Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17183
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Prince Buregeya
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar)
CLAIMANT:
Prince Buregeya, Rwanda
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Nasiriyah Club, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17183
I. Facts of the case
1.
On August 4, 2024, the Rwandan player, Prince Buregeya (hereinafter: the Claimant)
received via WhatsApp an alleged employment contract (hereinafter: the alleged contract)
from a contact named ‘’Bahri Coach’’ who was allegedly a coach of the Iraqi club, Nasiriyah
Sports Club (hereinafter: the Respondent). On the same day, the Claimant signed and
returned the alleged contract to this contact.
2.
As per art. 1 of the alleged contract (quoted verbatim):
‘’1-the second party will represent the Nasiriyah Sports Club locally from the dates (4\10\2024)
to the date of 1\7\2025’’
3.
As per art. 2 of the alleged contract (quoted verbatim):
‘’2-the two parties agreed to pay the contract amount as a monthly salary (4,000 USD)’’
4.
By correspondence dated 29 September 2024, the Claimant contacted the Respondent via
email mentioning, quoted verbatim:
‘’Dear Chairman of Nasiriyah Sports Club, I hope this message finds you well.
I am writing to follow up on my employment contract dated 3 August 2024. “Attached herein”
I would like to request your decision regarding my retention as a player on the team.
I kindly ask you to provide your response within ~72 hours.
Please note that failure to respond within this timeframe will trigger Article 14 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA-RSTP), which may result in termination
of my contract without just cause.
This action would place liability on your club for all associated legal responsibilities and
consequences.
If I do not receive a response, I will consider myself released from any employment
relationship with your club.
I will then be free to sign with other clubs without facing any sporting sanctions or financial
compensation obligations from your club. In such a case, your club would be required to
compensate me in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA- RSTP.
I would like to emphasize that I am open to negotiations to resolve this matter amicably,
avoiding any claims before the FIFA Football Tribunal. I look forward to your prompt response.
Kind regards.’’
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17183
5.
On 25 October 2024, the legal representative of the Claimant contacted the Respondent to
put it in default of payment. In this communication the Claimant was ‘’granting [the Club]
ten (10) days as a final deadline based on article 12bis to resolve all violations committed
towards the Player amicably and pay the total net amounts of USD 36,000 "thirty-six thousand
dollars" as compensation as we have explained above. In case of failure to do so, the Player has
no other option except to resort to FIFA Football Tribunal (“DRC”), requesting the Club to pay him
his compensation based on article 17 of FIFA-RSTP, to be increased by 5% interest p.a as per the
date on which the respective amounts should have been paid’’.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 21 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
According to the Claimant, the alleged contract is valid, as the Respondent expressed an
intent to conclude an employment contract with him by sending the alleged contract, and
that he had had also demonstrated mutual intent by signing and returning it.
8.
The Claimant also asserts that the alleged contract contains (quoted verbatim), the ‘’essential
elements to be considered as a valid and binding employment contract’’. Namely, he mentions
that the alleged contract ‘’includes all essential elements such as the parties and their roles and
obligations, the duration of the Employment contract, and the remuneration’’.
9.
The Claimant raises that the Respondent failed to comply with its contractual obligations
as it did not arrange the issuance of a visa for him to be authorized to work in Iraq.
10. The Claimant also alleges that the Respondent breached its obligations towards him by
failing to register him which, in turn, prevented him from performing his contractual
obligations.
11. The Claimant mentions that, considering the alleged breaches of contract and its failure to
answer his communications, the Respondent had ‘’prematurely terminated the Employment
Contract’’, and that it ‘’shall be liable for compensation to the Claimant of a residual value of the
Employment Contract.’’
12. The Claimant mentions that these failures amount to aggravating factors and warrant that
the Respondent pay additional compensation under art. 17 RSTP.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17183
13. The requests for relief of the Claimant, as amended, were the following (quoted verbatim):
‘’ 1) To accept this claim against the Respondent.
