Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17678
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Emmanuel Mahop Dikongue
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Emmanuel Mahop Dikongue, Cameroon
Represented by Sanel Mašić
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Al Nafit Football Club, Iraq
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17678
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 July 2024, Mr Ahmed Moumori (hereinafter, Mr Moumori), the alleged agent of the
Iraqi club Al Nafit Football Club (hereinafter, the Club), sent to the Cameroonian player
Emmanuel Mahop Dikongue (hereinafter, the Player) an employment offer (hereinafter, the
Offer) via WhatsApp.
2.
The Offer stipulated the following:
“Terms of agreement
1- The club offers a contract worth $85,000 to the player (Emmanuel Mahope), Cameron.
The contract amount is distributed as follows:
A- The contract amount is equivalent to (127,500,000) Iraqi dinars (one hundred and
twenty-seven million five hundred thousand Iraqi dinars) for the 2024/2025 season.
B- The first payment shall be ($25,000) twenty-five thousand dollars, equivalent to
($37,500,000) thirty-seven million five hundred thousand Iraqi dinars.
C- The second payment is ($60,000) sixty thousand dollars, equivalent to (90,000,000)
ninety million Iraqi dinars, divided into monthly salaries.
The amount of each monthly salary is ($6,000) six thousand dollars, equivalent to
(9,000,000) nine million Iraqi dinars.
2- The club provides housing for the player for the duration of his stay in Baghdad, and the
player bears the meals.
3- The club grants travel tickets to the player back and forth.
4- If the technical staff is satisfied with the player’s technical level and passes the medical
and physical examination, the contract will be signed according to the mentioned
amounts.
5- In the event that an agreement is not reached between the two parties, the player is
obligated to return.
6- The player abides by the club’s laws and regulations, which constitute an integral part of
the contract.
7- This is considered a job offer agreement and not an official contract between the two
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17678
parties.
8- If the technical staff is not convinced of the player, the contract will be terminated”.
3.
On 25 July 2024, the Player sent to Mr Moumori via WhatsApp a signed copy of the Offer.
4.
On 29 July 2024, the Player sent an email to the Club informing it that more than 5 days
had elapsed since he had signed Offer, and requested the Club a flight ticket to travel to
Iraq.
5.
Also on 29 July 2024, the Club replied to the Player via email, informing the latter, inter alia,
as follows:
“(…) An individual named [Mr Moumori], who falsely represented himself as an agent of our
club, fabricated the purported offer you mentioned, allegedly from our club (…).
We must clarify that our club bears no obligations towards you, as the document in question
is forged and non-binding contract. We have never extended nor executed any such
document”.
6.
In its email, the Club attached previous correspondence exchanged with Mr Moumori,
where the Club informed him that it had not requested nor accepted to send any offer to
the Player. Mr Moumori apologised for the situation.
7.
On 23 September 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with the Bahrani club
Al Hidd SC, valid as from 24 September 2024 until 31 May 2025, which the Player and Al
Hidd SC mutually terminated on 14 December 2024.
8.
Pursuant to the termination agreement signed between the Player and Al Hidd SC, the
Player acknowledged having received BHD 1,319,500 from Al Hidd SC, which, according to
the Player, corresponds to USD 3,500.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17678
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 4 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
10. In his claim, the Club argued that, on 22 July 2024, the Club’s agent, Mr Moumori, sent him
the Offer via WhatsApp, which contained the letterhead of the Club. The Player submitted
that he accepted and signed the Offer and, on 25 July 2024, he sent to Mr Moumori a signed
copy of the Offer via WhatsApp.
11. The Player contended that the Offer sent by the Club contained all the essentialia negotii of
an employment contract, namely, the parties, the remuneration and the duration of the
employment relationship, and therefore considered it to be a binding contract between
the parties.
12. The Player rejected the Club’s communications sent via email where it argued that it was
not the author of the Offer, and contended that the WhatsApp screenshots could have
been perfectly constructed by the Club. Moreover, the Player claimed that Mr Moumori
was in the Club’s premises when the latter drafted the Offer.
13. The Player also asserted that the Club’s arguments regarding the discrepancies with its logo
should not be accepted, as the Club has been using different logos as apparently seen in
the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and other websites.
14. According to the Player, “the truth is that the Club, after receiving the acceptance offer from
the Player decided that they could not welcome the Player in their squad for the 2024/2025
season due to foreign players quota”.
15. The Player claimed that the Club unilaterally terminated the employment relationship
without just cause, as it failed to register the Player and to obtain a valid visa or work
permit. The Player contended that he could legitimately expect that the Club was not going
to perform its obligations of obtaining a visa or registering him, as it did not reply to the
Player’s email dated 29 July 2024.
16. The Player claimed to be entitled to compensation for breach of contract amounting to
USD 74,500, after mitigating USD 10,500 from his new contract signed with Al Hidd SC to
the residual value of the alleged employment contract.
