Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16287
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Khaly Iyane Thiam
BY:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Khaly Iyane Thiam, Hungary & Senegal
Represented by SILA International Layers
RESPONDENT:
MTK Budapest, Hungary
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16287
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 January 2023, the Hungarian and Senegalese player Khaly Iyane Thiam (hereinafter:
Claimant or player) and the Hungarian club MKT Budapest (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 1 February 2023 until
30 June 2025.
2.
The Claimant was defined in the Contract as follows:
Name: Thiam Khaly Iyane
Place and date of birth: Dakar, 1994, January 07
(…)
Citizenship: Senegalese
3.
According to art. XII of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant EUR 20,000
net as a monthly salary, payable by no later than the 10th day of the following respective month,
as well as an annual housing allowance of HUF 500,000.
4.
Pursuant to clause 49 of the Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“The Parties agree that they shall make efforts to settle their possible dispute in amicable way by
negotiations. If these efforts fail – in cases determined by the rules of MLSZ and FIFA – the Parties
may turn to the organizational units with MLSZ or FIFA scope of authority, in case of labour dispute
to the Administrative and Labour Court having competence and scope of authority, and in all other
disputes arising out of their legal relationship the Parties stipulate the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Sports Standing Arbitration Court based on the Article 47 of the Sports Law. The number of
arbitrators is three; the procedure is determined by the Procedural Rules of the Arbitration Court.”
5.
Furthermore, the Contract foresaw under clause 51 that “Any amendment or addition of this
employment contract is only possible with the written consent of the parties”.
6.
On or around 8 May 2023, the Claimant obtained the Hungarian citizenship.
7.
On 8 May 2023, the Claimant’s nationality was updated in the registration system of the
Hungarian Football Federation (hereinafter: Hungarian Football Federation or MLSZ).
8.
On 12 May 2023, the Claimant posted on his social media announcing inter alia as follows:
“We have been to many continents, gathered tons of international experience, but we always knew
that once we will be back to Hungary. We maintained a very good relationship with the staff of MTK
Budapest throughout the years, and it is an honour to me that we can work together again, and
they see me as part of their future plans. On 8 May 2023, I took the oath in Budapest, and became
a Hungarian citizen, so from here on I can step on the football field as a HUNGARIAN. I would like
to thank this to my family, to my wife, to my children, and to the MTK Budapest family.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16287
9.
On 7 March 2024, the Claimant allegedly suffered an injury during training.
10. On 7 May 2024, the Respondent authorized the Claimant to obtain medical treatment in
Türkiye.
11. On 7 June 2024, the Respondent sent a notification to the Claimant informing him that it has
“decided that taking into account your condition – [the Claimant is] not a member of the adult NBI
squad of MTK Budapest Zrt. until further notice, [the Claimant] will be transferred to the second
team of MTK Budapest”, and further that he “will have to complete the training and rehabilitation
program of the second team, and members of the professional staff belonging to the second team
will contact [the Claimant] regarding the preparation, rehabilitation, and return programs”.
12. On 15 June 2024, the Claimant contacted the Respondent, stating that he was still on vacation,
that a health assessment had not been undertaken yet and that he wished to ascertain how
long he would be with the second team with.
13. On 16 June 2024, the Respondent’s physiotherapist contacted the Claimant, informing him
“[the Respondent] just told me that [the Claimant is] out of the senior squad but [he] should come
to training tomorrow, because [the Respondent] will start rehab and see how [the Claimant] stand
with strength training and running” and “as long as [the Claimant is] doing the tests we cannot put
[him] back in the squad.”
14. On 2 July 2024 and 8 July 2024, the Claimant received training schedules for the second team
of the Respondent.
15. On 12 July 2024, the parties concluded a bonus agreement whereby the Respondent
undertook to pay the Claimant a sum of HUF 1,125,000 net by no later than 31 July 2024.
