Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17050
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Isaac Mintah
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Isaac Mintah, Ghana
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Ahly Tripoli, Libya
Represented by Eleven & Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17050
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
-
The Ghanaian player Isaac Mintah (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
-
The Libyan club Ahly Tripoli (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
On 20 January 2024, the Ghanaian club Aduana FC (hereinafter: Aduana FC) and the
Respondent concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the Transfer Agreement)
regarding the definitive transfer of the Player from Aduana FC to the Respondent.
3.
On 25 January 2024, the parties concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from the date of its signature until 25 July 2026.
4.
According to art. 3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant:
“The first six months of the contract: The first party pays the second party an amount of
($80,000), only eighty thousand US dollars, to be paid as follows:
• The down payment amount of ($40,000) is forty thousand US dollars only, which is paid after
the player arrives in Libya, successfully passes the medical examination, and receives the
international transfer card (TMS)
The remaining value of the contract is ($40,000), only forty thousand dollars, to be paid as
monthly salaries at ($6,666), only six thousand six hundred and sixty-six dollars per month.
The second and third years of the contract to be agreed upon in a timely manner before the
start of the 2024/2025 sports season as follows: Season 2024/2025 the player should receive US
$200,000 (two hundred thousand US dollars), and season 2025/2026 the player should receive
US $250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand US dollars).”
5.
On 11 February 2024, the Respondent initiated the transfer instruction No. TMS 812599
through the Transfer Matching System (TMS) regarding the transfer of the Player from
Aduana FC to the Respondent.
6.
On 11 February 2024, the Libyan Football Federation (hereinafter: the LFF) requested a
validation exception to FIFA in order to allow the transfer to proceed. This request read as
follows:
“Dear colleagues,
As you know, Al-Ahly Tripoli Club was banned from registering new players due to Case
No.Ref.FDD-16130.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17050
Our affiliate club made an effort and in good faith and committed to paying and transferring
the due amount to the concerned coach : Bernard Simondi at a time when the transfer window
was open, but he submitted incorrect data of his bank account twice, which resulted in our club
missing the opportunity to register players at the right time during the opening of Transfer
window, including this player.
We hope to override the validation exception by allowing the transfer to proceed.
Thanks for your assistance and understanding,”
7.
On 14 February 2024, the LFF reiterated its previous request for the validation exception.
8.
On 19 February 2024, FIFA’s Players’ Status Department rejected the LFF’s request because
it was made outside the relevant registration period.
9.
On 24 February 2024, the Player through his agent put the Club in default requesting the
payment of the signing fee by 26 February 2024. The Claimant also stated that the
Respondent and Aduana FC refused to inform the Player of the existence of an alleged
problem with his ITC.
10. According to the Respondent, on 26 February 2024, the parties concluded a Cancellation
Agreement (hereinafter: the Cancellation Agreement):
11. The preamble of the Cancellation Agreement read as follows:
“WHEREAS:
A. On 25 / 01 / 2024, the Club and the Player signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the
“Contract”).
B. The Player has never been registered with the Club and has expressed his intention to annul
the Contract. (…)”
12. Art. 1 of the Cancellation Agreement provided (quoted verbatim):
“Article 1
Through the present Agreement, the Parties confirm, in mutual consent, to cancel the Contract
and thus the employment of the Player with the Club. The Contract shall be deemed never to
have existed, never to have come into force and never to have had any effect”
13. Art. 2 of the Cancellation Agreement further provided (quoted verbatim):
“The parties declare and confirm explicitly that the Contract is cancelled in mutual consent with
retroactive effect on 26/2/2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17050
The Player and the Club irrevocably and definitively waive all rights or claims that already exist,
known or unknown, or that could in the future start to exist due to the Contract, or due to the
termination in mutual consent of the employment, or due to whatever reason.
In particular, the Parties confirm that the Player shall not be entitled to receive any remuneration
under the Contract.”
14. Article. 4 of the Cancellation Agreement stipulated that (quoted verbatim):
“The present Agreement is subject to FIFA Regulations. Any dispute arising from or related to this
Agreement or the Contract, or the non-respect thereof, shall be referred to the competent court
in Tripoli, Libya.”
15. On 4 March 2024, the Player signed a payment affidavit from the Club (hereinafter: the First
Receipt) where he acknowledged having received USD 5,000 for the following concept:
“Salary. The agreed amount of money to hold on to until the ITC arrives.”