2) To consider the Respondent liable for the breach without just cause of the Employment
Contract under Article 14 of FIFA-RSTP.
3) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for the residual value of
the Contract according to Article17 Para.1 (i) of FIFA RSTP an amount of USD 36,000-/ "thirtysix thousand dollars" as the total value of the contract plus 5% interest.
4) To condemn the Respondent to pay the claimant an additional head of compensation
under the specificity of sport as provided for under Article 17. Para 1 of FIFA-RSTP
in an amount of USD 24,000/-“Twenty-four US Dollars” plus 5% interest.
5) To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum over
the entire amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the
effective payment.
6) To ban the Respondent from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two registration periods under Article 17 para 4 and under Article 12bis
para 4/d of the FIFA RSTP
7) To fix a sum of USD (5,000-/) “five thousand dollars”, to be paid by the Respondent to the
Claimant, to help the payment of its legal fees and costs.
8) As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and
costs of the present proceedings, if any.”
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite being provided the opportunity to do so, the Respondent has not responded to
the present claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 21 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 19 March 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17183
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
16. 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 (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 Rwandan player
and an Iraqi club.
17. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition) , the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) are applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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
19. 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
20. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
Claimant raises that the Respondent terminated the contractual relationship without just
cause.
21. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to first determine if the parties
had entered an employment relationship before analysing the consequences arising from
the termination of this relationship.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17183
ii. Consequences
22. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of whether the
alleged contract concluded between the parties on 3 August 2024 can be considered a valid
and binding employment contract.
23. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, in order for an
employment contract to be considered valid and binding, apart from the signature of both
the employer and the employee (or the corresponding proof of consent of both parties), it
should contain all 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.
24. The Chamber observed that the alleged contract signed on 3 August 2024 does indeed
identify both parties, includes a salary of USD 4,000 to be paid monthly, has a term from 4
October 2024 until 1 July 2024 and provides the object, namely, that the Claimant is
contracted to play for the Respondent in local competitions.
25. However, the limited evidence in the file still raises questions, from the Chamber’s
perspective, as to the existence of a valid and binding agreement.
26. As established in the more recent jurisprudence of the FIFA Football Tribunal, the existence
of signatures on the document in question are an important but not indispensable element
to establish its valid and binding nature. However, a fully countersigned document is strong
evidence of the parties’ mutual consent and intention to enter into a contract. Here, the
Chamber noted that the alleged contract only bears the Claimant’s signature.
27. The Chamber took note that the Claimant has not established any conclusive conduct –
either before or after the purported signature of the alleged contract – that could be
considered as evidence of the intent of both parties to conclude a valid and binding
employment contract. There is no proof of any kind of consent or even acknowledgement
from the Respondent that there was ever an interest in the Claimant’s services.
28. Indeed, the Claimant relies on a WhatsApp conversation he had with a coach allegedly
employed by the Respondent. However, there is no evidence of the identity of this alleged
coach, or if that person was indeed employed by the Respondent, and that he was
empowered to issue employment offers to players on behalf of the Respondent or
otherwise bind the Respondent.
29. In addition, the conversation provided by the Claimant, through which he alleges having
received and sent back the alleged contract, does not fully display the document as
received by the Claimant.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17183
30. In that sense, the Chamber also took note that article 3 of the alleged contract, in its
translated part, appears to have been digitally altered, which raises additional concerns as
to the authenticity and the validity of the alleged contract, and to the consent of the
Respondent to enter in a contractual relationship.
31. The Chamber considers these elements are not sufficiently mitigated by the evidence
provided by the Claimant to support that there was intent on the part of the Respondent
to enter a contractual relationship, namely, partly translated social media postings
announcing the Claimant’s arrival with the Club.
32. As a consequence, as the evidence on file is, in the Chamber’s view, insufficient to establish
to the requisite degree of certainty that the Claimant and the Respondent entered a valid
employment contract (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules), the Chamber must reject
the present claim.
d. Costs
33. 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.
34. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17183
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Prince Buregeya, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17183
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 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. 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. 10