Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16288
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Fode Camara
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Fode Camara, Guinea
Represented by Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Club Sportif Sfaxien, Tunisia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16288
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Guinean player, Fode Camara (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant/ Counter-Respondent), and the Tunisian club, Club Sportif Sfaxien (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant) entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 18 August 2023 until 30 June 2026.
2.
According to clause 6 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to the following
remuneration:
(Quote in French)
-
« Pendant la durée de ce contrat, le Joueur bénéficiera des avantages suivants :
1000 dt au titre de loyer d'une maison à sa responsabilité
Billet d'avion par saison Conakry/Tunis/Conakry ».
(Quote in English- Freely translated)
“During the term of this contract, the Player shall enjoy the following benefits:
- 1,000 dinars for the rent of a house at his responsibility
- Air ticket per season Conakry/Tunis/Conakry”.
Sporting season: 2023-2024
(Quote in French)
« […] Une prime de rendement fixée d'un commun accord entre les deux parties et dont la base
est de 64000 USD ou son équivalent en Dinar Tunisien., attribuée relativement au nombre de
matchs officiels auxquels le joueur participera avec l'équipe première. La somme due au titre de
la prime de rendement est calculée et payable au joueur selon les modalités exigées par les
règlements de la Fédération Tunisienne de Football. Une avance sur cette prime de rendement,
équivalente à 10000 USD ou son équivalent en Dinar Tunisien, sera payée au joueur dans un
délai maximum correspondant au 3 1/08/2023, sous réserve de qualification définitive du
joueur et obtention de son CIT. Cette avance sera déduite de la somme totale due au titre de
prime de rendement en fin de saison
Prime de rendement = montant de la prime de rendement de base/ nombre total de matchs de
l'équipe première (x) nombre de matchs joués par le joueur avec l'équipe première) ».
(Quote in English- Freely translated)
“[…] A performance bonus agreed between the two parties, based on USD 64,000 or its
equivalent in Tunisian dinars, awarded in relation to the number of official matches the player
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16288
participates in with the first team. The amount due as performance bonus shall be calculated
and payable to the player in accordance with the regulations of the Tunisian Football
Association. An advance on this performance bonus, equivalent to USD 10,000 or its equivalent
in Tunisian dinars, shall be paid to the player within a maximum period corresponding to 3
August 2023, subject to the player's definitive qualification and obtaining his CIT. This advance
shall be deducted from the total amount due as performance bonus at the end of the season
Performance bonus = amount of the basic performance bonus/total number of first-team
matches (x) number of matches played by the player with the first team).”
Sporting season: 2024-2025
(Quote in French)
« Le joueur percevra : Un Salaire mensuel de 4000 USD ou son équivalent en Dinar Tunisien. Une
prime de rendement fixée d'un commun accord entre les deux parties et dont la base est de
72000 USD ou son équivalent en Dinar Tunisien, attribuée relativement au nombre de matchs
officiels auxquels le joueur participera avec l'équipe première. La somme due au titre de la prime
de rendement est calculée et payable au joueur selon les modalités exigées par les règlements
de la Fédération Tunisienne de Football.
Prime de rendement = montant de la prime de rendement de base/ nombre total de matchs de
l'équipe première (x) nombre de matchs joués par le joueur avec l'équipe première) ».
(Quote in English- Freely translated)
“The player shall receive: A monthly salary of USD 4,000 or its equivalent in Tunisian dinars. A
performance bonus agreed between the two parties, based on USD 72,000 or its equivalent in
Tunisian dinars, awarded in relation to the number of official matches the player participates in
with the first team. The amount due as performance bonus shall be calculated and payable to
the player in accordance with the terms and conditions required by the regulations of the
Tunisian Football Association.
Performance bonus = amount of the basic performance bonus/total number of first team
matches (x) number of matches played by the player with the first team)”.
Sporting season 2025-2026
(Quote in French)
« Un Salaire mensuel de 5000 USD ou son équivalent en Dinar Tunisien Une prime de rendement
fixée d'un commun accord entre les deux parties et dont la base est de 80000 USD ou son
équivalent en Dinar Tunisien, attribuée relativement au nombre de matchs officiels auxquels le
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16288
joueur participera avec l'équipe première. La somme due au titre de la prime de rendement est
calculée et payable au joueur selon les modalités exigées par les règlements de la Fédération
Tunisienne de Football.