16. On 17 March 2024, the Player trained with the Club.
17. According to the information retrieved from TMS, as of 23 March 2024, there were
validation issues that needed to be resolved before the transfer could proceed. The
Respondent was serving at the time one or more registration bans regarding the execution
of monetary decisions.
18. On 15 April 2024, the Nationality and Foreigners Affairs Authority of Libya issued a notice
to the Passport Control at Mitiga International Airport and the Club authorizing the Player
to depart from Libya and return, as he was the holder of a visa.
19. Between 16 and 26 May 2024, the Player participated in training sessions with the Club.
20. On an unspecified date, which according to him was on 29 May 2024, the Player signed a
payment affidavit from the Club (hereinafter: the Second Receipt) where he acknowledged
having received USD 10,000 without specifying the purpose of said payment.
21. On 1 June 2024, the Player travelled to Tunisia.
22. Between 2 and 3 June 2024, the Player participated in training sessions with the Club.
23. On 8 June 2024, the Player participated in a match with the Respondent against an
unspecified club.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17050
24. On 10 June 2024, the Player participated in a friendly match with the Respondent against
Olympique Beja from Tunisia.
25. Also on 10 June 2024, the Player travelled to Libya with the Club’s team.
26. On 19 June 2024, a visa to Italy was issued for the Player valid as from 24 June 2024 until 7
August 2024.
27. According to the information retrieved by the FIFA general secretariat from TMS, the first
registration period in Libya started on 2 July 2024 and was set to close on 23 September
2024.
28. On 3 July 2024, the Player travelled to Italy with the Club.
29. Between 4 and 12 July 2024, the Player participated in training sessions with the Club in
Italy.
30. On 25 July 2024, the Player’s agent sent a second notice of default to the Club requesting
the payment of the signing fee and stating that the Club did receive the ITC before traveling
to Italy.
31. On 31 July 2024, the Player’s agent sent a third letter to the Respondent stating that it came
to their attention that the Club was claiming that the parties concluded the Cancellation
Agreement. However, the Player’s agent stated that they were not aware of said agreement
and did not have a copy of it. Moreover, he stated that the Club was arguing that to not pay
the Player the signing fee. Therefore, requested that the Player be paid as agreed in his
contract by 2 August 2024.
32. On 14 August 2024, the Player through his legal representative sent a warning letter
(hereinafter the Warning Letter) granting a 15-day deadline to the Respondent to comply
with the following:
“1. Paying the remaining signing-on fee of USD 35,000-/ (Thirty-Five Thousand US Dollars)
that should be paid on 25 January 2024.
2. Paying the outstanding amount of USD 46,662-/ USD (Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred
Sixty- Two US Dollars) in unpaid salaries for the period between (February to August 2024)
3. Providing evidence of the Player’s registration for the 2023/2024 season.”
33. On 1 September 2024, the Player through his legal representative terminated the Contract
based on arts. 14 and 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17050
34. Also on 1 September 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s legal representative stating, inter
alia:
“ (…)
The Club categorically contests the entirety of your claims. Contrary to your assertions, no sums
are due to your client under the Employment Contract dated 25 January 2024 ("the Contract").
This position is grounded in the following facts and legal considerations.
As you are undoubtedly aware, the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) necessary for the
registration of Mr. Mintah was not delivered. Consequently, your client was not registered with
our club for the 2023/2024 season. Due to this absence of the ITC and the resulting absence of
registration, your client explicitly requested the cancellation of the Contract. Following this
request, the Parties, acting in good faith, executed a "Cancellation Agreement" on 26 February
2024.
This agreement annulled the Contract in its entirety, rendering it null and void as if it had never
existed. A copy of the Cancellation Agreement is attached for your perusal.
Given that the Contract has been lawfully cancelled and is deemed never to have existed, there
is no legal foundation for the financial claims you have advanced on behalf of your client. As
such, any attempt to claim these sums would be an illegitimate act aimed at unjust enrichment
(…)”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
35. On 12 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
36. In his claim, the Claimant asserted that his signature on the alleged termination document
was forged. He provided evidence comparing the signature on the disputed document with
his authentic signatures on the employment contract and payment receipts. The Claimant
argued that this constituted a serious breach of law and FIFA regulations, as the Club
attempted to fabricate evidence to avoid its contractual obligations.
37. The Claimant emphasized that even after the supposed termination date, the Club
continued to treat the Contract as valid—paying salaries, arranging visas, and allowing him
to train and travel with the team. Moreover, he argued that this behaviour contradicted the
claim of mutual termination and rather supported the argument that the document was
fabricated.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17050
38. According to the Claimant, the Club’s justification for termination—failure to obtain the
ITC—is legally invalid. FIFA and CAS jurisprudence consistently hold that administrative
formalities such as ITC processing are the sole responsibility of clubs, not of players.