16. On 17 July 2024, the Respondent requested the Claimant to send him a picture of his social
security card, whereto the Claimant replied that he was unable to send a picture of the card
but that he knew the social security number by memory and that he would visit the relevant
office to obtain another copy of his card to send the picture of. In the same exchange, the
Claimant provided his social security number.
17. On 23 July 2024, the Respondent informed the Claimant that he would train separately from
the rest of the team based on an individual program as will be communicated by the relevant
fitness coach.
18. On 30 July 2024, the Respondent once again requested a copy of the Claimant’s social security
card, stating that he is not able to play without it.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16287
19. On 5 August 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent an old copy of his social security card
asking if this was sufficient for him to play, whereas the Respondent replied stating that the
Claimant should still request for a new one to be made for the sake of good order.
20. Later on the same day, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he attempted to get a new
copy of his social security document, however, that the office advised him that he needed to
go elsewhere to obtain a new copy.
21. On the same day still, the Claimant obtained a valid license to participate in competitions of
the Hungarian Football Federation.
22. On 6 August 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant a unilateral termination notice, informing
him that he was grossly negligent in failing to obtain a new social security card, meaning that
he was unable to participate in a match played on 3 August 2024, which the Respondent ended
up suffering defeat in.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16287
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 27 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
24. In his claim, the player outlined that FIFA should retain jurisdiction, given that he was a
Senegalese citizen and the club was Hungarian. Furthermore, the Claimant pointed to the
jurisdiction clause in the Contract, mentioning that since several forums were outlined
therein, the clause was not exclusive or clear, thus not qualifying as a clause that would
exclude FIFA’s competence in the sense of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b).
25. The Claimant argued that the Respondent abusively terminated the Contract by invoking
his alleged failure to provide his social security permit, as well as relegating him to the
second team due to his injury.
26. The Claimant based his reasoning on art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, arguing that the
validity of an employment contract cannot be based on the existence of a work permit or
on the Claimant’s passing of a medical examination. The Claimant hereby emphasised that
the Respondent had to assist him in the obtention of this document in its duty as an
employer.
27. The Claimant also referred to the MLSZ’s RSTP which stated that only the number itself was
needed and not a picture. The Claimant thereafter pointed out that he provided the
number on 17 July 2024 – ample time before the match that he supposedly missed –
meaning that the Respondent had sufficient time to register him, rather than allege gross
negligence on the Claimant’s part for not providing a picture thereof.
28. Consequently, the Claimant argued that whilst he complied with his contractual
obligations, the Respondent terminated the Contract unilaterally and prematurely without
just cause.
29. As for outstanding amounts, the Claimant indicated that he did not receive any housing
allowance between August 2023 and July 2024, as well as the bonus payment stipulated via
the Bonus Agreement, thus amounting to a total outstanding remuneration of
HUF 6,000,000 (12 x HUF 500,000 alleged housing allowance) plus HUF 1,125,000 (bonus) =
HUF 7,125,000.
30. As for compensation, the Claimant requested the residual value of the Contract, i.e.,
EUR 215,288 net plus HUF 5,500,000 (salaries plus alleged housing allowance during the
residual term of the Contract).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16287
31. Consequently, the Claimant’s request for relief may be summarised as follows:
-
-
HUF 7,125,000 net outstanding remuneration;
EUR 215,288 net plus HUF 5,500,000 net compensation;
Interest as from the respective due dates, with the date of interest applicable on
the compensation as from 7 August 2024.
b. Reply of the Respondent
32. In its reply, the Respondent challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction based on the Claimant’s
nationality.
33. The Respondent claimed that although the Claimant also held Senegalese nationality, and
that the employment contract was signed with his Senegalese nationality, he was
“naturalised” and obtained Hungarian nationality on 2 May 2023.
34. The Respondent alleged that the naturalisation of the Claimant and the obtention of the
Hungarian nationality was something the Claimant himself pursued in order to enjoy more
playing time and potentially be selected for the Hungarian national team.