Prime de rendement = montant de la prime de rendement de base/ nombre total de matchs de
l'équipe première (x) nombre de matchs joués par le joueur avec l'équipe première) ».
(Quote in English- Freely translated)
“A monthly salary of USD 5,000 or its equivalent in Tunisian dinars A performance bonus agreed
between the two parties, based on USD 80,000 or its equivalent in Tunisian dinars, awarded in
relation to the number of official matches the player participates in with the first team. The
amount due as performance bonus shall be calculated and payable to the player in accordance
with the terms and conditions required by the regulations of the Tunisian Football Association.
Performance bonus = amount of the basic performance bonus/total number of first team
matches (x) number of matches played by the player with the first team)”.
3.
On 26 July 2024, internal disciplinary proceedings were opened against the Player by the
Club due to alleged unjustified absences and a fine of DT 4,000 was imposed to him.
4.
On 21 August 2024, the Player was training alone in the gym and at the field without the
first team.
5.
On 28 August 2024, the Player sent a default notice to the Club asking for the payment of
USD 40,720 net corresponding to the Player’s salary of July 2024 as well as the balance of
the 2023-2024 season bonus of USD 36,720. The Player gave 15-day time limit to the
Respondent to comply with their default. In addition, he stated that the fact that he has
been training alone, away from the team, constituted a material breach of the Contract and
requested the Club to cease their abusive behavior and reinstate him immediately.
6.
On 2 September 2024, the Player sent a second default notice to the Club reiterating the
first default notice, putting the Club in default for the salary of August 2024 and requesting
the Club to return his passport immediately.
7.
On 6 September 2024, the Club replied and acknowledged that amounts remained
outstanding and would be paid in due course. In addition, the Club alleged that the Player
was absent without justification from trainings during the first phase of the season. For
that reason, the Player was required to train with a few other players before joining the
team again. The Club also claimed that a meeting with the Player, the coach and the
sporting director would be organized in order to discuss about his reintegration in the first
team. Regarding the passport, the Club alleged that they had retained it for administrative
purposes and had returned it to the Player.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16288
8.
On 9 September 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club requesting full payment of the
outstanding amounts and disputing the Club’s allegations regarding a “specific program”.
The Player reiterated that the Club had until 12 September 2024 to pay the amounts
requested.
9.
On the same date, the Player received his salary of July 2024.
10. On 10 September 2024, the Player’s residence permit expired.
11. On 11 September 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player informing him that the salaries
of July and August 2024 had been paid as well as the bonus requested. Regarding the
Player’s training program, the Club claimed that a meeting with the Player has been
organized for the following Tuesday.
12. On 12 September 2024, the Player sent to the Club a letter stating that he has been
sidelined for more than 21 days. He requested them to cease their abusive behavior on
that day otherwise he would terminate the Contract.
13. On the same date, the Club replied to the Player’s letter arguing that all outstanding
amounts had been paid and that the Player’s reintegration to the first team was under
consideration. The Club further stated that the Player’s late return in the season had a
direct impact on his physical condition and that the decision regarding his reintegration
was exclusively up to the head coach.
14. On the same date, during the meeting with the coach and the sporting director, the Club
informed the Player that a club in Libya was interested in his services and that they were
open to exploring this possibility with him. The Club also asked the Player to renew his
residence permit in Tunisia and informed him that he had not been to the Club’s office to
sign the necessary documents. The Club pointed out that unless he signed these
documents, his visa could not be renewed.
15. On 13 September 2024, the Player informed his legal representative that the Club did not
pay the rent for his apartment. On 16 September 2024, the Player paid the rent, as the Club
would not cooperate and the landlord was insisting regarding the payment of the rent.