Employment contracts cannot be made conditional on such formalities. The Claimant cited
multiple decisions of the Football Tribunal confirming that failure to register a player does
not justify termination on the part of clubs, and, in fact, gives players just cause to
terminate the contract.
39. According to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract on 1 September 2024 with just cause
under Articles 14 and 14bis of the Regulations for two main reasons:
- Non-Registration: The Club failed to register him for eight months, preventing him from
playing official matches and violating his fundamental right to compete. The FIFA
Commentary on the Regulations (2023 Edition) (hereinafter: the Commentary) and CAS
decisions (e.g., CAS 2016/A/4560) confirm that denying a Player the opportunity to
participate in official matches constitutes a serious breach of contract.
- Non-Payment: The Club failed to pay the agreed signing fee of USD 40,000 and multiple
monthly salaries despite repeated default notices. Only USD 15,000 was paid, leaving
significant arrears. Under Article 14bis, failure to pay at least two monthly salaries after a
15-day warning gives the player just cause to terminate.
40. Consequently, the Claimant requested:
“VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
In view of all the above, we request this Honorable Chamber:
1) To accept this claim against the Respondent.
2) To consider the Respondent liable for the breach without just cause of the Employment
Contract under articles 14 and 14bis of FIFA-RSTP.
3) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant an amount of USD 133,328 (one hundred
thirty-three thousand, three hundred twenty-eight US dollars), plus 5% interest, to be paid
as follows:
a. Signing fee = 40,000-/ USD "forty thousand dollars". Failure to pay the signing fee which due
on 25 January 2024.
b. April 2024 = 6,666-/ USD "six thousand, six hundred and sixty-six dollars", which due on 01
April 2024.
c. May 2024 = 6,666-/ USD "six thousand, six hundred and sixty-six dollars", which due on 01
May 2024.
d. June 2024 = 6,666-/ USD "six thousand, six hundred and sixty-six dollars", which due on 01
June 2024.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17050
e. July 2024 = 6,666-/ USD "six thousand, six hundred and sixty-six dollars", which due on 01
July 2024.
f. August 2024 = 16,666-/ USD " sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixty-six dollars ", which due
on 01 August 2024.
g. September 2024 = 16,666-/ USD "sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixty-six dollars ", which
due on 01 September 2024.
4) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation of USD 416,668 (four
hundred sixteen thousand, six hundred sixty-eight US dollars), plus 5% interest, for the
residual value of the Contract in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP.
5) To condemn the Respondent to pay the claimant an additional compensation of USD 124,999/ “One hundred twenty-four thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine US dollars.” plus 5%
interest, under the specificity of sport as provided in Article 17of FIFA-RSTP.
6) To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum over
entire amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the effective
payment.
7) To ban the Respondent from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally,
for two registration periods under Article 17, paragraph 4 of the FIFA RSTP
8) To impose the Respondent whatever sanctions this honorable Chamber deems fit in
accordance with article 12 bis of the FIFA RSTP.
9) To fix a sum of USD (5,000-/) “five thousand dollars”, to be paid by the Respondent to the
Claimant, to help the payment of its legal fees and costs.
10) All amounts mentioned in the present claim shall be paid in dollars at the price of the time
of signing the Contract to the Claimant’s bank account. (Exhibit No. 13 – Player’s Bank Account
Details).
11) As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs
of the present proceedings, if any.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
41. In its reply, the Club asserted that the ITC of the Player from the Ghanaian Football
Association (GFA) to the LFF could not be completed before the end of the winter transfer
window.
42. The Club alleged that the execution of the Contract, as well as the payment of the down
payment of USD 40,000 was subject to the issuance of the ITC.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17050
43. The Club argued that the Player requested to sign the Cancellation Agreement.
44. The Club asserted that, notwithstanding having signed the Cancellation Agreement, the
parties agreed that the Player could still train with the Club until he found a new
employment contract or negotiate a new contract with the Club during the next registration
period.
45. In this sense, the Club emphasized that in good will it agreed to pay the Player certain
amounts in order to cover his living costs in Libya.
46. In regard to the First Receipt, the Club remarked it has the word salary crossed off from it
and its wording, i.e. “hold on to the ITC arrives” was referring to his future registration.
