Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17546
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Kennedy Given-Love Vatileni Amutenya
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kennedy Given-Love Vatileni Amutenya, Namibia
Represented by Moran Nthoiwa
RESPONDENT:
Abahani Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17546
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 July 2024, the Namibian player, Kennedy Given-Love Vatileni Amutenya (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant), and the Bangladeshi club, Abahani Limited, Dhaka, (hereinafter:
the Club or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract).
2.
The duration of the Contract was stipulated in clause 1 of the Contract, as follows:
“1.
Duration of Contract:
a. The Player shall become a member of the Club for the 2024-2025 season.
b. The contractual period will commence upon the Football Player’s arrival in Dhaka
(tentative date is 1st September, 2024), successful completion of the medical
examination, and readiness to participate, and shall remain in effect until the conclusion
of the 2024-2025 football season (likely completion date is 5th May, 2025).
c. In the event that the football season extends beyond (e.g., AFC & BFF
league/toumament) or shortens from the original contract period, the Club reserves the
right to adjust the contract’s duration accordingly. The same salary terms will be
maintained until the season’s conclusion.”
3.
Clause 3 of the Contract established the Player’s remuneration:
“Compensation Package:
a. In acknowledgment of the Football Player’s commitment to providing services to the
Club to the utmost satisfaction, the Club agrees to remunerate the Football Player with
a monthly salary of $10,000 (USD Ten Thousand) for the entire duration of his tenure
with the Club. The Football Player will be entitled to salary from the day of his arrival in
Bangladesh.
b. For the broken month, salary will be calculated only for the days which have been
covered. For example: The Football Player has stayed 15 days of the month, not 30 days.
In this regard, the player will be paid for those 15 days of the month which is $5,000 if
his actual monthly salary is $10,000.
c. The Club will provide a daily food allowance to the Football Player, amounting to BDT
1,000 per day.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17546
d. The club will disburse the Football Player’s monthly salary by the 7th day of each
month for the preceding month. For example, the salary for the month of November will
be paid on the 7th of December, and so forth. The Club will disburse the Football Player
one-month salary as advance after arriving in Bangladesh, which will be adjusted from
his first month’s salary
e. Included in the compensation package, the Club will provide the Football Player with
a furnished apartment. Additionally, the Club will cover monthly utility expenses up to a
maximum of BDT 12,000 (Twelve Thousand Taka) per month for die Football Player. Any
charges exceeding this limit will be the responsibility of the Football Player.
f. The Club is responsible for providing the Football Player with a round-trip air ticket.
g. Throughout the Football Player’s association with the Club in Bangladesh, the Club will
ensure access to medical facilities.”
4.
In clause 4 of the Contract, the parties agreed upon the following:
“4. Termination:
a. Either party reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon providing written
notice to the other party in the event of a material breach of the terms and conditions
delineated herein.
b. Termination may also transpire under circumstances such as medical reasons or
other unforeseen events, subject to mutual agreement between both parties.”
5.
On 5 August 2024, the Club’s office was the target of a vandalism attack.
6.
On 13 August 2024, Mr. Salman F. Rahman, who, according to the Club, was the Club’s
chairman, was arrested.
7.
On 9 October 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD
26,613, of which USD 1,613 corresponded to the prorated salary for July 2024, USD 10,000
to the salary for August 2024 and USD 10,000 to the salary for September 2024. The Player
also stated that he had attempted to communicate with the Club on multiple occasions but
had not received a response nor his salary. Lastly, the Player requested that the Club pay
the amount by 24 October 2024 and organize the arrangements for the commencement
of his duties.
8.
On 1 November 2024, the Player terminated the Contract, citing just cause due to the
outstanding payments the Club owed him, which exceeded two monthly salaries.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17546
9.
On 1 November 2024, the Player signed a new contract with the Namibian club, Tigers
(hereinafter: Tigers), valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2024. The Player
was entitled to a basic salary of NAD 10,000.
10. On 13 January 2025, the Player signed a contract with the Botswanan club, Mochudi Center
Chiefs (hereinafter: Mochudi), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2025. The
Player was entitled to a monthly salary of BWP 14,000, in addition to BWP 5,000 as housing
allowance.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 19 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. The Player first argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause. In this regard, the
Player stated that the Contract stipulated that the duration was for one season, as from 26
July 2024. Consequently, the Player indicated that the term of the Contract was for 12
months. Considering this, the Player argued that he was entitled to USD 111,643: USD 1,643
for the prorated amount for July 2024, and USD 110,000 from August 2024 until June 2025.
