Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16045
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bazie
Armand
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Bazie Armand, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
AL QASIM, Iraq
Represented by Ammar Asfour
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16045
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Ivorian player Bazie Armand (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
•
The Iraqi club AL QASIM (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated with
the Iraqi Football Association (IFA).
2.
The Player and the Club are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties.
3.
In January 2024, the Player’s agent and a person identified as a supervisor at the Club, Mr
Abu Assad Qassem (hereinafter: Mr Qassem), exchanged messages concerning a possible
employment relationship.
4.
On 13 January 2024, Mr Qassem sent a copy of a document entitled “Hold Player”
(hereinafter: the Contract), which the Player’s agent acknowledged receipt of and said would
be signed by the Player on the following morning.
5.
The version of the Contract provided by the Player reads as follows:
“1. Both parties agreed, that the [Player] represents the [Club], till the end of the season
(2023/2024) (monthly salaries, 2500 $ every month).
2. The club provide two flight tickets (one go and one back\ tickets for season 2023\2024
3. The club provide adequate housing for the player.
4. Player is not entitled to play in Iraq clubs without the approval of our club.
5. In the event of exceptional cases that the country is (sic) goining through such as (wars,
natural disasters, epidemics) the contract is considered broken and resorting to an
amicable solution between the agrees of two parties
6. The contract start on 15/01/2024, and ends on 15/07/2024.
7. Introduction to the contract upon passing the medical examination (9000$) at
18\1\2024.
8. Total contract value 24,000$.
9. If the club does not make the payment on the specified date, the player has the right
to terminate the contract”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16045
6.
On 14 January 2024, Mr Qassem asked for the signed version of the Contract and the
Player’s agent replied that the Player could not find a proper place to print it. Mr Qassem
stated, “I’m afraid that the player don’t want to sign”.
7.
On 15 January 2024, the Player’s agent gave a signed copy of the Contract to Mr Qassem
and a person identified as the Club’s coach. In response, the alleged coach asked him to
present himself at the Club on Wednesday.
8.
Also on 15 January 2024, Mr Qassem stated that he would “put [the contract] in TMS” and
request the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
9.
On or about the same date, the signing of the Player by the Club was announced on social
media. The Parties dispute whether this post was made by an official profile of the Club.
10. On 16 January 2024, the same profile on social media also announced that the Contract
with the Player had been cancelled due to an obstacle to the registration.
11. The post, as freely translated into English by the Player, reads as follows:
“Note to our fans:
We cancel the contract of lesotho national team player and the ivoirian player bazie
armand because the fifa ranking rules in the iraqui stars league but our administration
will search the substitute players ( in iraqui stars league the teams can not sign with
more then two players from a country ranking ninenty and above )cote divoire ranking
in fifa : 39”.
12. On 17 January 2024, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club via e-mail. The Player
claimed that he had entered into a valid and binding contract with the Club and demanded
that it fulfil its obligations thereunder. The Player stated that if the Club did not pay him
and/or provide him with the opportunity to train by 21 January 2024, the Player would
assume that the Club had “breached the Contract unilaterally”.
13. On 18 January 2024, the Club replied to the Player denying the existence of a valid and
binding contract between them. The Club stated that it had never signed the Contract and
that it was therefore unenforceable.
14. On 20 January 2024, the Player reiterated his position that both Parties had already agreed
to the Contract and requested that it be executed by no later than 21 January 2024. The
Player attached a summary of what he considered to be the jurisprudence of Football
Tribunal or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), stressed that he was owed the payment
of 18 January 2024 and asked to be allowed to participle in the Club’s training sessions.
15. Also on 20 January 2024, the Club replied that the Contract was incomplete and could not
be registered, as it lacked authentication, signature and a proper stamp. The Club claimed
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16045
that any further litigation would be “a waste of time of FIFA and international sports legal
institutions”.
16. On 22 January 2024, the Player formally terminated the Contract, citing just cause in
accordance with art. 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations). The Player stated that he would seek redress from FIFA and
that he would seek alternative employment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 14 September 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
18. The Player relied on CAS and FIFA jurisprudence to defend that a signature is not the only
element to be considered for the validity of a contract. On the contrary, he claimed that
the evidence submitted with his claim supported the existence of an employment
relationship between the Parties.
19. The Player then claimed that the Club had breached the Contract without just cause and
should be liable for the consequences.
20. In particular, the Player requested that he be awarded USD 24,000 as compensation for
breach of contract and USD 15,000 as additional compensation.