16. On 15 September 2024, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club, effective
immediately, stating the following:
“[…] Despite our multiple warnings, the Club has continuously held Mr. Camara out of training
and playing with the team (he was not included in the squad for the first match of the 2024/2025
season) for 24 days without a valid sporting or legal justification. During this time, the Club failed
to specify what required the exclusion of Mr. Camara from the team in the first place; did not
set a set of milestones for him to achieve in order to be reintegrated into the team; did not make
any measurements of his fitness progress; did not allow him to train football with other players;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16288
unlawfully withheld his July and August 2024 salaries and his annual bonus for the 2023-2024
season, paying part of it in the last possible moment just to avoid potential onerous liabilities
under Articles 14bis and 17 RSTP.
At the same time, the Club claimed that Mr. Camara’s late return had a direct impact on his
physical condition and contributed to his exclusion from the team. However, the Club did not
raise this claim with Mr. Camara at the relevant time but ex post facto. Therefore, this stance is
hereby rejected.
In light of the above, I conclude that Mr. Camara’s exclusion from the team was a permanent
measure designed to punish him for his alleged poor performance and to press him to leave the
Club without severance pay. Instead of complying with Mr. Camara’s request to be reinstated
with the team, the Club suggested that he go on loan to another club in Libya. Such conclusive
behavior clearly implies that the Club has no interest in Mr. Camara’s services and the future
performance of the Contract.
In light of the circumstances, I believe setting a new time limit for subsequent performances by
the Club would be in vain. Clearly, the Club adopted an abusive strategy to force Mr. Camara to
terminate the Contract. The Club’s unlawful behavior has lasted for 24 days and constitutes a
material breach of the Contract’s essential terms and Mr. Camara’s personality rights.
On these grounds, Mr. Camara hereby terminates the Contract with just cause, with immediate
effect, based on Article 14.2 RSTP. Consequently, the Club now owes Mr. Camara compensation
for breach of Contract per Article 17.1 RSTP, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of today until full
payment.”
17. On 16 September 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s termination notice disputing such
termination. According to the Club, all the outstanding salaries had been paid, and the
Player had been duly informed in the meeting with the coach and the sporting director that
he was going to reintegrate the first team in due course. In addition, according to the Club,
it would have been up to the Player and his legal representative to decide about the
possible transfer to the Libyan club.
18. The Club also reiterated the fact that the Player did not take care of the administrative
procedures for the renewal of his residence permit, despite the Club’s requests. Finally, the
Club stated that the Player has been absent from the training since 13 September 2024
and a formal notice has been sent to him.
19. On the same date, the Club sent an official notice to the Player via a bailiff (huissier de
justice’) inviting him to be present at the Club’s premises on 17 September 2024 at 16h,
otherwise the Club would initiate legal proceedings.
20. On the same date, the Player went to the Club’s premises in the presence of the bailiff but
did not comment on the termination of the Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16288
21. On 21 January 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Algerian club
Esperance Sportive de Mostaganem, valid as from 21 January 2025 until the end of the
season of 2025-2026. The Player’s monthly salary is DZD 2,000,000.
22. According to TMS, the season 2025/2026 ends on 30 June 2026 (same date as the Contract’s
expiration date).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 27 September 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent
24. The Player alleged having just cause to terminate his Contract due to the Club’s abusive
behaviour mainly because of the Club’s decision to sideline him. In particular, the Player
alleged the following:
-
The Club did not dispute that they sidelined the Player. In fact, the Club sidelined the
Player as a consequence of his absence from training and his late return without
specifying how the Player was late. In addition, the Player argued that there is no
evidence that the Club raised this issue with the Player during his absence and
therefore, they cannot “raise this claim ex post facto and venire contra factum propium”;
-
The Club sidelined the Player as of 21 August 2024. On 1 and 15 September 2024,
the Club participated in two matches but did not include the Player in the squad;
-
Based on a verbal agreement and as per Clause 6 of the Contract, the parties had
agreed that the Club would pay the rent directly to the landlord. However, the Club
failed to pay August’s rent and therefore, the Player had to pay it himself;
-
In addition, between 21 August and 15 September 2024, the Player was sidelined and
excluded from the team. The Club did not specify what was expected from the Player
to return to the team, did not issue any training program and did not make any
measurements of his fitness progress. Therefore, according to the Player this
measure was permanent and unnecessary.
-
Furthermore, the Player was requested to train either alone or with a small group of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16288
players at the gym or at the side of the field and never with the first team.