Along with the salaries, the Player argued that he was entitled to BDT 1,000 per day for
food allowance and BDT 12,000 per month for utility expenses.
13. According to the Player, the Club failed to make the necessary arrangements for the
Player’s work-related travel and also neglected to pay his monthly salaries. Therefore, the
Player argued that he attempted to have the Club schedule a time to report for work and
receive the payments, but the Club failed to respond to his communications.
14. Based on the above, the Player stated that he sent a notice of default on 9 October 2024,
and in the absence of any response, on 1 November 2024 he terminated the Contract. The
Player argued that, at the time of the termination, the Club owed him USD 26,613, which
was more than two monthly salaries.
15. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“V. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
On these grounds, the Claimant hereby respectfully asks the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber:
a. To declare that it has jurisdiction to rule on the present dispute
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17546
b. To order the Respondent to pay the Claimant a sum of USD111,643 plus 5% interest
per annum as breach contract.
c. To order the Respondent to pay the Claimant a sum of BDT 134,400 plus 5% interest
per annum as utility expenses allowance for the duration of the contract.
d. To order the Respondent to pay the Claimant a sum of BDT 341,000 plus 5% interest
per annum as food allowance for the duration of the contract.
e. To order the Respondent to pay the Claimant an extra sum of USD 30,000 plus 5%
interest per annum as three months salaries for delayed salary payments.”
b. Position of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club first stated that it aimed to build a strong football team with a mix of
local and foreign players for the 2024-2025 season and, therefore, it signed the Contract
with the Player on 26 July 2024. In this respect, the Club argued that the Player was
considered as an important member of the team, and the Club proceeded with the
necessary visa-related procedures.
17. However, the Club argued that the former prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina,
was the Club’s main patron and that Mr. Salman F. Rahman, who also served as an adviser
of the former prime minister, was the Club’s chairman. Additionally, the Club mentioned
that the acting director in charge of the Club was a member of the parliament.
18. According to the Club, on 5 August 2024, after the fall of Bangladesh’s government, the
Club was attacked due to political unrest. In this sense, the Club stated that its office was
vandalized and looted, and the Club was set on fire. Furthermore, the Club alleged that its
main sponsor, its chairman, its acting director-in-charge and various officials were arrested
or left the country due to security concerns.
19. The Club explained that, as a result, the Club’s financial and overall condition collapsed,
and it was unable to withdraw or transfer any funds. According to the Club, it would not be
able to participate in the highest league of the country.
20. Based on the above, the Club stated that it decided to form a team composed of local
players on a very limited budget, solely to avoid relegation. The Club argued that the local
players agreed to remain with the Club with minimal wages and the Club suspended the
contracts of all foreign players, invoking force majeure, as these salaries were higher.
21. The Club further argued that, as a result of this political unrest, the Bangladesh Football
Federation (BFF) had to change its calendar, and the competition, instead of starting in
September, would start on 29 November 2024.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17546
22. The Club remarked that the Player was entitled to receive his salary from the day of his
arrival, and that the Club was supposed to cover a monthly utility bill up to a maximum
BDT 12,000. In this sense, the Club pointed out that the Club did not guarantee the Player
BDT 12,000 but rather committed to bearing utility costs up to that amount per month.
23. Lastly, the Club insisted that it terminated the Contract due to force majeure and that the
circumstances compelled the Club to terminate the Contract. Nonetheless, the Club
mentioned that imposing any form of punishment on the Club, given its current financial
situation, could result in disastrous consequences and may ultimately lead to its closure.
24. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“Therefore, without imposing any kind of punishment on Abahani Limited, you are
specially requested to help in playing a better role in the future in the football arena.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analyzed
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 19 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 15 May 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.
26. 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) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Namibian player and a Bangladeshi club.
27. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17546
b. Burden of proof
28. 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
29. 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 emphasized 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
30. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract.
31. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just
cause, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
32. The Chamber also noted that the Club, however, argued that it terminated the Contract
due to force majeure, related to the political unrest in Bangladesh. Nonetheless, as this was
force majeure measure, the Club requested not to be condemned.
