR 69,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 September 2024.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16755
63. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge clarified that, since the termination took
place on 26 September 2024, the Player should be awarded the full September 2024 salary
as outstanding remuneration, plus default interest as from the termination date.
B. Signing fee
64. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that the parties concurred that the signing bonus
amounting to MYR 69,000 remained unpaid.
65. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to award MYR 69,000 corresponding to the signing fee,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from the day following date of signing of the Contract (i.e., 2
February 2024) until the effective date of payment.
C.
Housing allowances
66. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that it was undisputed that the Club owed the
Player the amount of MYR 10,000 for housing allowance.
67. In addition, as there was no specific date of payment in the Contract, the Single Judge
considered that it should have been paid by the end of each month.
68. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to award the Player a total of MYR 10,000 as housing
allowance, plus interest as follows:
• MYR 2,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024;
• MYR 2,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024;
• MYR 2,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2024;
• MYR 2,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2024;
• MYR 2,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2024.
D. Flight tickets
69. The Single Judge took note that the Player claimed MYR 8,870 as reimbursement of flight
tickets for him, his wife and kid.
70. The Single Judge also observed that the Player provided evidence of having paid for those
tickets, which was not disputed by the Club. Furthermore, the evidence showed that the
flight tickets were for the Player, two adults and one infant.
71. The Single Judge then recalled that the Contract stipulated that:
“i) Other benefits as agreed upon between the Club and the Player:
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16755
- A return Economy class flight tickets (once) will be provided for player, 1 spouse and 1 kid.
Flight ticket must be use by the player. The club not responsible to pay compensation to the
player.”
72. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that to award the reimbursement claimed by the
Player, but limited to an amount of MYR 5,986. The Single Judge clarified that this
reimbursement only accounted for the three tickets stipulated in the Contract (i.e., the
Player, his spouse and one child) and therefore excluded the additional adult.
73. Lastly, the Single Judge pointed out that the Player was entitled to 5% interest p.a. on the
aforementioned sum as from the date of termination (i.e., 26 September 2024) until the
date of effective payment.
E.
Compensation
74. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
75. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she first had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
76. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations.
77. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single concluded that the amount of MYR 497,000 serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract (i.e., MYR 69,000 x 7
in salary plus MYR 2,000 x 7 in housing allowances).
78. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16755
practice of the Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
79. Indeed, the Player found employment with HNK Gorica. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 1,000 net per month, which converted
into MYR 4,610.24 at the date of termination. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that,
for the overlapping period (i.e., from October 2024 to April 2025) the Claimant mitigated
his damages in the total amount of MYR 32,271.70 (i.e., 7 x MYR 4,610.24).
80. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
81. In this respect, the Single Judge decided that the Player should – in principle – be entitled
to MYR 207,000 as additional compensation, namely three monthly salaries under the
Contract.
82. The Single Judge stressed however that per art. 17 of the Regulations the total amount of
compensation awarded (including additional compensation) cannot exceed the residual
value of the original contract. Hence, in casu, the Single Judge decided to award the same
MYR 32,271.70 to the Player as additional compensation.
83. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the Claimant
the amount of MYR 497,000 (i.e., MYR 497,000 minus MYR 32,271.70 plus MYR 32,271.70),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
84. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 26 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
85. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16755
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
86. 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.
87. 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
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.
88. 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.
89. 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
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16755
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Matthew RudolfMaria Steenvoorden.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Matthew Rudolf-Maria Steenvoorden, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Terengganu FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- MYR 286,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 69,000 as from 2 February 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 2,000 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 2,000 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 2,000 as from 1 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 69,000 as from 8 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 2,000 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 69,000 as from 8 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 69,000 as from 26 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of MYR 2,000 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
-
MYR 5,986 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
MYR 497,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16755
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16755
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