Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17117
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Victor Egalie
Jaiyeola
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Victor Egalie Jaiyeola, Nigeria
Represented by Sheriff Adeshina
RESPONDENT:
Klubi Sportiv Kukesi, Albania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17117
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
• The Nigerian player, Victor Egalie Jaiyeola (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
• The Albanian club, Klubi Sportiv Kukesi (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the Football Association of Albania (FSHF).
2.
On 19 August 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract), valid for “2 football seasons”.
3.
The parties dispute the real wording of the Contract, in particular, of its Article 2.
4.
According to the Player, Article 2 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Article 2. The Payment and its Conditions
1. Club undertakes to pay the Player only for all official football played calendar
duration of this contract the value of:
80.000 Albanian Leke (ALL) per month gross
2. The player acknowledges that in case of suspension of the football season by the AFA,
the official Albanian authorities or any other authority whose decisions are binding
on the Club, the parties to this contract agree that the Club will not make any payment
to the Player until the date the suspension is lifted and the football activity resumes.
This situation is considered a major force.
3. Payment is valid only for official calendar Season and UEFA Competition played.
4. During the duration of the contract, the Club may give premium to the Player
according to the results and according to the importance of the match.
5. The monthly payment will be made every 10th - 20 of the next month.”
5.
According to the Club, Article 2 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Article 2. The Payment and its Conditions
1. Club undertakes to pay the Player only for all official football played calendar
duration of this contract the value of:
40.000 Albanian Leke (ALL) per month gross
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17117
2. The player acknowledges that in case of suspension of the football season by the AFA,
the official Albanian authorities or any other authority whose decisions are binding
on the Club, the parties to this contract agree that the Club will not make any payment
to the Player until the date the suspension is lifted and the football activity resumes.
This situation is considered a major force.
3. Payment is valid only for official calendar Season and UEFA Competition played.
4. During the duration of the contract, the Club may give premium to the Player
according to the results and according to the importance of the match.
5. The monthly payment will be made every 10th - 20 of the next month.”
6.
Article 3, par. 2 of the Contract provided the following:
“The football season starts on the official date declared by the [FSHF] and ends on the
official date declared by the [FSHF]”.
7.
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Article 14. Termination of Contract by the Club
The Club will be considered to have terminated the contract with the Player with
legitimate just cause, by notifying the Player in writing 30 days prior, in case the Player:
a) Is found guilty of a serious violation of the law;
b) Repeatedly infringes the Club's regulations;
c) Is convicted of a criminal offence, for which the sentence consists of
imprisonment for at least one month or longer;
d) Does not have good sports performance according to the technical evaluation of
the Club’s technical staff.
Article 15 – Termination of Contract by the Player
1. The Player will be considered to have terminated the contract with the Club due to
legitimate reasons by notifying the Club in writing 90 days in advance if the Club:
a) Is found guilty of serious and persistent violation of the terms and conditions of
this contract; or
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17117
b) Fails to pay any remuneration, other payments, or bonuses owed to the Player
under this contract for more than 60 days from the time the obligations were due.
2. If the Club fulfills its obligations within the 90-day notice period, then the Player shall
not terminate the contract unilaterally for legitimate reason.
Article 16 – Termination of Contract
1. This contract may be terminated before the term defined in this contract by written
agreement between the parties.
2. Upon completion of the contract, the Player is obliged to repay all obligations to the
Club, including different payments made by the Club and accepted by the Player (e.g.,
advance payments, loans). These financial obligations will be paid with respective
interest assessed by the Club.
3. The Club has the right to terminate the contract at any time without any financial,
legal, or moral obligations if the Player violates Club regulations and/or is not
efficient in official matches. If the Player breaks the contract unilaterally before the
term without just cause, he shall pay the Club a penalty of EUR 500,000 within 30
days.
4. Upon completion of the contract, in any case, the Player is obliged to return Club
property (including personal tools given for use), as well as material base given for
use by the Club.”
8.