33. In this context, the Chamber observed that the parties first disputed who terminated the
Contract, as the Player argued that he did so based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and
the Club stated that it terminated the Contract due to force majeure. Thus, the Chamber
acknowledged that its task was to (i) determine who terminated the Contract, (ii) assess
whether the terminating party had just cause and (iii) establish the consequences of that
termination.
A. Who terminated the Contract?
34. The Chamber noted that, although the Club, in its reply, argued that it terminated the
Contract due to force majeure, the Club submitted no evidence to support its allegations.
In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that the Club failed to provide any notice or other
communication related to this alleged termination.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17546
35. Conversely, the Chamber remarked that the Player provided a notice of default, dated 9
October 2024, and a notice of termination, dated 1 November 2024. Although the Player
failed to prove that he actually sent these letters by not providing the corresponding proof
of delivery, the Chamber indicated that the Club did not dispute that the letters were
ultimately received, nor their veracity.
36. Therefore, based on the evidence on file, the Chamber determined that the Player
terminated the Contract on 1 November 2024, by means of his termination letter.
B. Did the terminating party (i.e., the Player) have just cause to
terminate the Contract?
37. The Chamber then recalled that the Player argued that the Club owed him more than two
monthly salaries and, therefore, he terminated the Contract with just cause based on art.
14bis of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber referred to this article, which inter
alia stipulates:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision
coming into force may be considered.” (emphasis added)
38. The Chamber then observed that the Player argued that the Contract was valid as from 26
July 2024 for 12 months and, therefore, he was entitled to the prorated salary for July 2024,
and the salaries between August 2024 and June 2025. Following this rationale, the Player
argued that, when he sent the notice of default, on 9 October 2024, the Club owed him
USD 26,613. However, in his breakdown, the Player clarified that the outstanding amount
was actually USD 21,613, of which USD 1,613 corresponded to the prorated salary for July
and USD 20,000 for August and September 2024.
39. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Contract, although signed on 26 July 2024, stated
that the contractual period would commence upon the Player’s arrival in Dhaka, successful
completion of the medical examination, and readiness to participate. Although art. 18 par.
4 of the Regulations states that the validity of a contract may not be made subject to a
successful medical examination and/or the grant of a work permit, the Chamber
considered that the parties established the start date as the date of the Player’s arrival in
Dhaka.
40. The Chamber also noted that the Player argued that the Club failed to make any necessary
arrangements for his work-related travel and the Club did not dispute this, only arguing
that it terminated the Contract due to force majeure. At this point, the Chamber found it
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17546
important to remark that, according to clause 3 lit f) of the Contract, the Club was
responsible for providing the Player with a round-trip ticket. Therefore, based on the
evidence on file, the Player never arrived in Dhaka.
41. In light of the above, and despite being aware of the discrepancy between the Contract’s
wording and the facts, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player cannot be held
responsible for the Club’s failure to provide him with the flight tickets. Hence, the Chamber
determined that the Contract was valid as from the tentative date of 1 September 2024, as
this was the date the parties intended for the contractual period to start.
42. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber also concluded that the Player was not entitled
to the salaries for July or August 2024, as, although the Club failed to provide the tickets
and the Contract was signed on 26 July 2024, there was no contractual clause stipulating
that the Player would be entitled to salaries as from the date of signature rather than the
tentative date, which the Chamber found to be more logical.
43. The Chamber further observed that, according to clause 3 lit d) of the Contract, the salaries
were to be paid on the seventh day of the following month. Thus, the Chamber
underscored that, at the time the Player sent his notice of default on 9 October 2024, the
Club only owed the Player the salary for September 2024.
44. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the requirements set out in art. 14bis of
the Regulations were not met in this case, as the Club only failed to pay the Player one
monthly salary at the time he sent his notice of default.
45. Without prejudice to the above, the Chamber then moved on to analyze whether the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations. In this regard,
the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal,
a premature unilateral termination of the Contract may only be an ultima ratio measure.
46. At this point, the Chamber wished to highlight that, in addition to the payment request, the
Player informed the Club that arrangements also needed to be made for the
commencement of his duties. However, the Chamber underlined that there is no evidence
that the Club replied to the letter or provided the Player with any of the necessary
arrangements for him to perform his duties.
