Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16413
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Carof
Bakoua
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Carof Bakoua, Congo
Represented by Talel Ben Hadj
RESPONDENT:
Saham, Oman
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16413
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Congolese player Carof Bakoua (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Omani club Saham (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) allegedly
entered into an employment agreement (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from 1 August
2024 until 30 May 2025 or until the end of the sports season.
2.
According to the Contract:
“Article (2) Contract Commencement and Termination
[…]
The validity of the Contract is subject to the specific approval of the OFA and the confirmation
that the Player is eligible to play (ratification of the contract) The player passes the medical
examination, and if the player does not pass the medical examination, the contract is considered
cancelled.
Article (3): Compensation Package
A monthly salary of $2500 at the end of each month
[…]
Article (5) Termination by the Club or the Player
The CLUB and the Player may terminate this Contract, before its expiring term, by mutual
agreement. The right for the club and player alike rescind this contract before the end of his
term, in accordance with written notice of thirty days for reasonable cause speech written for
any of the parties, in accordance with the regulations of the International Federation of Football
Associations (FIFA) governing this issue, in addition to the laws of the Sultanate of Oman.
3-If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to the
Player compensation of One month’s salary ).
4- If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to the
Club compensation of One month’s salary )
5- The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under the provisions
of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the principles of parity and
reciprocity of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances related to the Contract’s conclusion
and execution.
[…]
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16413
Article (6) Other Agreements
[…]
3-He is entitled to a round-trip ticket to his home country
4 – In the event of termination of the contract of first party the rest of the payments will be the
second party of the total contract is not payable.
[…]
Article (7) Applicable Law and Jurisdiction
-The two parties agreed that any dispute between the club and the player in relation to this
contract will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Football Court of the Sultanate of
Oman affiliated with the Oman Football Association.
- It is permissible to appeal the rulings issued by the Football Court in the Sultanate of Oman
before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), headquartered in Lausanne.”
3.
On 29 July 2024, the Player was granted an “Express Visa (VISIT)” by the Sultanate of Oman,
to be used by 27 August 2024. In this document, it was noted that the length of stay in
Oman was stated as 3 weeks and “Saham Sports Club” appeared as the sponsor of the visa.
4.
On or about 31 July 2024, the Player travelled to Oman and he appeared to take part in
training sessions with the Club.
5.
Pursuant to the information provided by the Oman Football Association (hereinafter: the
OFA), the Player and the Club signed a Financial Clearance document (hereinafter: the
Financial Clearance) dated 11 August 2024 whereby the parties stated the following:
“That there are no claims, dues, or financial rights for any party towards the other party until
the date of 11/08/2024. The contract signed with the club for the 2024/2025 season is also
considered null and void from the date of completion, and he has the right to move to any other
club.” (emphasis added)
6.
On 3 September 2024, the Player, via his representative, sent a correspondence to the Club
inquiring about the Player’s status, stating that the Player had missed the Club’s last two
matches “because the club has not yet qualified him to play.” The correspondence also
referred to the Player’s visa initially being set to expire on 4 September 2024 but that “it
had been extended until 4th August 2024”. The correspondence further went on to state that,
“Given the urgency of the situation, if the club indeed no longer requires Mr. Bakoua’s services,
we request that at the very least, a one-way flight ticket to his home country be provided. Should
this not be arranged, and should the player’s visa expire without a further extension, we will
have no choice but to escalate the matter to the Omani Ministry of Labor, FIFA, and the Consulate
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16413
of the Republic of Congo. We sincerely hope that this issue can be resolved amicably and
promptly. However, if no action is taken within the next 72 hours, we will proceed with the
necessary legal steps to protect the player’s rights.”
7.
On 8 September 2024, the Player’s representative sent another correspondence to the
Club, stating that the Player did not have a valid visa and his stay in Oman was unlawful. In
addition, the Player’s representative stated that the Player was being charged OMR 10 for
each day of unlawful stay. The letter also stated that the Club was responsible for the
situation, as it had failed to secure a valid visa for the Player, which was a violation of art.
18 par. 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and granted the
Club 72 hours to resolve the situation.
8.
On 11 September 2024, the Player’s representative sent another correspondence to the
Club, alleging that the Player had been verbally offered a flight ticket back to his country
subject to signing a mutual termination agreement without any form of compensation. In
the correspondence, the Club is given a final 24-hour period to rectify the situation,
otherwise the Player would proceed with terminating all contracts for just cause.