21. The Player requested the following relief:
“Given all the foregoing, the Claimant requests the DRC to:
i.Order that the respondent shall pay 24,000 USD compensation because of the
termination of the player with just cause,
ii.Order that the respondent shall pay 15,000 USD Additional Compensation,
iii.The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods in accordance to
Article 17 of FIFA RSTP,
iv.If and so far, the amounts as mentioned over are not paid to the Player within the
stated time limit, Article 24 of RSTP and disciplinary sanctions will be imposed to the
club”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16045
b. Position of the Club
22. On 30 September 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s claim inter alia as follows:
“Analysis of the impugned contract:
The contract submitted by the [Player] suffers from a fundamental defect, as it is clearly
shown to be a one-sided contract, serving the [Player]'s interest only without any actual
obligations on the player. This type of contract lacks an essential element of the validity
of contracts, which is the balance of obligations, which makes it void and does not entail
any legal effects
Consequences of the player signing two contracts:
The player signed another contract at the same time with the Iraqi Al-Jawlan Club and
joined it and became one of its main players.
The player signing two contracts at the same time with two different clubs (Al-Qasim
Sports Club of Iraq] and Al-Jawlan Club of Iraq) is a clear violation of the sports rules and
player transfer laws.
This proves that the player does not have good faith in implementing either of these two
contracts, which weakens his argument in this dispute.
FIFA can contact the Iraqi Football Association to confirm that the player's contract with
Al-Jawlan Club was at the same time.
Invalidity of the evidence presented by the [Player]:
The evidence on which the [Player] relied in his lawsuit, which consists of correspondence
via instant messaging programs and posts on social media sites, cannot be relied upon
as legal evidence. This is because these correspondences and posts are not legally
documented and may be subject to manipulation and forgery. We also noted that the
[Player] had submitted a set of documents and posts published on social media pages
that are not the club's.
[…]
Agent's incompetence:
In addition to the above, we note that the agent who the [Player] claims to be the player's
agent does not have any official license to practice the profession of sports agency.
Therefore, all correspondence made in the name of this agent is considered void and
cannot be relied upon in any legal proceeding
Unsportsmanlike behavior:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16045
We see that the player's complaint against Al-Qasim Sports Club in this case aims
primarily to tarnish the club's reputation internationally, and this step is considered an
attempt at blackmail and behavior that violates sports ethics, which requires the
application of the penalties stipulated in FIFA regulations against the player.
Finally, we ask you to do the following:
First: Reject the lawsuit filed against [the Club], due to the lack of any legal basis for it,
and because the evidence presented by the [Player] is insufficient and undocumented.
Second: Punish the player for his unsportsmanlike behavior and fine him a fine that we
leave to FIFA to determine”.
c. Updated employment situation of the Player
23. At the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Player informed us that he had signed a
new contract with the Iraqi club Al-Golan Sports Club.
24. The Player stated that he also did not have a signed copy of the aforementioned contract
and therefore provided a version of the document with only his signature.
25. Accordingly, the Player would be employed from 8 February 2024 until 1 July 2024 and
would be entitled to a total remuneration of USD 19,000.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 14 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 20 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
27. 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 (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 an Ivorian player and a Iraqi club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16045
28. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that, in accordance with its art.
29, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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
30. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract in which the Parties dispute whether they have entered into a valid
and binding employment relationship and, if so, the consequences thereof.
32. The DRC noted that, according to the Player, the Contract was validly concluded – albeit
without the Club’s signature – and subsequently terminated without just cause.
33. The Club, on the other hand, maintained that it had never signed the Contract and that
lacked any legal effect.
34. In light of the foregoing, the DRC recognised that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was valid and binding on the Parties and whether it was improperly terminated.
A. Was the Contract valid and binding on the Parties?
35. According to the established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, in order for an
employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, it must contain the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their roles, the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16045
duration of the employment relationship, the remuneration to be paid by the employer to
the employee, and their mutual consent.
36. In casu, having carefully analysed the content of the Contract, the DRC considered that the
document provided for the duration of the employment relationship and the payable
remuneration to be paid to the Player, as well as it related to the services rendered by the
Player to the Club, and contained their proper identification.
37. At this point, the Chamber noted that the version of the Contract submitted by the Player
did not include the signature of the Club’s president, as had been claimed by the Club.
38. However, and as rightly pointed out by the Player, the Chamber recalled that the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has consistently established that the actual
signature of the contract is not the sole element to determine whether there was an
existing contractual relationship between the Parties. Instead, the validity and
enforceability of a contract is determined on the basis of a comprehensive understanding
of all the facts and actions taken by the parties in the context of their relationship. The
signature requirement is essentially the simplest way for a party to prove that its
counterparty has entered into a contract; however, an employment agreement may be
materialised by the wish to be executed. As such, the signature can be understood as one
way of proving a party’s consent, but it is not the only possible evidence in this respect.
