Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16006
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player David
Sandan Abagna
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
CS Petrocub, Moldova
Represented by Ralph Obeid
RESPONDENT:
David Sandan Abagna, Ghana
Represented by Nilo Effori
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16006
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
-
the Moldovan club, CS Petrocub, (hereinafter: the Club or the Claimant); and
the Ghanian player David Sandan Abagna (hereinafter: the Player or the Respondent).
2.
On 26 January 2024, the Club and the Sudanese club, Al-Hilal, (hereinafter: the Parent Club)
entered into a loan agreement (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement) for the temporary
registration of the Player.
3.
Pursuant the Loan Agreement, the Club was granted an option to permanently register the
Player upon payment of transfer compensation amounting to USD 100,000 (hereinafter:
the Permanent Transfer Option).
4.
In addition, clause 3.2 of the Loan Agreement provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“AL-HILAL shall have the option to recall the player by 15.08.2024 if PETROCUB CLUB has not
exercised the right to permanently acquire the player as stipulated in 2.2 above.”
5.
On 31 January 2024, the Club and the Player entered into an employment agreement
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 February 2024 until 30 December 2024.
6.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player, inter alia, a EUR
1,500 monthly remuneration and a EUR 350 monthly accommodation.
7.
On 6, 7 and 8 July 2024, the Club issued three different absence reports stating that the
Player had been absent from training without a valid reason.
8.
On 7 July 2024, the Club informed the Parent Club that the Player had missed training on 6
and 7 July and had refused to participate in the first-leg match of the UEFA Champions
League first qualifying round scheduled for 10 July 2024.
9.
On 8 July 2024, the Club sent a new letter to the Parent Club confirming that it had fully
complied with its financial obligations towards the Player.
10. On 9 July 2024, the Club sent a default notice to the Player requesting him to immediately
resume team activities.
11. On 10 July 2024, the Club played the first of two UEFA Champions League first qualifying
round matches against the Kazakh club FC Ordabasy, with the Player absent.
12. On 12 July 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club denying that he had refused to play or
train and stating that his concerns were related to safety issues and internal instability. He
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16006
further alleged pressure regarding club politics, discrimination in the payment of bonuses
to African players, and threats of eviction and immigration difficulties. The Player
expressed his wish to return to the Parent Club.
13. On 17 July 2024, the Player participated in the Club’s second-leg match of the UEFA
Champions League first qualifying round against FC Ordabasy.
14. On 23 July 2024, the Player participated in the Club’s first-leg match of the UEFA Champions
League second qualifying round against the Cypriot club APOEL FC.
15. On 29 July 2024, the Club informed the Parent Club of its intentions to exercise the
Permanent Transfer Option.
16. On the same date, the Parent Club replied rejecting the Club’s intention, citing the Player’s
clear unwillingness to continue his career with the Club. In addition, the Parent Club
requested the Club to withdraw the Player as follows:
“The player ask us even to activate the termination of the loan to enable him return to his
mother club and we are by this letter serving you notice to withdraw the player effective 31st
July, 2024 unless you are able to demonstrate to us that you have agreed personal terms with
the player.”
17. On 30 July 2024, the Player participated in the Club’s second-leg match of the UEFA
Champions League second qualifying round against APOEL FC.
18. On 31 July 2024, the Parent Club sent a letter to the Club terminating the Loan Agreement.
19. On 1 August 2024, the Club issued a termination of the Contract letter to the Player, which
reads as follows:
“Regarding the dismissal from employment
Is released from the position of PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER, with the termination of the
Individual Employment Contract at the initiative of the employer, Mr. Abagna David Sandan,
in connection with the absence without valid reasons from the workplace on 06.07.2024,
07.07.2024 and 08.07.2024, according to art. 86 para. (1) lit. h) from the Labor Code of the
Republic of Moldova, starting from 01.08.2024.
To calculate and carry out the full payment of the salary rights due to him (withholding the
salary for the days when the employee was absent).
The Chief Accountant, Aliona DÎRU, is named responsible for the fulfillment of the current
order.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16006
20. On 7 August 2024, the Player returned to the Parent Club, with which he was contractually
bound under an employment agreement until 28 January 2027.
21. On 13 August 2024, the Player was permanently transferred from the Parent Club to the
Cypriot club APOEL FC.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 11 September 2024, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Club
23. In its claim, the Club argued it terminated the Contract with just cause on the basis of the
Player’s absences.
24. The Club asserted that, following the dismissal of its President on 30 June 2024, the Player
failed to attend key training sessions and was absent from an important match without
valid justification. According to the Club, the Player only resumed training on 13 July 2024,
after receiving a formal notice of default.
25. The Club further argued that, despite its attempt to exercise the Permanent Transfer
Option, the Player pressured the Parent Club to reject the offer, which it ultimately did, in
while also terminating the Loan Agreement.
26. The Club contended that the Player advanced three reasons to leave the Club: (i) the
removal of the Club’s President; (ii) the alleged non-payment of bonuses; and (iii) the
absence of an agreement on personal terms.
27. However, the Club maintained that the genuine motive for the Player’s unwillingness to not
complete the loan period was his desire to join the Cypriot club, APOEL FC.