35. The Respondent enclosed various pieces of evidence to this effect, including social media
posts from the Claimant declaring his enthusiasm about becoming a Hungarian national
and the Claimant’s MLSZ license in which he was indicated as a Hungarian national.
36. Equally, on 14 October 2024, the Hungarian Football Federation issued a letter to the
Respondent indicating that although the Claimant signed the Contract with the Respondent
as a Senegalese citizen, following the obtention of Hungarian citizenship, he was registered
as a Hungarian national in MLSZ’s internal records. The Respondent relied also on this
correspondence to argue that the dispute at hand lacked international dimension.
37. The Respondent also made reference to the Claimant’s player passport, whereby he was
listed as a Hungarian national.
38. What is more, the Respondent emphasised that its intention was to always register the
player as a Hungarian national, as it was “eligible for additional funding for any playing
minutes provided for young Hungarian players”; indeed, the Respondent had received such
additional funding from the Hungarian Football Federation for the season 2023/2024.
39. Therefore, based on the above, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant held the same
nationality as itself, and that the Football Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as a result of a lack of
international dimension.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16287
40. As to the merits, the Respondent denied the notion that it was in breach of contract. In
particular, the Respondent pointed to the Claimant’s failure to provide a social insurance
card in time, without which he could not be registered in official competitions.
41. In this respect, the Respondent provided proof of having attempted to register the player,
and without a social insurance card, the system produced an error, preventing the
registration to go through.
42. When it did finally receive the social insurance card, the Respondent argued that it had
attempted to register the player on the same day. However, at this point, according to the
Respondent, the damage was already done by the Claimant in respect of the contractual
relationship, in as far as it had already lost a match it was planning on using the player’s
services, and the trust had already been breached by the Claimant due to his inactivity.
43. As to the relegation to the second squad, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was
recovering from an injury and that such relegation was only temporary and until he had
been fully recovered. In any event, the player should have been available to play at this
time, which he was not, due to his failure to provide his social insurance card.
44. All in all, the Respondent insisted that it had a just cause to prematurely terminate the
Contract.
45. As for the quantum of the claim, the Respondent argued that neither any bonus
entitlement, nor housing allowance should be taken into account. Furthermore, the
Claimant was under the obligation to mitigate his damages, which, the Respondent
asserted, should be accounted for.
46. As such, the Respondent asked for the claim to be rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
47. In his replica, the Claimant emphasised that, at the time the Contract was concluded, he
was, for the sake of such relationship, clearly Senegalese. The Claimant argued that he was
subsequently “naturalised”. By virtue of the legal principle of tempus regit actum, the aspect
of jurisdiction had to be assessed at the time the claim was lodged.
48. Hereby, the Claimant provided a timeline of his nationality in respect of the Contract at
stake:
-
On 10 February 2023, the Claimant was transferred to the Respondent as a
Senegalese player;
On 8 May 2023, the Claimant was updated within MLSZ’s system as a Hungarian
player, following issuance of his Hungarian naturalisation certificate;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16287
-
On 14 August 2024, the Claimant submitted a request to be registered once again
as a Senegalese player;
On 2 September 2024, the Claimant’s status was updated to being a Senegalese
citizen in MLSZ’s system.
On 27 September 2024 – in the opinion of the Claimant, the relevant date for
tempus regit actum – the claim was lodged.
49. The Claimant also emphasised that the Respondent had changed the Claimant’s nationality
once the Contract was signed so as to obtain financial benefits from the Hungarian Football
Federation. The Claimant argued that it had done so unilaterally and without the Claimant’s
written consent, which was mandatory pursuant to clause 51 of the Contract.
50. As a result of the fact that the Claimant was Senegalese at the time the claim was lodged,
the former argued that FIFA should retain jurisdiction.
51. Equally, the Claimant insisted on the vagueness of the jurisdiction clause at stake, which
should equally prevent FIFA from turning down its jurisdiction in the present matter.