9.
On 13 September 2024, the Player’s representative sent the Club a termination notice
(hereinafter: the Termination Notice), whereby the Player alleged that he unilaterally
terminated the Contract for Just cause due to:
−
−
−
−
Non-payment of salary since the Contract began on 1 August 2024
Failure to renew visa, which led the Player to accumulate fines of OMR 110
Unacceptable working conditions and being denied basic necessities
Lack of response and communication from the Club
10. In the aforementioned correspondence, the Player also requested the Club facilitate his
departure from Oman and settle outstanding obligations in relation to his illegal status and
unpaid salary.
11. Also on 13 September 2024, the Player’s representative sent another correspondence to
the Club, referencing a telephone conversation that allegedly occurred just prior with a Mr.
Farsi (identified from the file as the Club’s Chairman), offering USD 2,500 and a mutual
termination for the Player. In this correspondence, the Player’s representative rejected the
offer on the Player’s behalf and once again requested a flight ticket for the Player to return
home.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 3 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16413
a. Position of the Claimant
13. The Player lodged a claim requesting outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
14. The Player alleged that he had made inquiries as to his situation, his ITC and his visa with
the Club, all the while training with the Club until he was no longer allowed in training,
which occurred on 28 August 2024.
15. According to the Player, the Club failed to respect the Contract, ensure the Player had a
visa and make timely salary payments. The Player also alleged the Club tried to unilaterally
terminate the Contract without just cause, in addition to failing to take care of the Player’s
welfare, deal with him in good faith, and observe its general duty of care.
16. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“Request for Relief:
As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine that the
Club terminated the employment relationship with the Player without just cause and to order
the Club to pay him the following amounts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
USD 3,750 as outstanding salaries + 10% interest from the relevant payment dates until
the date of effective payment.
USD 21,250 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause + 10% interest
from the relevant payment dates until the date of effective payment.
USD 260 for penalty paid at immigration of Muscat International Airport + 10% interest
from relevant payment dates until date of effective payment.
USD 920.75 as compensation for flight ticket price + 10% interest from relevant payment
dates until date of effective payment.
USD 5,000 for moral damage caused to Player who is staying until end season without
team.
USD 500 for translation costs.
In addition, Player requests FIFA DRC impose sporting sanctions on Club breach contract within
protected period.”
b. Position of the Respondent
17. Despite being invited to do so, the Club failed to file its reply to the claim within the time
limit granted. As such, the Club was informed that its late reply would be disregarded
pursuant to art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16413
c. Information provided by the Oman Football Association
18. Upon request from the FIFA general secretariat to confirm whether the Player had been
registered with the Club, as well as to provide a copy of any contracts, on 24 November
2024, the OFA provided the following details:
−
−
The Player was not registered with the OFA, nor did they have a player passport for
him.
The Player was not registered on the Transfer Matching System or in FIFA Connect,
nor was an International Transfer Certificate request ever submitted for the Player.
19. Moreover, the OFA provided additional information regarding the Player and the Club that
was not explicitly requested by the administration, namely, that the Player had received a
draft contract that was not signed by the Club and was contingent upon the Player passing
his medical examination. Upon arriving in Oman, the Player underwent the medical
examination and this revealed a condition that he was medically unfit. Thereafter, the
Player and the Club mutually agreed to a termination. With its correspondence, the OFA
attached the purported medical report dated 3 August 2024 and Financial Clearance
document dated 11 August 2024 (hereinafter: the Financial Clearance).
20. The Financial Clearance stated as follows:
“On Sunday 11/08/2024, all of the following agreed:
1- Saham Sports Club – represented by: Adel bin Abdullah bin Muhammad Al-Farsi (first party)
2 CAROF BAKOUA (player)
and holds an ID No (OA0580826) (second party)
That there are no claims, dues, or financial rights for any party towards the other party until the
date of 11/08/2024.
The contract signed with the club for the 2024/2025 season is also considered null and void from
the date of completion, and he has the right to move to any other club.
Accordingly, the agreement was signed with the consent of both parties.
first party signature
second party signature
[signature and club stamp]
[signature and fingerprint]”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16413
d. Additional comments from the Claimant concerning the Financial
Clearance
21. The Player was invited by the FIFA general secretariat to provide comments on the Financial
Clearance. In his reply dated 3 March 2025, he alleged that such document was forged,
having neither seen nor signed the document. He specifically stated the following:
−
−
−
−
−
Had he signed such a document, he would have disclosed it.