25. In view of the above, the Player alleged that the Club was no longer interested in his
services as the (i) outstanding amounts were paid after the default notices were sent, (ii)
they let his residence permit expire and then tried to shift the blame to the Player and (iii)
they informed him that they were interested in transferring him to a Libyan club.
26. Furthermore, the Player tried to remedy the situation by sending multiple letters to the
Club requesting the payment of his salaries and the ceasing of the Club’s abusive
behaviour.
27. The Player also argued that in 24 days, the Club failed to substantiate their behaviour and
allegations, particularly the specific program that had been imposed on the Player. Finally,
the Player claimed that the Club’s unlawful behaviour, which lasted for more than 3 weeks,
constituted a material breach of the Contract’s essential elements and its termination was
a measure of ultima ratio.
28. Consequently, the Player requested the following relief:
-
DT 1,000 net plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
USD 100,000 net and DT 24,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus
5% interest as from 16 September 2024 until the day of effective payment.
29. Finally, the Player clarified that the DT 1,000 net requested as outstanding payment
corresponded to the rent of August 2024, while the amount requested as compensation
corresponded to USD 4,000 as basic monthly salary for the season 2024-2025, USD 5,000
as basic monthly salary for the season 2025-2026 and DT 1,000 as a monthly
accommodation allowance:
“Thus, the remaining salary payments per Clause 6 of the Contract amount to USD 100,000 net
[i.e., (10x USD 4,000) + (12x USD 5,000)] as wages and DT 24,000 net (i.e., 24 x DT 1,000).”
b. Reply of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
30. In its reply, the Club alleged that the Player returned from holidays late, breaching his
contractual obligations.
31. The Club further argued that on 26 July 2024, the Player was invited to a disciplinary
meeting due to his unjustified absence and which resulted in a fine of DT 4,000.
32. Contrary to the Player’s allegations, the Player was part of the first team after his return
from the summer vacations, but the coach noticed that the Player’s physical condition was
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16288
poor due to his absence. Consequently, the Player was given a specialised program in order
to get back to the desired fitness level.
33. The Club requested the Football Tribunal to reject the Player’s claim for the following
seasons:
-
His unjustified absence and delayed returned from the summer vacation prevented
him from participating in the trainings of the first phase of the season;
-
The Club has complied with all their financial obligations;
-
The Player was absent without justification as from 13 September 2024.
34. The Club further alleged that based on the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence, any
unjustified absences and delays, and the non-respect of the technical training programs by
the Player, constitute serious breaches of the contract.
35. In this regard, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player for unilaterally terminating
the Contract without just cause.
36. Finally, the Club requested the following relief:
-
USD 252,000 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the Contract;
-
Sporting sanction to be imposed to the Player.
c. Additional information regarding the Interim Regulatory Framework
37. In light of the Interim Regulatory Framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the Procedural Rules Governing
the Football Tribunal, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to amend its claim,
should it wished, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of
the Interim Regulatory Framework to this matter.
38. In this regard, the Club did not modify its claim and simply reiterated its initial statement
of claim.
d. Reply of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent to the counterclaim
39. In his reply to the counterclaim the Player argued that the Club’s allegations regarding his
absence were inconsistent. In particular, the Player alleged that he was supposed to return
on 9 July 2024 but actually returned on 14 July 2024 and this delay was already addressed
and discussed during the internal disciplinary proceeding. Subsequently, the Player
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16288
resumed his trainings with the first team and participated in a closed training session and
several friendly matches with the first team.
40. According to the Player, the Club did not raise any concerns about his physical condition
prior to 21 August 2024, and he was removed from the squad without any notice. After his
removal from the team, the Player did not follow any specific training program, the Club
was not monitoring his progress and did not set any goals for his reintegration.
41. The Player argued that his exclusion was permanent and imposed without any legal or
sporting justification.
42. Regarding the Player’s absence after 13 September 2024, the Player explained that he was
not expected to train on that day, and the following day was a Saturday which is a nonworking day. On 15 September 2024, he terminated his Contract so any he affirmed that
any claims beyond that date are irrelevant.
43. In addition, according to the Player, the termination of the Contract occurred with just
cause as the Club ¸infringed on arts. 12 bis, 13 and 14 of the Regulations.
