Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16379
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Koua Vivien
Assie
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Koua Vivien Assie, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Fifpro Division Africa
RESPONDENT:
NPFC, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16379
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2024, the Ivorian player Koua Vivien Assie (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Thai club NPFC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the aforementioned date
until the end of the Thai League 1 2024-2025 season.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player the following amounts
(quoted verbatim):
“2. Salaries, Wages and Other Benefits
Salary: 500,000 THB per month.
Sign fee with agent fee 500,000 THB.
Bonus for match win as team share. (Have Every game win)
Club will provide house rental allowance 10,000 THB, car and visa for player and wife.
The club will give 2 ticket economy class round trip (Cote d'Ivoire to Bangkok - Udonthani) and
(Udonthani - Bangkok to Cote d'Ivoire)”
3.
According to the information retrieved from TMS, the 2024/2025 season in Thailand lasted
until 31 May 2025.
4.
On 30 July 2024, the Player put the Club in default, stating that he had been informed the
Club did not wish to obtain his work permit or request his ITC and granting a time limit of
5 days for the Club to register him, request his ITC and ensure that he had “all the paperwork
so [he] can work in Thailand.”
5.
On 6 August 2024, the Player sent a second default notice, stating once again that he had
been informed the Club did not wish to obtain his work permit or request his ITC and
granting a time limit of 5 days for the Club to register him, request his ITC and ensure that
he had “all the paperwork so [he] can work in Thailand.” The Player further stated that failure
to do so would be a breach of his rights under the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players.
6.
On 13 August 2025, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club (hereinafter: the
Termination Notice). In it, he noted that he had not received a reply to his previous
correspondence, that his ITC had not been requested, that his July salary had not been
paid, and that he had not been registered. He therefore invoked just cause for the
termination.
7.
Upon request, the Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he had signed a
contract with Peshmarga Sport Club, valid as from 1 September 2024 until 31 July 2025,
whereby he would earn a salary of USD 4,000 per month. However, the Player thereafter
informed that said contract was terminated on 31 December 2024 and he had since
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16379
remained unemployed. The Player disclosed that he had earned USD 16,000 for the
duration of the new contract
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 2 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
The Player lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
10. According to the Player, the Club had verbally informed him that they did not want to retain
his services anymore, after which the Player immediately took action and placed the Club
in default.
11. By the time of the notice, the Player alleged that 1 month had passed without the Club
registering the Player, arranging his paperwork, or paying his signing fee. Also, the Player
alleged that, by 31 July 2024, the Club had also failed to pay the Player’s first salary.
12. Thus, the Player submitted that, by the date of termination, it had been 6 weeks where the
Club failed to request the ITC, register the Player, arrange the work permit and visa, reply
to his default notices, pay the July 2024 salary, and pay the signing fee. Therefore, the Player
could reasonably assume that the Club no longer had any interest in his services and
terminated the contract with just cause.
13. The Player therefore claimed his salary for July 2024, the signing fee, and the rental
allowance for the month of July 2024, for a total of THB 1,010,000. Furthermore, he claimed
the residual value of the Contract as compensation, which he submitted ran until 31 May
2025 and was comprised of his monthly salary and rental allowance, for a total of THB
5,100,000.
14. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“B. Request for Relief:
As a consequence of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine that he
terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just cause on 13 August 2024, and
to order the Club to pay him the following amounts:
- THB 1,010,000 as outstanding salaries + 5% interest as from the relevant payment dates until
the date of effective payment.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16379
- THB 5,100,000 as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as from 14 August 2024
until date of effective payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
15. The Club was granted a time limit until 11 November 2024 to file its reply. However, it filed
a reply on 19 December 2025. Therefore, the Club was informed by the FIFA general
secretariat that its reply and annexes would be disregarded (cf. art. 11 par. 4 and 21 par. 1
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16379
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 2 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 06 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
17. 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 an Ivorian player and a Thai club.