He trained with the Club for an additional 17 days after the date of the alleged
Financial Clearance document, which would not make sense. Therefore, the
Financial Clearance was fabricated.
Normally, when a mutual agreement is reached between a player and a club, the
player requests a flight ticket or other travel arrangements. He questioned why
there was no record of such an arrangement in this case.
He requested inter alia video or photographic evidence of the Player signing the
document, as well as original copies.
There were discrepancies in font, suspicious modifications in the date, and a
complete lack of evidence proving the Player’s signature.
22. The Player also demanded the Club prove the authenticity of the Player’s signature,
including video or photographic evidence showing the Player physically signing the
document, and stated, “Unless credible proof is provided by the club, the document must be
deemed invalid and all decisions based on it should be reconsidered immediately.”
e. Final comments from the Respondent
23. The Club filed an unsolicited reply to the above comments from the Player on 6 March
2025. Nevertheless, as it was the FIFA general secretariat’s intention at that stage to invite
the Club to comment on the forgery allegations in the Player’s latest submission, the FIFA
general secretariat decided – for the sake of procedural efficiency - to exceptionally admit
the submission. However, the Club was also informed that any submission that went
beyond the scope of the Claimant’s comments from 3 March 2025 would be disregarded.
24. In it, the Club sustained that, while the Player alleged never having seen nor signed the
Financial Clearance, the photographic evidence provided with its submission directly
contradicted this assertion, as it showed the Player signing the document in question.
25. Furthermore, the Club asserted that it provided a return flight to the Player for 16 August
2024.
f. Request for original documents
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16413
26. On 6 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to provide the original
document entitled “Financial Clearance” via courier, which the Club provided within the
stipulated time limit.
g. Additional unsolicited correspondence from the parties
27. The parties filed further unsolicited correspondence on 19 February 2025 (Club) and 13
March 2025 (Player). At each instance, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties
that, in line with arts. 11 par. 4 and 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, their unsolicited
correspondence would be disregarded.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16413
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. 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 3 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 3 April 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.
29. 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 Congolese player and an Omani club.
30. 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
31. 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. Admissibility of the information provided by the OFA
32. At this stage, the Chamber paused to consider the information provided by the OFA, with
particular emphasis on the Financial Clearance.
33. In line with art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which the Chamber may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, the majority of the Chamber noted that such
document was provided within the context of a request from the FIFA general secretariat
to a Member Association during the investigation phase of the procedure to inquire as to
the Player’s official passport, periods of registration with the Club, and copy of all contracts
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16413
– if any – executed between the parties. In reply, the OFA indicated that the Player had
never been registered with the OFA and submitted, among other things, a Financial
Clearance that was apparently signed by both parties.
34. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber noted that the Football Tribunal is vested with
discretion as to how and to what extent it may take such information and documents into
account, while respecting the parties’ respective right to be heard and safeguarding against
any potential abuse of process.
35. Here, the majority of the Chamber recalled that, in light of the disclosure of such a relevant
document, the parties were given an opportunity to be heard on the existence and nature
of the Financial Clearance. Therefore, the majority of the Chamber concluded that it could
validly consider the Financial Clearance in its deliberations, subject to any determination
on the merits regarding the allegations of forgery.
36. Moreover, the majority of the Chamber was firm to conclude that any additional
information furnished by the OFA which fell outside the scope of the FIFA general
secretariat’s request to the Member Association could be – and was – disregarded.
d. Merits of the dispute
37. 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
38. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of any outstanding remuneration or
compensation owed to the Player by the Club.
39. The Player submitted, on one hand, that he terminated his Contract with just cause via the
Termination Notice addressed to the Club on 13 September 2024, and, on the other hand,
submitted that the Club terminated his contract without just cause.
40. Conversely, the Club did not timely file a reply to the claim, although there was a further
authorized exchange on the subject of the Financial Clearance, which would purport to
show that the parties mutually decided to put an end to the Contract and, thus,
acknowledging the existence of the Contract.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16413
41. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether there
was a valid and binding contract between the parties, and, if so, how this contract ended
and what consequences, if any, derive therefrom.
42. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, in order for an employment
contract to be considered as valid and binding, it must contain, in addition to the consent
of both the employer and the employee (most commonly manifested by the signatures
included in the relevant agreement), the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such
as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship
and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
43. The Chamber also recalled the contents of 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. With this in mind, the Chamber deemed that it was up to the Player to
prove that the employment relationship, on the basis of which he claimed outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from the Club, indeed existed.