44. Finally, the Player requested that the Football Tribunal rejects the Club’s counterclaim in its
entirety and upholds the Player’s claims as set forth in the statement of claim.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16288
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
45. 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 14 August 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.
46. 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 the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Guinean player and a Tunisian club.
47. 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. 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).
c. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16288
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
50. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract.
51. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and to establish the consequences thereof.
52. Firstly, the Chamber recalled that according to art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations, “Any abusive
conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the
contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to terminate the contract with just
cause”.
53. The Chamber noted that the Player alleged that the Respondent excluded him from the
team and forced him to train alone or with a small group of players away from the team
for the last 21 days prior to his unilateral termination of the Contract.
54. In this regard, the Chamber made reference to the well-established jurisprudence
according to which a club has a duty to allow its players to engage in activity for which, in
principle, they have been employed and are qualified to perform. Furthermore, a club
deciding to separate a player from the rest of the team and/or making the player train
alone for a prolonged period of time could potentially be considered as abusive conduct
by a club. The Chamber pointed out that the DRC and CAS has repeatedly stated that
“football is a team sport and the majority of training would need to be as part of a team or
squad and with a football.”
55. The Chamber observed that in the present case, it has been confirmed by the Club that the
Player was separated from the team as from 21 August 2024 until the termination of the
Contract, i.e. 15 September 2024, due to his alleged poor sporting performance and
physical condition. However, the Chamber noted that no evidence was provided by the
Club supporting this allegation, and according to the Club his reintegration to the first team
solely depended on the coach’s decision.
56. In addition, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Player sent multiple default notices
to the Club, requesting payment of his remuneration (that was paid by the Club before the
expiration of the deadline set), but also his reintegration to the first team. In particular, the
Chamber noted that the Player sent default notices on 28 August, 2, 9 and 12 September
2024, repeatedly asking the Club to reintegrate him in the team.
57. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the Player’s exclusion from the team was
indefinite and his reintegration uncertain. The Club did not provide a specific timeline
about the Player’s reintegration, neither the special training plan which was allegedly
followed by the Player to improve his physical condition. Therefore, the Chamber deemed
that that the Player’s exclusion from the team did not have a sporting justification.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16288
58. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the prolonged and indefinite exclusion of
the Player from the first team without any proven justification constituted an abusive
behaviour from the Club, and that therefore,, the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract in line with art. 14 of the Regulations.
59. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s counterclaim shall be rejected.
ii. Consequences
60. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
61. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, is equivalent to one monthly
salary for September 2024 (USD 4,000) and the monthly accommodation allowance for
August 2024 (DT 1,000), amounting to USD 4,000 and DT 1,000.
62. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
4,000 and DT 1,000.
63. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 16 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
64. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
65. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16288
66. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
67. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 103,569.96 (i.e., the residual value of the Contract)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract, broken down as follows:
•
USD 36,000 for the salaries between October 2024 and June 2025 (9x USD
4,000);
•
USD 60,000 for the salaries between July 2025 and June 2026 (12x USD 5,000);
•
DT 22,000 (approximately USD 7,569.96) for the house allowance for the
months between October 2024 and June 2026.
68. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
69. Indeed, the Player found employment with Esperance Sportive de Mostaganem valid as
from 21 January 2025 until 30 June 2026. In accordance with the pertinent employment
contract, the Player was entitled to DZD 2,000,000, approximately USD 15,356 per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of USD 250,649, that is, USD 15,356.5 times 16 (from February 2025 until 30 June
2026) plus USD 4,953 for the 10 days worked of January 2025.
70. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber noted that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent
and therefore decided that the Claimant shall not receive additional compensation.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16288
71. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has completely mitigated
his damages as the Player’s new contract is greater that the Player’s total compensation.
(i.e. USD 103, 569.96- USD 250,649).
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
73. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
74. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
75. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
76. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
77. 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. 16
REF. FPSD-16288
78. 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.
79. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16288
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent, Fode Camara, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant, Club Sportif Sfaxien, is rejected
3.
The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant must pay to the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent the
following amounts:
- DT 1,000 and USD 4,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/ CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16288
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. 19