52. As to the merits and the arguments raised by the Respondent, the Claimant insisted that
art. 18 par. 4 RSTP was applicable in the case at hand, and that the Respondent was
responsible for any administrative formalities – such as the registration of the player and
support with the procurement of his social insurance card – as an employer. Therefore,
according to the Claimant, this cannot be invoked as a valid reason not to register him and
to prevent him from carrying out his duties as a professional footballer.
53. Furthermore, the Claimant emphasised that the Respondent had indeed subsequently
managed to register the player on 5 August 2024 – meaning that as from this moment, the
Claimant could still have played and the contractual situation could have been rectified.
54. In any event, the Claimant denied that the MLSZ system, as portrayed by the Respondent
in its reply, showed an error message, and insisted that no social insurance card was
mandatory for the Claimant’s registration. Therefore, the Claimant firmly argued that it was
due to the Respondent’s refusal to register him that he could not participate.
55. All in all, the Claimant insisted on his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
56. In its duplica, the Respondent retorted that the Claimant’s nationality should be assessed
at the time the event which gave rise to the dispute – and not the date of claim – in
application of the same principle of tempus regit actum.
57. By virtue of this, the Respondent insisted that the Claimant had been a Hungarian national
– which was at the time the alleged breach of contract took place.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16287
58. The Respondent also emphasised that the decision to amend his nationality in the MLSZ
system was not unilateral, but rather one which was taken mutually. The Respondent
submitted an exchange of correspondence with the Claimant in this regard, as well as social
media publications of the Claimant in which the latter exclaimed his excitement to begin
playing as a Hungarian national.
59. Therefore, the Respondent insisted that the Claimant was, at the material times of the
contractual relationship, Hungarian, thereby removing any international dimension from
the present dispute.
60. As to the jurisdiction clause at stake, the Respondent insisted on the clarity of the clause
and asserted that the claim should be heard by Hungarian courts, in accordance with art.
49 of the Contract.
61. Moreover, as to the merits, the Respondent insisted on its previous arguments.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16287
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
62. 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 27 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 18 September 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.
63. 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) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with employment-related
disputes with an international dimension.
64. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the main contentious point of the present
proceedings – namely, the existence (or not) of an international dimension. Specifically, the
Chamber noted that, whilst the Claimant argued that he was, for the purposes of the
Contract at stake, a Senegalese player, thus giving rise to an international dimension, the
Respondent contended that the Claimant was, indeed, Hungarian for the sake of the
Contract, and that thus the present dispute lacked international dimension – and the
Football Tribunal was therefore not competent to hear it as to its merits.
65. As a result, the Chamber understood that it firstly had to analyse the Contract at stake,
parties’ submissions, and the evidence on file in order to ascertain whether or not there
was an international dimension to the present claim and, as a result, whether it could
proceed to deliberate on the merits of the case.
66. In this respect, the Chamber firstly pointed out that the nationality of the player at the time
the claim was lodged is not relevant. Indeed, a player bearing the same nationality as his
former employer club could arbitrarily change his nationality following the termination of
their hypothetical contract, so as to “artificially” create an international dimension. What is
more relevant in the present case, according to the Chamber’s view, is the nationality
throughout the contractual relationship and, in particular, at the time of the event giving
rise to the dispute – i.e., the alleged breach of contract.
67. As a general rule, the Chamber viewed that a player’s nationality is relevant at the time the
relevant employment contract is signed and when he is registered with his club – in other
words, his nationality for the purpose of playing football. Hereby, the Chamber made
reference to its own jurisprudence, as well as the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (cf. p. 445 RSTP Commentary; CAS 2023/A/9990 FC Ballkani vs Leonit Abazi & FIFA).