On 12 August 2024, the Player travelled from Vienna (Austria) to Tirana (Albania). The flight
expenses were covered by the Club.
9.
On 19 August 2024, the Club initiated a transfer instruction in the FIFA Transfer Matching
System (TMS) to engage the Player as a professional (Transfer ID no. 892117).
• Within this transfer instruction, the Club uploaded a version of the Contract
titled “victor”, which reflected the same terms and conditions as previously outlined,
including a monthly salary of ALL 40,000.
• This file appears to be identical to the version of the Contract submitted by the Player,
with the sole exception being the amount of remuneration. The stamps and
signatures of both parties are identical in both versions.
• On 23 August 2024, the FSHF submitted a request to the Italian Football Federation
(FIGC) (i.e., the member association to which the Player had been registered at the
time of the relevant events) for the issuance of his International Transfer Certificate
(ITC).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17117
• On the same date, 23 August 2024, the FIGC submitted a request to cancel the
transfer, citing that the “wrong reason selected for last contract end date”. The FIGC
further clarified that “the Player was not under contract with his formed club (amateur
player).”
• Also on 23 August 2024, the FSHF accepted the cancellation request, and the transfer
instruction was finalized.
10. Subsequently, on 23 August 2024, the Club entered a new transfer instruction in TMS
(Transfer ID no. 898946). In support of this new instruction, the Club uploaded a document
titled “KONTRATË VICTOR EGALIE-21082024123012”, which again stipulated a monthly
salary of ALL 40,000.
11. According to the Player, he attempted to contact representatives of the Club via WhatsApp
at the end of August and throughout September 2024 regarding issues related to his visa.
However, he did not receive any response.
12. According to the Player, on 21 October 2024, the Club informed him via WhatsApp of its
intention to terminate the employment contract by means of a termination agreement.
13. On 28 October 2024, the Club sent the following e-mail to the Player, quoted verbatim:
“Hello Victor,
The club has deemed it reasonable for you to conduct special training, outside of the full
group, because your physical condition is very low and shows the risk of injury, something
that the club does not want!
Considering this, we have decided to conduct the training with the Second Coach Mr.
Bekim Kuli.
Training starts today at 13:00 near the premises of the ‘Kukes Arena’ stadium, Kukes!”
14. In response, the Player denied the Club’s allegations concerning his physical condition and
requested clarification regarding the basis for such a conclusion. He further stated that he
had been training individually over the past week and had been instructed to vacate his
apartment. The Player also requested to undergo a medical examination conducted by a
licensed physician.
15. By letter dated 30 November 2024 but sent on 30 October 2024, the Player placed the Club
in default, alleging that: (i) the Club had failed to pay two consecutive months of salary; and
(ii) he had been excluded from training with the team. The Player also sought clarification
regarding the status of his employment contract and referred to what he described as the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17117
Club’s “continual breach” thereof. The Player later clarified that the date on the letter
contained a typographical error and should have read 30 October 2024.
16. On 2 November 2024, the Club responded, stating that (i) the Contract did not include any
provision for accommodation; (ii) salary payments had been delayed due to internal
management transitions; (iii) the Player was being provided with individualized training
under the supervision of the Club’s athletic coach; (iv) the Player’s monthly salary was ALL
40,000, as approved by the FSHF; (v) payment of the Player’s salary was scheduled for the
following day; (vi) the Club would arrange for the Player’s transportation and
accommodation in Tirana.
17. On an unspecified date, the Player replied, asserting that: (i) accommodation had been
agreed upon prior to the signing of the Contract, but he had been asked to vacate his
apartment; (ii) it was unreasonable to expect him to cover accommodation costs with a
salary of ALL 80,000; (iii) he accepted the proposed medical examination scheduled for 4
November 2024, noting that he would need to stay overnight due to the timing of the
appointment. The Player also requested details regarding the layover and transportation
arrangements.
18. On 4 November 2024, the Player formally demanded payment of ALL 160,000 by no later
than 14 November 2024, corresponding to two months of unpaid salary.