47. The Club argued that the Claimant’s letter of 31 July 2024 demonstrated that the Club
always relied on the Cancellation Agreement.
48. The Club argued that the Cancellation Agreement was valid. In this sense, the Club also
mentioned that the Player signed the agreement twice and affixed his digital fingerprint on
each page, making forgery materially impossible.
49. Moreover, the Club emphasized that:
- The Player’s claim of forged signatures is unfounded because his own signatures show
inconsistencies, and the signatures on the Cancellation Agreement resemble those on
the original Contract.
- The Player never requested a copy of the Cancellation Agreement until July 2024, when
he acknowledged its existence in writing.
- Payments made after February 2024 were goodwill gestures for living costs, not salary
under the Contract, as confirmed by the crossed-out word “salary” on the receipt.
50. The Respondent proposed to send the original document of the Cancellation Agreement
to FIFA.
51. The Respondent argued FIFA’s lack of jurisdiction based on art. 4 of the Cancellation
Agreement which provided that any dispute arising from said Agreement shall be referred
to the competent court in Tripoli, Libya.
52. The Respondent insisted that the Contract was cancelled by the parties through the
Cancellation Agreement. In this sense, it argued that no just cause could be argued based
on outstanding remuneration when the Contract was deemed as it never existed.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17050
53. The Respondent argued that, in the unlikely event the Football Tribunal considers the
contract was not validly cancelled, the Player’s financial claims must be significantly
reduced. The Respondent calculated that the outstanding salaries would amount to USD
41,666 after deducting USD 15,000 already paid. The signing fee of USD 40,000 was never
due because the Player did not obtain the ITC. Regarding compensation for breach of
contract, the Respondent argued that any award must be mitigated by the Player’s
subsequent employment with Asante Kotoko, in accordance with Article 17 of the
Regulations. The Respondent also requested the dismissal of any claim for additional
compensation, as the Player failed to substantiate damages and the overall compensation
cannot exceed the residual value of the contract.
54. Consequently, the Respondent requested (quoted verbatim):
“V.
REQUEST FOR RELIEFS
For the reasons set out above, the Club requests the Football Tribunal to:
1. Declare the Claimant’s claim inadmissible;
In the alternative
2. Reject the claim of the Player;
In the further alternative
3. Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of USD 41,666 as outstanding salaries;
4. Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of USD 473,334 minus any remuneration received
by the Player in accordance with any new employment contract, as compensation for breach of
contract
In any event
5. Reject the claim for legal and procedural costs.
c. Replica of the Claimant
55. In his replica, the Claimant insisted that the Cancellation Agreement is invalid and forged.
56. The Claimant asserted that he never signed or requested the termination of the Contract.
57. He argued that the signatures on the Cancellation Agreement differ significantly from his
authentic signatures on the Contract and payment receipts, displaying a completely
different handwriting style.
58. Furthermore, the Claimant contended that the fingerprints on the Cancellation Agreement
were copied from the First Receipt, as both share identical distinctive errors.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17050
59. The Claimant cited art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) and art. 8 of the Swiss Civil Code, which place the burden
of proof on the party asserting a fact.
60. Consequently, the Claimant requested the Chamber to examine the original document and
conclude that the Respondent acted in bad faith by fabricating evidence to evade
contractual obligations.
61. The Claimant argued that the Respondent’s justification for termination — failure to obtain
the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) — is legally unfounded.
62. The Claimant asserted that, under article 9 par. 1 and article 18 par. 4 of the Regulations,
the responsibility for securing the ITC and completing administrative formalities lies
exclusively with the club. In this regard, the Claimant relied on CAS award CAS 2014/A/3793
and decisions by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC) on 6 May 2010
and 31 October 2013 which he provided on file.
63. The Claimant cited FIFA and CAS jurisprudence confirming that the validity of an
employment contract cannot be made conditional upon administrative procedures such
as registration or work permits.
64. Therefore, the Claimant argued that even if the Cancellation Agreement existed, it would
be invalid as it was based on an unlawful reason.
65. The Claimant reiterated insisted that he never requested the termination of the Contract
or it to be cancelled. On the contrary, he consistently demanded compliance with
contractual obligations, as evidenced by his letters, including one dated 24 February 2024.
66. The Claimant argued that it is illogical to assume he would abandon his rights two days
after granting the Respondent a deadline to comply, especially given that the contract was
valid until July 2026 and multiple transfer windows remained available.
67. The Claimant sustained that, even if the Cancellation Agreement was assumed valid, the
conduct of both parties demonstrates that the Contract remained in force.