39. In view of the foregoing, and after a thorough analysis of the case file, the Chamber was
satisfied that both Parties agreed to the terms of the Contract. In this respect, the DRC
found it decisive that:
a. It remained undisputed that the Contract was sent by a representative of the Club
to the Player’s Agent via a WhatsApp message after all financial terms had been
confirmed. Even if the Club disputed the Player’s representation, the Club did not
question that Mr Qassem was a member of its administration. Hence, the DRC
considered that the Player and his Agent could legitimately expect Mr Qassem to
be authorized to represent the Club’s interests and to complete the necessary
paperwork.
b. The Club’s challenge to the representation of the Player appeared to be
unfounded given that (i) the issue had never been raised during the negotiations;
(ii) the Player himself confirmed that he was properly represented.
c. The same representative of the Club, i.e., Mr Qassem, urged the Player to sign the
Contract and also confirmed the receipt of the final (signed) version via
WhatsApp. Similarly, Mr Qassem expressed that the Contract would be duly
registered in due course, thereby confirming the Parties’ intention to proceed
with the signing of the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16045
d. The Club did not provide any explanation for its abrupt change of mind. Indeed,
the Club confined itself to contesting the formalities of the Contract.
40. Consequently, and due to the particularities of the case, the DRC determined that the fact
that no signed copy of the Contract had been provided by the Player – when assessed
together with the other elements of the case – could not be considered as a sufficient
reason to rule that no employment relationship had been established between the Parties.
On the other hand, taking into account Mr Qassem’s role in the management of the Club,
the Chamber was convinced that the Player could assume in good faith that he was duly
authorised to act on behalf of the Club.
41. The Chamber further ruled that the Club had effectively engaged the services of the Player
and subsequently withdrew from the performance of the Contract for reasons that the
Chamber was unable to understand, but which most likely related to the foreign
registration quotas cited by the Parties, and which were ultimately immaterial to the
outcome of the case.
42. All in all, after urging the Player to sign the Contract and confirming its intention to sign
him, the DRC considered that the Club could not rely on the argument that a Contract was
never formally signed.
43. Similarly, and for sake the of completeness, the DRC also recalled the solid jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal in the sense that administrative proceedings are not considered a
valid reason for not fulfilling contractual obligations (e.g., the formatting or absence of a
stamp or a registration mark). Furthermore, the internal framework of one of the parties
to a contract cannot have any legal effect on the validity or in the execution of the contract
itself.
44. Based on the foregoing and in the light of the particularities of the case, the Chamber
decided that the Parties had entered into a valid and binding employment agreement (i.e.,
the Contract) for the 2023/2024 season.
B. When was the Contract terminated? With or without just cause?
45. The DRC then moved on to the issue of the termination.
46. Having examined the documents in the file, in particular the correspondence between the
Parties, the Chamber noted that the Player had expressed his wish to join the Club and had
asked it to remedy the breach on more than once occasion, while the Club had confirmed
twice (i.e., 18 and 20 January 2024) that it would no longer register him.
47. Contrary to the Club’s assertions, the Chamber also verified that the Player did not sign a
new contract until 8 February 2024, when the relevant facts had already occurred.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16045
48. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Contract was terminated at second half of
January 2024 at the initiative of the Club i.e., by announcing that it was no longer interested
in retaining the Player’s services. The Chamber also considered that this termination was
further confirmed in the subsequent exchanges between the Parties.
49. As stated above, the Chamber confirmed that the Club did not provide any reason, let alone
a legally sound justification, for terminating the Contract. It followed, in the DRC’s view, that
the early termination should be considered to be without just cause.
50. The Chamber then underscored that the Club should be liable to the consequences that
follow.
C. What are the consequences?
51. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the question of the consequences of such
unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
52. As a starting point, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, namely the advanced
payment of USD 9,000.
53. The Chamber explained that the Player would also be entitled to default interest on the
abovementioned amount, which were nonetheless not claimed and therefore could not be
awarded (ne ultra petita).
54. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club 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 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, and depending
on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
55. 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. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16045
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.
57. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 24,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
58. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player 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 players general obligation to
mitigate their damages.
59. Indeed, the Player found employment with Al-Jolan Sports and mitigated his damages in
the total amount of USD 19,000 for the entire period.
60. 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 contract
termination did not took place due to said reason and therefore decided that no additional
compensation should be granted.
61. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount
of USD 5,000 to the Player (i.e., USD 24,000 minus USD 19,000), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
62. Lastly, the Chamber again stressed that no interest could be awarded on the
compensation, as it had not been claimed by the Player.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. Taking into account the applicable Regulations, the DRC 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. 12
REF. FPSD-16045
64. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
65. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of art. 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
66. The DRC established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as
(i) the Respondent is currently serving a registration ban on the basis of art. 17, par. 4 of
the Regulations; and (ii) in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand,
the application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Club would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in
particular the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 and art. 8 of Annexe 2 of
the Regulations.
67. In view of the above, the DRC decided that if the aforementioned sum plus any applicable
interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request of the Player, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
68. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
d. Costs
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16045
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bazie Armand, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, AL QASIM, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 9,000 as outstanding remuneration; and
- USD 5,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
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.
If full payment is not made within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16045
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 – 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. 15