Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18181
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yacouba
Doumbia
BY:
Philippe DIALLO, France
CLAIMANT:
Yacouba Doumbia, Mali
Represented by Slim Boulasnem
RESPONDENT:
PS Barito Putera, Indonesia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18181
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Malian player Yacouba Doumbia (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
•
the Indonesian club, PS Barito Putera (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the All Indonesia Football Association (PSSI).
2.
On 18 March 2024, the Club sent an offer of employment letter (hereinafter: the Offer) via
WhatsApp to an alleged agent named Jean Michel Babouaken (hereinafter: the alleged
Agent), for review and signature by the Player.
3.
In accordance with the Offer, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant, inter alia,
a monthly salary of USD 10,000 net over a period of 11 months from 1 July 2024 until 31
May 2025, a monthly allowance of IDR 5,000,000 for a rental house, as well as flight tickets
for the Player, his wife and their child from Bamako (Mali) to the Club’s homebase city.
4.
Article 2 of the Offer mentioned, quoted verbatim, ‘’other rights and obligations that have
been agreed upon in the cooperation agreement signed between the Club and you, and this
Offer Letter cannot be separated to the cooperation agreement to be signed between the Club
and you’’.
5.
The Offer Letter also stated, quoted verbatim, “After you sign this Offering Letter, the
Document of Contract will sign and join in to the Club not later than 30 JUNE 2024’’.
6.
On 26 March 2024, the Club followed up with the alleged Agent, via WhatsApp. The alleged
Agent replied that the Player had not signed the Offer.
7.
On 29 March 2024, the Club followed up again with the alleged Agent, via WhatsApp, asking
for an update regarding the Player’s signature of the Offer.
8.
On 2 April 2024, the alleged Agent answered the Club, stating that the Player had initially
agreed to the Offer but that he was no longer answering him.
9.
On 2 April 2024, in reply, the Club agreed to wait another week.
10. On 6 April 2024, the alleged Agent contacted the Club via WhatsApp, mentioning that the
Player had passport issues in his home country.
11. On 16 April 2024, the alleged Agent contacted the Club via WhatsApp, mentioning that the
Player was no longer answering him and that they should start looking for alternatives.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18181
12. On 11 June 2024, the Player contacted the alleged Agent via WhatsApp, stating he had
signed the Offer and wanted to discuss it with him.
13. On 3 August 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a formal notice via
email to the Club. The Player argued that he had signed the ‘’employment contract’’, and
that he had been awaiting instructions from the Club and the flight tickets and visa
mentioned in the Offer. He granted the Club a deadline of 3 days to confirm that they would
honour the ‘’employment contract’’ and send the documents and instructions for him to
join the Club.
14. On 6 August 2024, the Club answered the email stating that they had never received the
signed Offer and that they had never signed the formal employment contract. In addition,
they added that at the time of the email exchange, the registration for foreign players in
Indonesia was closed.
15. On 7 August 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, wrote via email to the Club,
stating that he considered the ‘’contract’’ to be terminated.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 11 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
17. The Player alleges that he signed the Offer on 18 March 2024, which was was sent to him
on 14 June 2024. However, he claims that he has not heard from the Club since that date.
18. The Player submits that he entered in an employment relationship with the Club, and that
the Offer contains the essential elements (Essentialia negotii) to be considered a valid and
binding employment contract.
19. The Player therefore alleges that the Club has breached the art. 14 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and therefore requests
compensation for the breach of contract under art. 17 of the Regulations.
20. The Player claims the residual value of the Offer valued at USD 110,000, as well as the
housing allowance of IDR 55,000,000 and the flight ticket allowance of USD 5,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18181
21. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
‘’ - 115 000 USD, 55000000 IDR de compensation pour la rupture sans juste cause par le Club,
plus 5% d’intérêts p.a. à compter de la date de résiliation le 1er août 2022;
-5 000 EUR de frais de justice.’’
Freely translated into English:
‘’- 115,000 USD, 55,000,000 IDR compensation for termination without just cause by the Club,
plus 5% interest p.a. from the termination date of August 1st, 2022;
- 5,000 EUR in legal fees.''
b. Position of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club mentions having never communicated directly with the Player.
23. The Club admits that the Player was offered to the Club by the alleged Agent, and that they
contacted the alleged Agent sending him an unsigned copy of the Offer addressed to the
Player.
24. The Club submits that the Offer does not constitute an employment contract, as they have
a standard contract recognized by the by the PSSI.
25. The Club asserts that the Offer needed to be signed by the Player, the Club and the alleged
Agent for the parties to go forward with the signature of an employment contract.
26. The Club, therefore, denies having entered into an employment contract with the Player.
27. The Club alleges having had several communications with the alleged Agent, namely on 24
March 2024, 2 April 2024, and 16 April 2024, and that each time there was no confirmation
if the Player was to sign or had signed the Offer.
28. The Club mentions having not received any response to the Offer until the email from the
Player’s representative of 3 August 2024, which was past the date of 30 June 2024, listed in
the Offer.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18181
29. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1) Accept and grant the Club's Objection in its entirety;
2) Declaring that the Player has no rights whatsoever from the Club so that the Player's Claim
cannot be accepted in its entirety with all its legal consequences’.’
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 11 February 2025 and submitted
for decision on 16 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
31. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 a Malian player and an Indonesian club.
32. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
33. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18181
c. Merits of the dispute
34. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of an employment relationship and the ensuing
consequences, if any.
36. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine (i) whether
the parties have entered an employment agreement, (ii) if so, who terminated the
contractual relationship, and (iii) what are the consequences arising from this alleged
termination.
37. Having stated the above, the Single Judge first turned his attention to the question of the
existence of the contractual relationship.
38. The Single Judge noted that the Club has admitted to submitting the Offer to the Player on
18 March 2024, via the alleged Agent.
39. The Single Judge also considered that the Offer was drafted on the Club’s letterhead and,
in principle, contained many of the essentialia negotii to be considered a valid employment
contract, i.e., a term, a salary, advantages, name of the parties.
40. However, the Single Judge found it essential that (i) the Offer was only stamped but not
signed by the Club, as well as it did not contain the signature of the Player or the alleged
Agent; and (ii) art. 4 of the Offer set an expiration date to the offer of employment, namely
30 June 2024.
41. As from the additional evidence on file, the Single Judge found that the Player, despite
alleging it, has not demonstrated having returned the signed version of the Offer to the
Club before the deadline of 30 June 2024. In other words, the Single Judge reviewed the
evidence submitted by both parties and considered that it was inconclusive in
demonstrating that the Player effectively accepted and sent the signed Offer back to the
Club before the 30 June 2024 expiration date.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18181
In particular, the Single Judge noted that the WhatsApp conversation relied upon as
evidence by the Player did not demonstrate that he had indeed signed and returned the
Offer, or any type of contract, to the alleged Agent or the Club, at any point in time.
42. As a consequence, the Single Judge considered that the Player has not discharged of his
burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
43. Considering the foregoing, the Single Judge was not convinced that the parties had ever
entered into a contract (i.e., the Offer or any other agreement) and therefore concluded
that the employment relationship between the Player and the Club did not materialize.
44. As the answer to the first question in the present matter was negative (i.e., there was no
employment relationship between the parties), the Single Judge concluded that there was
no need to analyse an alleged termination further. He therefore rejected the claim in its
entirety.
d. Costs
45. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
46. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
47. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18181
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yacouba Doumbia, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18181
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. 10