68. In this regard, the Claimant asserted that he continued to provide services under the
Contract by attending training sessions, participating in friendly matches, and travelling
with the team to Tunisia and Italy.
69. The Claimant argued that meanwhile, the Respondent continued to provide
accommodation, visas, transportation, and salary payments, including USD 5,000 on 4
March 2024 and USD 10,000 on 29 May 2024.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17050
70. The Claimant emphasized that the First Payment Receipt explicitly referred to salary “until
the ITC arrives,” contradicting any claim of cancellation.
71. The Claimant cited article 334 par. 2 of the Swiss Civil Code, which presumes continuity
when parties tacitly extend a fixed-term employment relationship.
72. The Claimant argued that FIFA has jurisdiction based on article. 22 of the Regulations.
73. Outside of the above, the Claimant reiterated the request of relief made in his claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
74. In its duplica, the Respondent argued the Cancellation Agreement dated 26 February 2024
is authentic and valid.
75. The Respondent asserted that both parties signed the Cancellation Agreement and affixed
their fingerprints in ink, in the presence of each other, and each party received an original
copy at the time of signing. In this regard, the Respondent provided a video of the original
document of the Cancellation Agreement.
76. The Respondent highlighted that the term “digital fingerprint” was used in its anatomical
sense (relating to fingers), not as an indication of electronic signature.
77. The Respondent argued that the Player’s allegation of forgery is unfounded because (i) the
signatures on the Cancellation Agreement are more similar to the signature on the first
page of the Contract than those on the First Payment Receipt; (ii) the Claimant failed to
provide additional signature samples, which would likely confirm authenticity; and (iii) no
criminal complaint was filed by the Player, which would be expected if forgery had
occurred.
78. Regarding the fingerprints, the Respondent contended that similarities between the
fingerprints on the First Receipt and the Cancellation Agreement are normal since they
belong to the same individual. If the fingerprint had been copied and pasted, the prints
would be 100% identical, which is not the case. Furthermore, the presence of two distinct
fingerprints on separate pages disproves the Claimant’s theory of copy-pasting.
79. The Respondent invited FIFA to request the original document of the Cancellation
Agreement for forensic examination and confirmed readiness to provide it.
80. The Respondent reiterated its argument about FIFA’s lack of jurisdiction based on art 4 of
the Cancellation Agreement.
81. The Respondent argued that the Player’s claim that the Cancellation Agreement is invalid
because of ITC issues is legally incorrect.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17050
82. The Respondent acknowledged that a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated due to
ITC delay but stressed that this case involved mutual consent.
83. The Respondent asserted that the Player initiated the cancellation and signed the
Agreement, which explicitly stated:
“The Player has never been registered with the Club and has expressed his intention to annul
the Contract.”
84. The Respondent invoked Article 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, Article 13 of the FIFA
Regulations, and CAS jurisprudence on venire contra factum proprium, arguing that the
Player cannot contradict his prior conduct and expressed intent (CAS 2015/A/4195; CAS
2017/A/5306).
85. Consequently, the Respondent requested the Tribunal to confirm that the Contract was
mutually cancelled on 26 February 2024 and reject the Player’s claim.
86. The Respondent denied that the parties continued to act under the Contract after its
cancellation.
87. The Respondent explained that the Player was allowed to train with the Club as a goodwill
gesture and received payments for living expenses under a separate arrangement, not as
salary.
88. In this sense, the Respondent argued that the payment receipts show the word “salary”
crossed out, and the amounts (USD 5,000 in March and USD 10,000 in May) do not match
the contractual monthly salary of USD 6,666.
89. The Respondent argued that these facts confirm the absence of contractual continuity.
90. The Respondent sustained that, in any event, if the Tribunal considers that a new
employment relationship existed, it will qualify as an open-ended contract under Article
334 para. 2 Swiss Civil Code, limiting compensation to one month’s notice period. This
based on Articles 337b and 337c Swiss Civil Code, as well as a decision from the Swiss
Federal Tribunal namely 4A_157/2007).
91. The Respondent argued that based on this interpretation, the Player would only be entitled
to USD 32,351 as follows:
-
USD 25,685 as outstanding remuneration (after deducting USD 15,000 already
paid).