19. On 5 November 2024, the Club contacted the Player and requested that he attend medical
examinations in Tirana. This letter contained a schedule for the Player’s arrival and stated
that it was “a last call to attend the medical test”.
20. Around the same date, the Player exchanged messages with a representative of the Club
via WhatsApp. According to the Player, the Club failed to comply with the instructions
outlined in its letter dated 5 November 2024.
21. On 11 November 2024, the Player reportedly departed from Tirana (Albania) and flew to
Vienna (Austria). He claimed that the flight cost EUR 176.15 and that his departure was
caused by visa-related restrictions.
22. On 15 November 2024, the Player formally notified the Club of the termination of the
employment contract, citing the Club’s failure to settle outstanding salary payments as the
reason for termination. This letter provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“KP Drift & Co Law Firm would like to thank Kukesi Football Club for its involvement in
trying to find a way to resolve the contract dispute between Mr. Jaiyeola Victor Egalie and
Kukesi Football Club over the recent month.
The team has failed to pay Jaiyeola three consecutive months’ salary, which is a breach
of contract pursuant to Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17117
However, as the two parties have been unable to reach an agreement, KP Drift & Co Law
Firm wishes to remind you that, as a foreign sportsman, Jaiyeola Victor Egalie has the
right to proceed as per his wishes in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
Mr. Jaiyeola Victor Egalie has informed KP Drift & Co Law Firm that he wishes to exercise
the right to terminate the contract with Kukesi Football Club in accordance with the
RSTP.”
23. On 23 July 2025, the Player was registered with the Austrian club FavAC as an amateur.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 17 November 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
25. The Player asserted that the Club failed to undertake the necessary administrative steps to
secure a work permit for him in Albania, which ultimately led to his “mandatory exit” from
the country on 11 November 2024.
26. The Player further claimed that, at the end of October 2024, the Club informed him of its
intention to terminate the Contract and attempted to pressure him into signing a
termination agreement. He alleged that the Club requested that he travel to Tirana to meet
Mr Florin Biba, identified as the team administrator (hereinafter: Mr Biba), in order to
collect two months’ salary in cash.
27. According to the Player, Mr Biba also instructed the team’s coach not to field him in
matches or allow him to participate in team training sessions.
28. In line with the above, the Player maintained that he was sidelined and compelled to train
alone. He also alleged that the Club failed to arrange transportation for his medical
examinations and made unfounded claims regarding his physical condition.
29. Additionally, the Player claimed that he was evicted from his apartment and that he had
not received any salary – neither in ALL nor in EUR – since his arrival in Tirana.
30. Based on the foregoing, the Player concluded that he terminated the Contract with just
cause, and requested to be awarded the following amounts:
• ALL 1,920,000 as compensation for breach of contract “with 5% interest until effective
payment day”, corresponding to the salaries from August 2024 until July 2026;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17117
• ALL 26,096 (ALL 18,000 plus EUR 82) as reimbursement for the hotel booking during
the medical examinations “with 5% interest”; and
• ALL 17,246 (EUR 176.15) as reimbursement for his flight ticket “with 5% interest”.
b. Reply of the Club
31. On 18 December 2024, the Club submitted its response to the Player’s claim.
32. As a preliminary argument, the Club alleged that the Player had fabricated evidence,
specifically claiming that he had altered the contractual remuneration figure from EUR 400
to EUR 800.
33. In support of this allegation, the Club: (i) submitted a copy of the Contract as registered
with the FSHF and in the TMS, which indicated that the Player’s monthly salary was ALL
40,000; and (ii) pointed to several graphic inconsistencies in the version of the Contract
submitted by the Player.
34. The Club further argued that the Player had been required to undergo medical
examinations, which he failed to attend. It claimed to have made “every effort to
accommodate” the Player’s requests, including covering transportation and
accommodation costs, but alleged that the Player did not cooperate.
35. According to the Club, the Player not only missed the scheduled medical examination but
also abandoned the accommodation arranged by the Club and relocated to another hotel
without prior notice.