47. Specifically, the Chamber noted that the Club, in its response to the claim, admitted that it
terminated the Contract due to force majeure. Although the Chamber reiterated that there
was no evidence of such termination, it considered that the Club’s lack of payment and
erratic behaviour was a clear demonstration that the Club had no intention of fulfilling the
terms of the Contract and failed to comply with the necessary arrangements to enforce its
provisions.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17546
48. Considering the above, and especially in light of the Club’s response, the Chamber
concluded that the Club’s breach was significant enough to constitute an ultima ratio
measure, justifying the termination of the Contract, according to art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
49. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
50. Regarding the outstanding remuneration at the time of the termination, the Chamber
observed that the Contract started on 1 September 2024 and was terminated on 1
November 2024. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the Player was entitled to two
outstanding salaries, i.e., September and October 2024, for USD 10,000 each.
51. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Player was entitled to BDT 1,000 per day as daily
food allowance. In this case, the Chamber interpreted that this amount formed part of the
Player’s salary, as it was clearly quantified and guaranteed, regardless of the amount spent
by the Player. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the Player was entitled to BDT
30,000 for September 2024 and BDT 31,000 for October 2024.
52. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Club undertook to cover the Player’s utility
expenses up to a maximum of BDT 12,000 per month. In this case, the Chamber
underscored that, although this amount would be covered by the Club, it did not constitute
a monthly payment of BDT 12,000 to the Player. Rather, the Club committed to covering
actual expenses, with a ceiling set at that amount. This means that if the expenses were
lower, the Club would only cover the actual amount spent. Therefore, in the Chamber’s
opinion, the BDT 12,000 shall not be considered as part of the Player’s remuneration, as he
was not actually entitled to a fixed amount, and it is not possible to determine what the
Club would have actually paid had the Contract not been terminated.
53. Considering that the Player’s request for interest was generic, and he did not request
interest to apply as from the due dates, the Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a. on
these amounts as from the date of the claim, following the standard practice of the Football
Tribunal.
54. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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, 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17546
55. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the 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 Chamber established that no such
compensation clause was included in the Contract.
56. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
57. Bearing in mind the foregoing, as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber 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.
58. In this respect, and although the Player stated that the Contract was valid until June 2025,
the Chamber noted that the parties established that the Contract would be valid until the
end of the 2024/2025 football season. The Chamber observed that, according to the
information retrieved from TMS, the 2024/2025 season in Bangladesh ended on 22 May
2025. Therefore, the Chamber noted that the residual value of the Contract was USD
67,096.77 (i.e., USD 60,000 for the salaries from November until April and USD 7,096.77 for
the prorated salary of the 22 days of May). Additionally, the Chamber remarked that during
this period, the Player would have been entitled to BDT 203,000 as food allowance.
59. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 67,096.77 plus BDT
203,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
60. In continuation, the Chamber 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
practice of the DRC 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.
61. Indeed, the Player found employment with Tigers, valid as from 1 November 2024 until 31
December 2024, for a total amount of NAD 20,000, which, at the date of signature, was
equivalent to USD 1,132.17.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17546
62. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the Player signed a contract with Mochudi, valid
as from 13 January 2025 until 30 June 2025. The Chamber observed that the Player was
entitled to a monthly salary of BWP 14,000, in addition to BWP 5,000 as a housing
allowance, totalling BWP 19,000. In this sense, the Player was entitled a prorated amount
of BWP 11,032.26 for the salary for January 2025 (18 days), BWP 19,000 for February, March
and April 2025, and BWP 13,438.87 for May 2025 (22 days). Therefore, the Chamber noted
that, with this contract, the Player mitigated his damages by BWP 81,471.13, which, at the
date of signature, was equivalent to USD 5,759.28
63. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of USD 6,891.45 during the overlapping period.
64. Subsequently, the Chamber 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 Chamber confirmed that the termination
took place inter alia due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
65. In this respect, the Chamber determined that the Player is entitled to three salaries of
additional compensation. However, as three salaries amount to USD 30,000 and this would
exceed the residual value, the Chamber decided that Player be awarded USD 6,891.45 as
additional compensation, since the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract.
66. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 67,096.77 plus BDT 203,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
67. Lastly, considering that the Player’s request for interest was generic, and based on the
constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the
Claimant interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
68. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17546
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17546
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kennedy Given-Love Vatileni Amutenya, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Abahani Limited, Dhaka, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 20,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- BDT 61,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 December
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 67,096.77 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19
December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- BDT 203,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19
December 2024 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17546
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17546
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. 17