17. The Player requested the following relief:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17678
“The Claimant requests that the FIFA Football Tribunal accepts the present claim, and rule
that:
(1) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant USD 74,500 (seventy-four thousand five
hundred US dollars) as mitigated compensation, with an interest of 5% p.a. as from 27
July 2024, until the date of effective payment;
(2) Sanctions shall be applied upon the Respondent;
(3) The Respondent shall bear the entire costs of these proceedings, if any”.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
18. In its reply, the Club categorically denied the existence of a valid and binding employment
contract with the Player. According to the Club, the Offer did not contain the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract, as it was not signed by an authorized representative of
the Club and was not executed in accordance with the Club’s internal administrative
protocols. The Club contended that the Player failed to prove the existence of an
employment relationship between the parties, as no evidence of direct engagement,
negotiations or contractual commitment was submitted.
19. Moreover, the Club argued that Mr Moumori was not authorized to send an offer to the
Player, as the Club informed him as soon as it was aware of the situation. The Club
contended that it never signed or ratified the Offer, and it never undertook any act
consistent with the existence of an employment relationship, such as issuing a visa or
registering the contract.
20. The Club contended that, based on the legal principle of ultra vires, “any unilateral act
performed by an agent that exceeds the scope of his authority does not, under any
circumstances, bind the principal”. Accordingly, the Club claimed that the Offer is devoid of
legal validity, and any obligations allegedly arising therefrom must be declared null and
void.
21. The Club further argued that the Player’s own actions indicate that he never regarded the
Offer as legally binding, as it failed to put the Club in default and waited five months to file
his claim. The Club contended that the Player failed to reply to the Club’s communication
dated 29 July 2024, whereby the Club informed him that Mr Moumori had no authorization
to send an offer to the Player.
22. According to the Club, the Player’s own actions are inconsistent with the conduct of a party
who genuinely believes he is under contract since, on 23 September 2024, he signed an
employment contract with Al Hidd SC without raising any objections regarding his
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17678
purported contract with the Club. The Club also asserted that the Player filed his claim after
his contract with Al Hidd SC was terminated in December 2024.
23. In the alternative, in case the Offer were considered as a valid and binding employment
contract, the Club claimed that the Player did not have a just cause to terminate the alleged
employment relationship. In particular, the Club argued that Clause 4 of the Offer explicitly
establishes that the signing of a contract was contingent upon the discretion of the
technical staff and a medical evaluation. In this regard, “As the Claimant did not pass these
conditions, the alleged contract never came into force”. The Club also asserted that Clauses 5
and 7 of the Offer confirm that no binding employment contract existed until an express
agreement was reached.
24. The Club’s request for relief, as amended, where the following:
“The Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal to render a decision as
follows:
1. Dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety due to lack of proof, contractual execution,
and procedural compliance.
2. Confirm that no valid employment relationship existed, absolving the Respondent of any
liability.
3. Declare that the Respondent bears no liability to compensate the Claimant.
4. In the event that the Tribunal adjudicates the letter as a valid and binding contract, issue
a ruling that the Claimant unilaterally terminated the agreement without just cause and
order the Claimant to pay compensation for the termination in the total amount of IQD
127,500,000, in accordance with FIFA RSTP provisions and the Swiss Code of Obligations.
5. Recognize the Claimant’s bad faith in initiating these proceedings and award legal costs
against him”.
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
25. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player objected to the admissibility of the counterclaim
filed by the Club, arguing that the counterclaim is less than 1 page long out of a 52 pages
reply. Moreover, the Player asserted that “In addition to the lack of intelligibility of the
counterclaim, which is not even located in a separate section amongst the 52 pages of the Reply,
the Respondent did not provide any factual nor legal argument regarding the counterclaim”.
According to the Player, the Club failed to develop his counterclaim with any legal or factual
argument, but it merely made a reference in the “Relief Sought” section of its submission.
In addition, the Player contended that the Club failed to explain its calculation method
regarding the amount claimed.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17678
26. In the alternative, the Player asserted that the Club’s counterclaim should be rejected,
arguing that the Player’s failure to provide a formal notice of default does not constitute a
procedural deficiency. In this regard, the Player argued that “the Respondent expressly stated
that there was no agreement between the parties in its letter dated 29 July 2024 and thus, the
Claimant did not have to put the Respondent in default as the latter has de facto terminated the
agreement by denying its existence”.
27. The Player requested the following relief:
“Conclusion.
1. Considering the foregoing, the Claimant hereby kindly requests the Football Tribunal to
reject the Respondent’s counterclaim.
2. As for the Claimant’s request for relief, the Claimant kindly refers to the Claim lodged on
04 January 2025”.
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 the 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 4 January 2025 and submitted for decision on
29 May 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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Cameroonian
player and an Iraqi 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17678
b. Admissibility of the counterclaim
31. Before entering into the merits of the case, the Chamber noted that the Player challenged
the admissibility of the counterclaim filed by the Club, arguing that the latter did not
provide any factual or legal arguments in support of its counterclaim, nor did it explain how
the claimed amount had been calculated.
32. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which a counterclaim shall have the same form as a claim, i.e., it must meet the minimum
requirements established in art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
33. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber observed that, in its counterclaim,
the Club contended that, in case the Offer were considered a valid and binding
employment contract, the Player did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate it, as it
failed to put the Club in default. Based on this, the Club requested compensation for breach
of contract.
34. The Chamber therefore deemed that the Club is seeking to attribute certain legal
consequences to a described fact, by providing written arguments in fact and law, as well
as the full body of evidence and a request for relief. The Club’s counterclaim was further
accompanied by a bank account registration form and met the other criteria listed in art.
18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
35. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the counterclaim is complete and therefore
admissible in line with art. 21 par. 1 in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules.
36. The Chamber underscored that the fact that the Club, in its counterclaim, has submitted
either extensive or limited argumentation to support its position does not affect the
admissibility of the counterclaim. Rather, the analysis of the legal consequences that the
Club intends to attribute to the Player is a matter that falls within the merits of the case
and will ultimately lead to the acceptance or rejection of the counterclaim.
c. Burden of proof
37. 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 TMS.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17678
d. Merits of the dispute
38. 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
39. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerns a
claim by a player against a club regarding the validity of the Offer, its consideration as a
valid and binding employment contract, its alleged unilateral termination and the legal
consequences arising therefrom.
40. The Chamber began its analysis by briefly recalling the parties’ position, starting with the
Player, according to whom he entered into a valid and binding employment contract with
the Club by accepting and signing the Offer, which was sent via WhatsApp by Mr Moumori,
the Club’s alleged agent. The Player contended that the Offer included all the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract. Furthermore, the Player submitted that the fact that
the Club informed him that no contract existed constituted a unilateral termination without
just cause.
41. The Chamber also noted that, for its part, the Club categorically denied having entered into
an employment relationship with the Player. The Club claimed that the Offer does not
constitute a valid and binding employment contract, as it does not include the essentialia
negotti. Moreover, the Club argued that Mr Moumori was not authorised to send an offer
to the Player. In the alternative, the Club submitted that if the Offer were considered a valid
and binding employment contract, the Player did not have a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the contract.
42. In this context, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that their task was to decide
on the following issues:
I.
Was Mr Moumori authorised by the Club to send the Offer to the Player?
II. In this case, did the parties enter into a valid and binding employment contract?
III. Depending on the answers to the above, what are the legal consequences that follow?
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17678
43. Before beginning the analysis of the case at hand, the DRC noted that it is for the party that
derives a claim from a certain fact to prove the existence of such fact (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules).
***
I. Was Mr Moumori authorised by the Club to send the Offer to the Player?
44. According to the Player, the fact that Mr Moumori was allegedly in the Club’s premises
when the Club prepared the Offer and that said Offer contains the Club’s letterhead,
demonstrates that the latter was aware of and the author of the Offer.
45. The Club, however, refuted the Player’s claim, stating that it never authorised Mr Moumori
to send the Offer to the Player. In support of its position, the Club argued that it informed
the Player in this regard as soon as it received his email on 29 July 2024.
46. The Chamber noted that the relevant evidence regarding this matter consists of the Offer
and the correspondence exchanged between the parties.
47. Regarding the Offer, the Chamber observed that it was not signed by any representative of
the Club. The Offer was not stamped either. Accordingly, the fact that the Offer contained
the Club’s alleged letterhead –something that the Club also categorically denied– was, in
the Chamber’s view, not decisive for the assessment of the case at hand.
48. As to the exchange of correspondence between the parties, the Chamber noted that, as
soon as the Club received the Player’s email on 29 July 2024 requesting a flight ticket, it
informed him that it had not extended the Offer, and that Mr Moumori had falsely
represented himself as an agent of the Club.
49. The Chamber also noted that, aside from the aforementioned emails dated 29 July 2024,
no other correspondence had taken place between the parties.
50. The Chamber therefore found that there was no evidence on file to support the Player’s
allegation that the Offer was sent by Mr Moumori on behalf of the Club, a fact for which
the burden of proof rested with the Player.
51. Therefore, the Chamber found that the Player failed to meet his burden of proof that Mr
Moumori was duly authorised to extend an Offer to the Player on behalf of the Club. In
fact, the DRC underscored that there is no evidence on file to suggest that the Club,
whether actively, passively, or tacitly, was aware of the Offer until the Player’s email of 29
July 2024.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17678
52. In light of the above conclusion, the issue of whether the Offer represented a valid and
binding employment contract becomes moot.
53. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of an employment relationship between the
parties, the Chamber decided that both the Player’s claim and the Club’s counterclaim must
be rejected.
e. Costs
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17678
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Emmanuel Mahop Dikongue, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Al Nafit Football Club, is
admissible.
3.
The counterclaim of Al Nafit Football Club is rejected.
4.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17678
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. 14