-
USD 6,666 as compensation for one month’s notice.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17050
92. Consequently, the Respondent requested:
“V. REQUEST FOR RELIEFS
For the reasons set out above, the Club requests the Football Tribunal to:
1. Declare the Claimant’s claim inadmissible;
In the alternative
2. Reject the claim of the Player.
In the further alternative
3. Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of USD 25,685 as outstanding salaries
4. Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of USD 6,666 as compensation;
In the even further alternative
5. Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of USD 41,666 as outstanding salaries;
6. Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of USD 473,334 minus any remuneration received
by the Player in accordance with any new employment contract, as compensation for breach of
contract
In any event
7. Reject the claim for legal and procedural costs.”
e. Additional documents submitted by the parties
93. On 7 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Respondent to send the original
copy of the Cancellation Agreement.
94. On 14 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat received two original copies: A copy was sent
by the Respondent, and the other was sent by the Claimant.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17050

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
95.
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 12 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 11 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
96.
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 an Ghanaian player and a Libyan club.
97.
At this point, the Chamber noted that the competence of FIFA is disputed by the
Respondent based on Article. 4 of the Cancellation Agreement which provided:
“The present Agreement is subject to FIFA Regulations. Any dispute arising from or related to this
Agreement or the Contract, or the non-respect thereof, shall be referred to the competent court
in Tripoli, Libya.”
98.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber underlined that since the present dispute relates
to the Contract which jurisdictional clause was not challenged by the Respondent, it was
competent to hear the present dispute.
99.
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
100. 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).
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17050
c. Merits of the dispute
101. 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
102. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute whether the Respondent was responsible to comply with its
contractual obligations in light of its failure to properly register the Player with the LFF.
103. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess (i) whether the
reasons brought forward by the Respondent exempt it from its contractual obligations; (ii)
whether the employment relationship continued after said failure; (iii) whether the
Claimant had just cause to terminate the Contract and, if so, what are the consequences.
I. Was the Respondent responsible to comply with its contractual obligations in light
of its failure to properly register the Player with the LFF?
104. Firstly, the Chamber noted that the Club in its reply acknowledged that the Player could
not be timely registered with LFF. In this regard, the Club alleged that the execution of the
Contract, as well as the payment of the down payment of USD 40,000 was subject to the
issuance of the ITC.
105. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber underscored that first of all, it must be
reminded to the parties that, in line with the contents of article. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations,
as well as the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the validity of an
employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of (administrative)
formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the
international transfer of a player, which are of the sole responsibility of a club and upon
which a player has no influence. As the club is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights
of the player and in benefiting from his services, it is also expected to act accordingly and
execute the administrative formalities in view of obtaining, for instance, the player’s ITC
and his subsequent registration with the engaging member association. Consequently, the
registration or not of the Contract is irrelevant in determining if the Contract was a valid
and binding.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17050
106. Moreover, the Chamber considered it remained undisputed that, on 25 January 2024, the
parties had effectively concluded valid and binding contract for the period between the
date of its signature until 25 July 2026. As such, the Chamber deemed that it was the
Respondent’s obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations.
107. In this sense, the Chamber emphasized that the Respondent was bound to a valid
employment contract with the Claimant, and that it shall be considered that it had
breached said contract, by not properly registering the Claimant.
108. Therefore, the Chamber determined that in principle, the Respondent shall be liable of the
consequences of such breach.
II. Did the employment relationship continue after the Respondent failed to
register the Player?
109. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Respondent alleged that upon request from
the Player, on 26 February 2024, the parties concluded the Cancellation Agreement, while
the Claimant argued that the signature of the Player in said document was forged.
110. The Chamber further noted that, regardless of the authenticity of the Cancellation
Agreement, it needed to assess how the parties conducted themselves after the alleged
conclusion of said agreement.
111. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Respondent argued that it agreed with the
Claimant that he could still train with the Club’s team and get paid an agreed amount until
the ITC arrived, referring to their future employment contract or until the Claimant had a
new employment opportunity. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to
provide any evidence of any agreement with the Player in this regard.
112. What is more, the Chamber recalled the content of the First Receipt provided by the
Claimant as evidence which reads as follows:
“Salary. The agreed amount of money to hold on to until the ITC arrives.”
113. The Chamber also noted that the word salary is crossed out in the receipt. With respect of
its concept, the Claimant argued that it clearly was for his salary and the phrase “until the
ITC arrives” proved the continuity of the employment relationship after the alleged
Cancellation Agreement.