18. 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.
b. Burden of proof
19. 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
20. Having established its 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16379
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the claim concerned a request for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract.
22. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Player adduced a fully countersigned
contract between himself and the Club which foresaw a THB 500,000 “sign fee with agent
fee” and a salary of THB 500,000 per month, in addition to a house rental allowance of THB
10,000.
23. The Chamber also recalled that, as the Club did not timely file a reply to the claim, its
decision shall be rendered based on evidence on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
24. Hence, in view of the Contract between the parties on file and the lack of any evidence
contradicting the Player’s contention that he never received any payments under the
Contract and no other measures were undertaken to incorporate him into the Club, the
Chamber could only conclude that the Club had severely breached the Contract.
25. The Chamber also found it worthwhile to recall art. 14 of the Regulations, according to
which a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind
(either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just
cause. In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be
reasonably expected in good faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship.
26. In other words, and in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the
termination of a contract should always be an action of last resort or ultima ratio measure.
27. In relation to the foregoing, the Chamber further recalled that the Player alleged having
terminated for just cause on the basis of art. 14 of the Regulations due to the fact that the
Club had failed to request the ITC, register him, arrange his work permit and visa, reply to
his default notices, pay his July 2024 salary, and pay the signing fee for 6 weeks since the
Contract had entered into force.
28. In this sense, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Chamber considered that
there were sufficient elements in the file to establish that it was clear the Club was no
longer interested in the Player’s services and the Player could not reasonably expect the
employment relationship to continue.
29. As a result, considering all of the above-mentioned factors, the Chamber concluded that
the Player terminated the Contract with just cause and the Club shall be held liable for the
consequences of its breach of contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16379
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
31. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the Player’s specific requests for relief, is equivalent to 1 salary under the
Contract of THB 500,000 for the month of July 2024.
32. Furthermore, the Player claimed a housing allowance for the month of July 2024 equal to
THB 10,000, and a signing fee equal to THB 500,000 as outstanding remuneration.
33. In this respect, the Chamber recalled certain principles of contractual interpretation
pursuant to its jurisprudence, namely that, when interpreting a contractual provision, the
Chamber aims to establish which was the common intention of the parties when
concluding the relevant contract. If this common intention cannot be determined, then the
task of the Chamber is to interpret the contractual provision pursuant to the rules of good
faith, giving such provision the meaning of how a reasonable, fair-minded person would
have understood the contractual clause at stake.
34. On the basis of the above, and without further context or explanations as to the contents
of art. 2 of the Contract or the parties’ intentions when agreeing to such a clause, the
Chamber concluded that the housing allowance shall be interpreted as a monthly housing
allowance and the signing fee interpreted as being due to the Player.
35. The Chamber also felt comforted with its conclusion as the Contract appeared to be drafted
by the Club. As such, any ambiguity must necessarily be interpreted against it.
36. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., THB 1,010,000
(corresponding to 1 salary of THB 500,000 plus 1 monthly housing allowance of THB 10,000
plus a signing fee of THB 500,000).
37. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s generic request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 2 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16379
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.
39. 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.
40. 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)).
41. 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. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of THB 5,100,000 (i.e., (THB 500,000 + THB 10,000) x 10 months)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
42. 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.
43. Indeed, the player found employment with Peshmarga Sport Club. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to USD 4,000 per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of USD 16,000, or THB 563,644 (that is, USD 4,000 times 4).
44. 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 took place, at least in part, due to said reason (i.e., overdue payables by the
Club), and therefore decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16379
45. In this respect, and considering that the overall compensation may never exceed the
residual value of the prematurely terminated contract pursuant to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of THB
563,644.
46. 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
THB 5,100,000 to the Claimant (i.e., THB 5,100,000 minus THB 563,644 plus THB 563,644),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
47. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as 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 14 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16379
52. 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
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16379
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Koua Vivien Assie, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, NPFC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- THB 1,010,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 October
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- THB 5,100,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14
August 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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16379
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. 13