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16287
68. In the case at hand, the Chamber noted that it is undisputed that the Claimant signed the
Contract, and was first registered as a Senegalese national. The preamble to the Contract
is clear in this respect, as is the confirmation by the Hungarian Football Federation dated
13 December 2024.
69. Therefore, as a base conclusion, the Chamber established that the Claimant was registered
as a foreign national to play professional football for the Respondent when he first signed
the Contract.
70. Subsequently, the Chamber deemed that it had to analyse whether this state of affairs had
been maintained during the course of the Contract. In other words, the question to be
answered was whether Claimant’s nationality had materially changed during the course of
the Contract, to the extent that, for the purposes of carrying out his contractual obligations,
he shared the same nationality that the Respondent held.
71. Hereby, the Chamber identified that on 8 May 2023, following his obtention of the
Hungarian citizenship, the Claimant’s nationality was updated, per the confirmation
provided by the Hungarian Football Federation, to Hungarian in the domestic registration
system.
72. The Respondent has stated that this request was made based on mutual consent, and with
the player’s blessing, due to two reasons. On one hand, the player wished to be registered
with his newly obtained nationality, and on the other, the Respondent was able to benefit
financially from fielding a domestic player, thereby demonstrating clear motive for the
player’s sporting nationality to be considered Hungarian.
73. In reply thereto, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had argued that this change was
made unilaterally and without his consent.
74. However, the Chamber observed that there is no evidence on file to suggest that this is the
case. In particular, it was deemed highly relevant that, not only has the Claimant never
objected to the change of nationality during the entire duration of the Contract, but
furthermore, he had unilaterally confirmed his intention to be considered Hungarian via
his social media channels once he had obtained citizenship. The fact itself and the evidence
supporting this was left uncommented by the Claimant in his replica.
75. Furthermore, the Chamber had noted that the Claimant had signed his competition license
dated 6 August 2024, which indicated that he was indeed a Hungarian national, once again
with no objections raised at that time. This further suggested to the Chamber that the
Claimant was not only aware of the implications, but indeed consented to his status as a
Hungarian national for the purposes of his footballing activity with the Respondent.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16287
76. Therefore, based on the parties’ submissions and the evidence on file, the Chamber could
not identify that the change in the player’s nationality had taken place unilaterally and
without his consent – on the contrary, such evidence suggested that this action had been
based on a mutual understanding, leading the ulterior line of reasoning of the Claimant
that he was, for the purposes of the Contract, Senegalese and not Hungarian, to constitute
venire contra factum proprium.
77. At this stage, the Chamber took note of the assertion that the Contract had not been
formally amended in a procedurally correct manner, and without the Claimant’s written
consent, pursuant to clause 51 thereunder.
78. In this sense, the Chamber considered that the Claimant’s change in registration did not
constitute an amendment to the terms of the Contract – rather, it constituted an
administrative act separate therefrom (not to mention that, in any event, the evidence on
file would suggest that the Claimant indeed consented to such change). Therefore, the
Claimant’s argumentation in this respect was disregarded by the Chamber.
79. All in all, the Chamber concluded that it was undisputed that the Claimant had obtained
Hungarian citizenship shortly after the conclusion of the Contract, had supported this
change by his own declarations, and not challenged this administrative act throughout the
duration of the Contract.
80. In the Chamber’s unanimous view, this firmly corroborated the line of argument that the
intention of not only the Respondent, but also the Claimant was that, for the duration of
the Contract and specifically at the time the Contract was terminated – the event giving rise
to the dispute – the latter was to be treated as a Hungarian national, thereby depriving the
present dispute of its international dimension.
81. As a result of the above, the Chamber held that the Claimant was to be considered
Hungarian for the purposes of the Contract at stake, and for the present dispute.
Therefore, the matter at hand was viewed as a purely national matter by the Chamber.
82. In view of the lack of an international dimension concerning the present case, pursuant to
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that it had no jurisdiction to
hear the claim as to its merits.
b. Costs
83. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16287
84. 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.
85. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16287
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Khaly
Iyane Thiam.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16287
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