36. The Club also claimed that following the missed medical examination, the Player ceased
direct communication and insisted that all further contact be made through his legal
representative.
37. The Club maintained that the Player’s default notices were based on a falsified version of
the Contract. It further argued that any expenses related to accommodation or medical
check-ups should be borne entirely by the Player.
38. In conclusion, the Club alleged that the Player had acted with the intent to “defraud the Club
and exploit the contractual relationship for financial gain”. It stated, inter alia, the following:
“Considering these facts, we respectfully request that FIFA DRC, in cooperation with the
Albanian Football Federation, conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into this
matter. The Club is prepared to provide all necessary evidence, including:
•
The original, valid contract registered with FIFA TMS and FSHF Comet.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17117
We trust that the appropriate authorities will address this case with the seriousness it
deserves to safeguard the integrity of professional football. It is imperative that such
behavior is not allowed to undermine the trust and transparency that are fundamental
to the sport.
Since the Club is able to prove a direct accusation against the Applicant for forgery, being
faced with a mala fide characterized and manifested by the Applicant, which in essence
constitutes a flagrant violation of Article 9, paragraph 3 of the FIFA Procedural Rules
governing the Football Tribunal (‘RULES’), it requests the Honorable FIFA DRC, based on
Article 22 ‘Forgery and Falsification’, point 1 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, to take
necessary steps for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to sanction the Player with a fine and
a ban for a specific period of no less than 10 months.”
39. The Club concluded its submission requesting that the Player’s claim be rejected and any
procedural costs attributed to him.
c. Replica of the Player
40. On 5 January 2025, the Player submitted his replica on this matter.
41. The Player categorically denied the Club’s allegations regarding the alleged forgery of the
Contract. He emphasized that the Club itself had registered the Contract with both the
FSHF and the TMS, thereby suggesting that such registration could not be considered
conclusive evidence of the agreed remuneration.
42. Furthermore, the Player claimed to possess voice recordings of the contractual
negotiations, which, according to him, confirmed that his agreed salary was ALL 80,000 per
month. He stated that he would submit this evidence should the Club continue to dispute
the salary amount
43. The Player reiterated that he had proactively requested a medical examination due to
being sidelined and excluded from team training. He maintained that he was present in
Tirana and available for the examination, but that the Club unilaterally rescheduled the
appointment without prior notice.
44. The Player reiterated that the Club had not refuted the following key facts: (i) it failed to pay
him during the term of the Contract; (ii) it evicted him from his accommodation and
misrepresented the agreed salary; and (iii) it did not secure a valid work permit for him.
45. The Player lastly opposed to the Club’s argument concerning disciplinary proceedings and
accused the Club of acting in bad faith. The Player concluded that he sought “nothing but
justice”.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17117
d. Duplica of the Club
46. The Club failed submit its duplica in this case despite having been invited to do so.
e. Additional comments concerning the signature of the Contract
47. On 21 January 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the parties to submit the original
copy of the Contract via courier, as well as to submit additional comments exclusively
regarding the execution of the Contract.
48. On 27 January 2025, the Club provided the following comments, quoted verbatim:
“Evidence of Player Signature – Victor Jayiola Egaile
[…]
Victor was invited to the club’s offices, where the Administrator, Florjan Biba, was waiting
to finalize the contract. Victor had arrived in Albania the day prior to the signing. Upon
his arrival, the Administrator greeted him, and the two of them began discussing the
club’s current situation and future plans.
At that time, FK Kukësi was facing significant financial struggles, having recently dropped
to a lower division (Kategoria e Pare) in Albanian football. The club’s change in ownership
further complicated its financial position. To address these challenges, the new owner
appointed Florjan Biba as Administrator with the goal of stabilizing the club. The primary
objective was to sign players willing to accept lower wages in order to remain competitive
in the Albanian second division.