114. Conversely, the Respondent argued that such payment was not for salary as it was clearly
crossed out and that the concept demonstrated that the parties agreed that the Player
would stay with the Club until the next registration period and, in the meantime, the Club
would pay for his living expenses in Libya.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17050
115. In light of the above, the DRC considered that the Respondent did not sufficiently prove
that such payment was only for living expenses or neither it demonstrated what was the
alleged amount the parties agreed to. It also observed that, the Player continued
performing his services with the Club through July 2024. In particular, the Claimant
provided evidence that on 15 April 2024, the Nationality and Foreigners Affairs Authority
of Libya issued a notice to the Passport Control at Mitiga International Airport and the Club
authorizing the Player to depart from Libya and return as he was the holder of a visa.
116. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant provided evidence of a second payment
made by the Respondent on 29 May 2024 amounting USD 10,000 without any purpose
specified.
117. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that the Player provided evidence of
having travelled with the Club to Tunisia and Italy during June and part of July 2024, where
he trained with the Club’s team and participated in some friendly matches.
118. Taking the above into account, and reiterating that the Club failed to provide any evidence
demonstrating that its agreement with the Player was intended solely to allow him to train
until the next registration period, the DRC held that, based on the principle of venire contra
factum proprium, even if the alleged Cancellation Agreement had indeed been concluded
between the parties, their subsequent conduct is inconsistent with such an assertion.
Moreover, the Club’s actions clearly indicate that the employment relationship continued
beyond the date on which the Cancellation Agreement was allegedly concluded, namely 26
February 2024, and remained in effect until 1 September 2024, when the Player sent the
Termination Letter.
119. Therefore, the Chamber, based on the evidence on file, concluded that the employment
relationship continued after the Club’s failure to register the Player and after the date of
the alleged Cancellation Agreement.
III. Did the Claimant have just cause to terminate the Contract?
120. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber moved to analysed whether the Claimant
had just cause to terminate the Contract.
121. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that based on the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal the non-registration is a sufficient reason by itself for the Player to terminate his
contract. Moreover, the DRC recalled the following mentioned in the Commentary (p.137):
“A similar approach applies to the non-registration of a player. This often happens where a club
does not undertake all the necessary due diligence to determine that a player it has signed is
eligible to be registered to participate in a championship (e.g. due to a specific foreign player
rule, or specific squad size limit) or, as has been seen in recent cases, where a club fails to obtain
the ITC (through its own decision or negligence) before the close of the relevant registration
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17050
period, despite having signed an employment contract with a player. Again, it is the club’s
responsibility to register the player on time. If the registration cannot be completed, the player
will not be able to participate in organised football. Therefore, if it fails to act, the club is
effectively blocking the player’s access to competitive football. This is a violation of a footballer’s
fundamental rights, and gives the player concerned just cause to terminate the contract.”
122. In light of the above, the Chamber emphasized that that the non-registration is a severe
breach of the contractual obligations by the Club which entitles the Player to unilaterally
terminate his contract. The members of the panel noted that in the matter at stake, the
Player sent several letters to the Respondent requesting the signing on fee and the agreed
payment based on the Contract.
123. In particular, in his Warning Letter sent on 14 August 2024, the Player granted a 15-day
deadline to the Club and requested the following:
“1. Paying the remaining signing-on fee of USD 35,000-/ (Thirty-Five Thousand US Dollars) that
should be paid on 25 January 2024.
2. Paying the outstanding amount of USD 46,662-/ USD (Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred SixtyTwo US Dollars) in unpaid salaries for the period between (February to August 2024) 3. Providing
evidence of the Player’s registration for the 2023/2024 season.”
124. In this context, the Chamber observed that according to the Contract, the Player was
entitled to:
“The first six months of the contract: The first party pays the second party an amount of
($80,000), only eighty thousand US dollars, to be paid as follows:
The down payment amount of ($40,000) is forty thousand US dollars only, which is paid after
the player arrives in Libya, successfully passes the medical examination, and receives the
international transfer card (TMS)
The remaining value of the contract is ($40,000), only forty thousand dollars, to be paid as
monthly salaries at ($6,666), only six thousand six hundred and sixty-six dollars per month.
The second and third years of the contract to be agreed upon in a timely manner before the
start of the 2024/2025 sports season as follows:
Season 2024/2025 the player should receive US $200,000 (two hundred thousand US dollars),
and season 2025/2026 the player should receive US $250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand
US dollars).”
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17050
125. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to receive the amount of
USD 40,000 upon arriving to Libya, completing his medical tests and upon receipt of the
ITC.
126. While the Club argued that the Player should not receive this amount because the ITC was
not issued, the Chamber considered that this is not a valid reason for the nonpayment of
the said amount. Consequently, the Player was entitled to receive USD 40,000 which both
parties considered as the signing on fee payable on 25 January 2024, i.e. date of signature
of the Contract.
127. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Player should have received six monthly salaries
amounting to USD 6,666 each from February to July 2024 totalling USD 39,996.
128. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that the Player should have received at
least USD 79,996. However, he only received USD 15,000.
129. Consequently, the Chamber determined that at least two salaries were overdue when the
Player sent the Warning Letter on 14 August 2024.
130. What is more, the Chamber stressed that the Club replied on 1 September 2024, according
to the Claimant, after he sent the Termination Letter only arguing that the Contract was
null as it never existed due to the Cancellation Agreement.
131. Considering that the Club in its reply failed to prove that it complied with its contractual
obligations, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant terminated the Contract with just
cause based on articles. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on 1 September 2024.
ii. Consequences
132. 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.
A. The signing-on fee
133. The Chamber noted that the amount of USD 40,000 was due after the Player arrived in
Libya, passed his medical tests and the ITC was issued. As previously mentioned, the
Chamber considered that this payment was due on 25 January 2025.
134. In this respect, the Chamber noted that on 4 March 2024, the Respondent paid USD 5,000
to the Claimant and on 29 May 2024, it paid USD 10,000 totalling USD 15,000.
135. Moreover, the Chamber observed that in his request for relief, the Claimant allocated the
above-mentioned payments to the salaries of February and March 2024.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17050
136. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber decided to allocate these payments to the
amount owed by the Club as signing-on fee.
137. Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant USD 25,000 for the remaining
amount of the signing-on fee.
138. 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 26 January 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
B. Outstanding salaries
139. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Contract provided:
“The first six months of the contract: The first party pays the second party an amount of
($80,000), only eighty thousand US dollars, to be paid as follows:
The down payment amount of ($40,000) is forty thousand US dollars only, which is paid after
the player arrives in Libya, successfully passes the medical examination, and receives the
international transfer card (TMS)
The remaining value of the contract is ($40,000), only forty thousand dollars, to be paid as
monthly salaries at ($6,666), only six thousand six hundred and sixty-six dollars per month.
The second and third years of the contract to be agreed upon in a timely manner before the
start of the 2024/2025 sports season as follows:
Season 2024/2025 the player should receive US $200,000 (two hundred thousand US dollars),
and season 2025/2026 the player should receive US $250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand
US dollars).
140. Therefore, the Chamber considered that from February through July 2024, the Player was
entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 6,666.
141. The Chamber further noted that the Contract did not specify a date for the payment of the
salary. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the salary was due at the end of each
month.
142. As a consequence, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant USD 39,996 plus 5%
interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17050
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 April 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
143. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that since the Player terminated the Contract on
1 September 2024, he would be entitled to receive the salary of August 2024 as outstanding
remuneration. In this sense, the DRC highlighted that according to the Contract, the Player
was entitled to receive USD 200,000 during the 2024/2025 season.
144. The DRC noted that according to the information retrieved from TMS, the 2024/2025
season in Libya started on 20 September 2024 and ended on 30 June 2025.
145. Considering the above, and in the absence of evidence that the parties agreed an amount
for the month of August and part of September 2024, the Chamber decided to award the
month of August 2024 as compensation.
C. Compensation
146. 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.
147. 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. 23
REF. FPSD-17050
148. 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).
149. 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 450,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
- USD 200,00 during the 2024/2025 season; and
- USD 250,000 during the 2025/2026 season.
150. 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.
151. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Ghanaian club Asante Otoko. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount USD 14,121.21, that is, GHDS 7,000
net monthly equalling to USD 471.04 times 12 for the 2024/2025 season ; GHDS 8,000 net
monthly equalling to USD 538.33 times 12 for the 2025/2026 season and GHDS 30,000
equalling to USD 2,018.75 as signing-on fee with its new club.
152. 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 confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
153. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
USD 1,413.26, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player during the
2024/2025 season, i.e. USD 471.04.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17050
154. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 437,292.05 to the Claimant (i.e., USD 450,000 minus USD 14,121.21 plus USD 1,413.26),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
155. Lastly, 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
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
156. 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.
157. 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.
158. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
159. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
160. 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
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17050
161. 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.
162. 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.
163. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17050
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Isaac Mintah.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Isaac Mintah, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Ahly Tripoli, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 64,996 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 25,000 as from 26 January 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 April 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,666 as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- USD 437,292.05 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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 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.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-17050
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant 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. 28
REF. FPSD-17050
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. 29