44. Having established this, the Chamber noted that the Contract stipulated the parties, the
duration, the remuneration and the respective obligations. However, in the absence of a
copy of the Contract signed by the Club, which would in the clearest manner prove the
agreement of the parties to be contractually bound, the DRC deemed that it was still for
the Player to prove the existence of the employment relationship on the basis of which he
claimed outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from the
Club. Hence, the Chamber turned to the allegations and evidence presented by the Player
to this effect.
45. In order to substantiate the existence of a valid and binding contract, the Player provided
a photo of himself on the field with other players apparently wearing jerseys and training
vests bearing the name “Saham”, in addition to a visa issued by the Royal Oman Police
whereby the visa sponsor is identified as “Saham Sports Club.” The Player further provided
communications sent by him (via his representative) to the Club; however, the Chamber
underscored that the file did not reflect any correspondence whatsoever from the Club in
return or the correspondence from the Club by which he would have received the copy of
the Contract for him to sign or the visa. Finally, the Player provided flight itineraries from
Oman to Congo DR, as well as a receipt for apparent border fines in the amount of OMR
100 dated 15 September 2024. While the Player alleged that the Club provided the flight
ticket for his travel to Oman, there is no proof of the Club’s remittance (though the itinerary
appeared to have been issued by a travel agency in Oman).
46. All in all, the majority of the Chamber remained unconvinced that the foregoing was
sufficient to establish the necessary mutual consent to be bound in order to determine the
existence of a valid and binding contract between the parties. However, the majority of the
Chamber also noted that the Financial Clearance provided by the OFA referenced the
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16413
existence of a contract between the parties, as it explicitly refers to “The contract signed with
the club for the 2024/2025 season.”
47. In this sense, the majority of the Chamber recalled once again that the parties were given
an opportunity to be heard on the existence and nature of the Financial Clearance. On one
hand, the Player disavowed such document, sustaining that he had never seen such
document and that it was the product of forgery and fraudulent evidence put forth by the
Club in its defense. The majority of the Chamber also noted that the Player stated in his
additional comments in reference to the Financial Clearance that, “Unless credible proof is
provided by the club, the document must be deemed invalid […].”
48. On the other hand, and in response to the above, the Club furnished photographic
evidence of what appeared to be the Player physically signing the Financial Clearance and,
most importantly, it provided – upon FIFA’s request – the original hard copy of the Financial
Clearance.
49. At this stage, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not
competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the one of alleged falsified
signatures of documents, and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the competent
national criminal authority. Notwithstanding the foregoing, after a thorough analysis of the
evidence provided by the parties, the majority of the Chamber considered that no
counterproof was provided to substantiate the alleged non-authenticity of the signatures
in the original version of the Financial Clearance in FIFA’s possession.
50. In particular, upon closer study of the signatures found in the Contract and the signature
found in the Financial Clearance (including the original document provided by the Club),
and from a layman’s perspective, the majority of the Chamber noted evident similarities
which sufficiently corroborated the contention that the Player did in fact sign such a
document.
51. In view of the foregoing, the majority of the Chamber first reached the conclusion that the
existence and contents of the Financial Clearance confirmed the existence of a valid and
binding contract between the parties.
52. Moreover, the majority of the Chamber also held that such document further constituted
a fully countersigned document manifesting the parties’ desire to no longer be bound by
their employment relationship, and that, without further conclusive elements in the file to
question the execution of the Financial Clearance, the majority of the Chamber could only
find that the parties manifested their mutual desire to abandon the Contract via the
Financial Clearance dated 11 August 2024.
53. To that end, the majority of the Chamber also noted that such a mutual departure from
the Contract did not contain any kind of waiver of due amounts, but rather an explicit
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16413
recognition that “there are no claims, dues, or financial rights for any party towards the other
party until the date of 11/08/2024”.
54. Hence, on the basis of all the foregoing considerations, the majority of the Chamber
concluded that, while the parties had a valid and binding employment contract as from 1
August 2024, the latter was mutually terminated on 11 August 2024, the parties having
explicitly confirmed the inexistence of any pending financial dues towards each other.
Thus, the Player’s claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract shall be rejected.
e. Costs
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the majority of the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests
for relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16413
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Carof Bakoua, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16413
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. 16