Victor was among the players who joined the team under these circumstances. During
their discussion, Administrator Biba explained to Victor that, due to the financial
difficulties, there were no significant funds available at the moment. Instead, the
opportunity presented to Victor was the chance to play full minutes without distractions
or pressure, which would allow him to showcase his abilities and potentially be sold to a
bigger club in the future—thanks to the administrator's connections.
Florjan Biba emphasized that the club needed to make sacrifices in the short term. He
assured Victor that while the wages were lower, the goal was to find new investors or
sponsors who would enable the club to increase player salaries in the future. The
Administrator made it clear that, for the time being, the club could only offer minimum
wages to players willing to be part of the project.
Victor, understanding the situation and the opportunity before him, agreed to accept a
lower salary in exchange for playing full minutes, believing in the Administrator's ability
to secure a better opportunity for him down the line. He was excited to be part of the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17117
club's project, confident that his time at FK Kukësi would provide him with the exposure
needed to progress in his career.
Additional Details Regarding the Signing of Victor Jaiyeola Egaile
During their discussion, it was noted that Victor had not been active in competitive
football for over six months. However, Victor reassured the Administrator that this would
be an issue for him, as he was confident that, within two weeks, he would be able to get
back into “rhythm” and perform well. The Administrator appreciated Victor’s mentality
and expressed his desire for him to score many goals, which would help market him to
better teams – potentially even clubs outside of Albania.
Victor was shown two copies of the contract: one was to be submitted to the Albanian
Football Association (AFA) for registration and protocol, allowing him to play in the
Albanian football league and officially confirming his membership with FK Kukësi. The
second copy was an original that would be kept in the club’s archives. The scanned
version of the contract sent to the AFA would also be used for player registration in FIFA’s
Transfer Matching System (TMS), as Victor was coming from a club outside of Albania.
As Victor reviewed the contract, there was no mention of any further terms or conditions
beyond what was already discussed. After reading the contract carefully, Victor inquired
where and how to sign. The Administrator explained that he needed to sign every page,
as well as at the end of the contract where his full name was required.
While Victor was signing the contract, a friend of the Administrator passed by, greeted
them both, and wished them good luck before leaving. This individual was not present
at any point before or during the signing of the contract and stayed for less than two
minutes. He was not involved in any part of the signing process and had no knowledge
of the details and circumstances surrounding the contract.
Final Steps After Signing the Contract
Once the Administrator’s friend left, Victor and the Administrator shook hands. The
Administrator then expressed his belief in Victor, telling him that he could now focus
solely on his performance on the field, while the Administrator would focus on finding a
way to market and sell him to a better team in the future.
After the handshake, Victor was escorted out of the office, where a car, provided by the
Administrator, was waiting to take him to the hotel. The hotel accommodation had been
arranged and paid for by the club prior to the signing of the contract.”
49. The Club also submitted a version of the Contract, which apparently matches the scanned
version previously attached to its reply.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17117
50. Also on 27 January 2025, the Player stated that he had never been given an original version
of the Contract. He stated that he was only provided with a scanned version of his Contract
via WhatsApp on 28 August 2024.
51. In support of his position, the Player submitted a screenshot of two WhatsApp
conversations from 28 August 2024 with contacts recorded as “Erjon Allaraj Press Of…” and
“CEM SEGAR”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
52. 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 17 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 4 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
53. 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 Nigerian player and a Albanian club.
54. 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
55. 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 TMS.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17117
c. Merits of the dispute
56. 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
57. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract.
58. The DRC noted that the Player asserted that he had entered into an employment
relationship with the Club on 19 August 2024, under a contract that was valid for two
seasons. He claimed to have terminated this contract on 15 November 2024 with just
cause, citing, among other reasons, the Club’s failure to pay his agreed remuneration.
59. In contrast, the Club acknowledged that it had entered into an employment relationship
with the Player for the same duration. However, it disputed the salary amount claimed by
the Player, arguing that the agreed remuneration had been ALL 40,000, not ALL 80,000 as
alleged. While the Club did not deny its failure to pay the Player’s salary, it contended that
the claim should have been dismissed on the grounds that it was based on a fraudulent
version of the contract.