28. In view of the foregoing, the Club concluded that it had just cause to terminate the Contract,
citing art. 14 par. 2 of the of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
29. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“As a result, the Claimant respectfully requests the DRC to issue an award:
i. declaring that it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the Parties described
herein;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16006
ii. declaring that the Claimant had just cause for the premature termination of the Contract;
iii. ordering the Respondent to pay compensatory damage in the amount of EUR 378,098.82;
iv. imposing a four-month ban on the Respondent from participating in official matches;
v. imposing a ban on APOEL FC from registering any new players, both nationally and
internationally, for two consecutive registration periods;
vi. ordering the Respondent to pay default interest rate of 5% p.a. on all of the above amounts
as of 1 August 2024, until the date of their effective payment.”
b. Position of the Player
30. In its reply, the Player submitted that the termination of the Contract was unjustified,
noting that the Parent Club retained the right to recall him under the Loan Agreement if
the Permanent Transfer Option was not exercised by 15 August 2024. In the Player’s view,
this rendered the Contract conditional and made its termination irrelevant and
unenforceable.
31. Alternatively, the Player argued that, even if the recall had not occurred, there was no just
cause for termination, as his absence allegedly lasted only two days and stemmed from
personal concerns regarding the Club’s instability.
32. In this respect, the Player further alleged that he returned to work thereafter, thereby
demonstrating no intent to breach the Contract.
33. The Player also maintained that the unilateral termination of the Contract was
disproportionate, given that lesser corrective options had been available.
34. In light of the above, the Player’s requested that the claim be rejected in its entirety.
c. Additional comments of the Club regarding the Interim Regulatory
Framework
35. On 3 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to provide its comments, if
it so wished, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the
new interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council on 23
December 2024 (hereinafter: the Interim Regulatory Framework), by no later than 10 March
2025.
36. The Club submitted its comments on the Interim Regulatory Framework on 4 April 2025.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16006
37. On 15 April 2025 the FIFA general secretariat informed the Claimant that it will be up to the
relevant chamber of the Football Tribunal to accept or not the correspondence dated 4
April 2025.
d. Additional comments of the Player regarding the Interim Regulatory
Framework
38. On 31 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to provide his comments,
if it so wished, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the
new Interim Regulatory Framework.
39. The Player did not provide any comments on this matter.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16006
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 11 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 10 July 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.
41. 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 (July 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 Ghanian player and a Moldovan club.
42. 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 July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the Club’s comments regarding the Interim Regulatory
Framework
43. Before addressing the merits of the present dispute, the Chamber wished to assess ex
officio the admissibility of the Club’s comments regarding the Interim Regulatory
Framework.
44. With the above in mind, the Chamber observed that on 3 March 2025, the FIFA general
secretariat invited the Club to provide its comments by no later than 10 March 2025.
45. The Chamber was also observant that the Club submitted its comments on the Interim
Regulatory Framework on 4 April 2025.
46. The Chamber then referred to art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural rules, in accordance with
which:
“A time limit is deemed to have been complied with if the action required or requested has
been completed by latest the last day of the time limit at the location of the party’s domicile
or, if the party is represented, of the domicile of its main legal representative. Submissions
and evidence filed outside the relevant time limit shall be disregarded.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16006
47. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Club’s submission dated 4 April
2025 was inadmissible.
c. Burden of proof
48. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
49. 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
50. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim of a club against a player regarding the termination of a contract, namely whether
the terminating party had just cause to do so, and the consequences that follow, if any.
51. As a preliminary matter, the Chamber observed that, prior issuing the termination of the
Contract notice on 1 August 2024, the Club attempted to exercise the Permanent Transfer
Option.
52. The Chamber further noted that this attempt was rejected by the Parent Club on the
grounds that the Player did not wish to continue the employment relationship with the
Club. Furthermore, by means of a letter jointly signed by the Parent Club and the Player by
31 July 2024, both parties agreed to terminate the Loan Agreement and requested the
return of the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (“ITC”) to the Parent Club.
53. That being said, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Club’s requests in the present
matter were not based on the aforementioned events but rather on the Club’s unilateral
termination of the Contract on 1 August 2024.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16006
54. In view of the above, the Chamber recalled that only the Club’s requests and the legal
grounds invoked in support thereof shall be examined, along with any potential
consequences.
55. Having established the above, the Chamber moved to the analysis of whether the Club had
just cause to terminate the Contract. In doing so, the Chamber first wished to recall its longstanding jurisprudence, according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a
certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words,
only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the
continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be
terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in
order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio.
56. In light of the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club based the termination of
the Contract on the Player’s alleged unjustified absences. In this regard, the Chamber
emphasised that, in line with its jurisprudence, a club is required to formally request a
player to return and set a reasonable deadline for compliance before terminating the
employment relationship.
57. With the above in mind, the Chamber turned its attention to the documentation on file and
observed that the following events are relevant for the analysis at hand:
-
Between 6 and 8 July 2024, the Player was absent from three training sessions;
On 9 July 2024, the Club issued a warning letter to the Player requesting his immediate
return;
On 10 July 2024, the Club played an official match, in which the Player was absent;
On 12 July 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club explaining the reasons for his
absence (i.e. safety and instability concerns);
On 13 July 2024, the Player resumed training with the Club;
On 1 August 2024, the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract, citing the Player’s
absences.
58. Based on the above, the Chamber noted that (i) the Player was absent for a total of six days;
(ii) the Club did not set a reasonable deadline for his return; (iii) the Player replied to the
Club’s letter providing an explanation for his absence; and (iv) the Club terminated the
Contract on 1 August 2024, citing the Player’s absence occurring between 6 and 12 July
2024.
59. Having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the Chamber concluded that, in the
circumstances of the present case, the absence of the Player could not be deemed as a
substantial breach of the Contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16006
60. In particular, the Chamber put special emphasis on the following elements: (i) the Club
failed to apply less stringent disciplinary measures first; and (ii) an absence of six days
cannot, per se, be seen as a breach severe enough to justify the termination as an ultima
ratio measure.
61. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Club did not have just cause to
terminate the Contract and, consequently, that its claim must be dismissed in its entirety.
e. Costs
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16006
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, CS Petrocub, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16006
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