60. In light of the above, the DRC recognized that it was tasked with determining the
contractual framework that governed the parties’ relationship, assessing the legitimacy of
the contract termination, and establishing the legal consequences arising therefrom.
A. CONTRACTUAL BASIS
61. The Chamber first observed that the parties submitted conflicting versions of the Contract
and accused each other of forgery. Although the documents presented did not contain
substantial material differences, the Chamber noted that they reflected divergent terms
regarding the Player’s remuneration.
62. With respect to the allegations of forgery, the DRC outlined that FIFA is not a criminal court
and therefore possesses limited investigatory powers to determine the authenticity of
documents. Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that it was incumbent upon the
parties to support their claims with supplementary evidence.
63. Upon careful examination of the case file, the Chamber found that neither party had
submitted conclusive evidence to substantiate their respective positions. In particular, the
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17117
Chamber stressed that there was no proof of prior payments made by the Club, which
rendered it impossible to verify the actual amounts transferred.
64. Furthermore, the DRC noted that neither party provided additional documentation
regarding the negotiation process, such as employment offers, pre-contracts, or exchanges
of emails or text messages between the parties or their representatives.
65. Accordingly, the Chamber felt compelled to base its decision on the limited evidence
available in the case file, in conjunction with the parties’ submissions. Most importantly,
the Chamber established that the Player, as the party who claimed entitlement to a higher
remuneration, also bore a higher burden of proof in accordance with art. 13, par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules.
66. The Chamber then observed that according to the Player, the parties had agreed on a
monthly remuneration of ALL 80,000 (approximately EUR 800). He submitted a version of
the Contract reflecting this amount.
67. However, the Chamber found it decisive that, as opposed to the Club, the Player did not
provide further details regarding the date or circumstances of the Contract’s signature. He
alleged that the Club had not provided him with an original copy of the Contract but instead
sent him a digital copy via WhatsApp on 28 August 2024, purportedly for the purpose of
opening a bank account.
68. The Chamber noted that in support of his position, the Player merely submitted two
screenshots of WhatsApp messages exchanged with unidentified contacts (contextually
identified as the Player’s agent and the Club’s administrator). However, the content of the
file shared in those messages could not be verified. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that
the file was named “victor”, but it established that no further conclusions could be drawn
from this detail.
69. Conversely, the DRC found the Club’s position to have been more consistent. It outlined
that the Club had, at the very least, attempted to provide a detailed explanation of the
relevant events, albeit unsubstantiated. Furthermore, although the Chamber accepted the
Player’s argument that the registration had constituted a unilateral act by the Club, it also
considered that the Club’s account of the facts was more reliable than the screenshots
submitted by the Player.
70. On balance, the Chamber considered that the Player’s position had been less convincing,
particularly in light of the fact that he was the party claiming entitlement to a higher
amount. Specifically, the DRC pointed out that there was no reliable evidence confirming
how the Player had obtained his version of the Contract or identifying the individual who
had transmitted it. Moreover, although the Player referred to additional evidence that he
could submit for the Chamber’s consideration, such evidence was never provided.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17117
71. The Chamber then decided that the Club’s version of the Contract should be the one
governing the parties’ employment relationship.
B. TERMINATION
72. Irrespective of its conclusion regarding the contractual basis, the Chamber outlined that it
remained undisputed that the Club had failed to make any payments to the Player, thereby
breaching its financial obligations. According to the Chamber, even if the Club believed that
the Player’s claims were based on an illegitimate version of the Contract, it should have at
a minimum, paid the amount it considered contractually due (i.e., ALL 40,000).
73. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Player submitted evidence
indicating that he placed the Club in default for overdue payables on 30 October 2024 and
reiterated his request in early November, granting the Club a 15-day deadline to remedy
the breach.
74. Although the Chamber found that the formal requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations
were not strictly met – given that salaries were contractually due in arrears by the 20th of
the following month – it emphasized that the Club did not dispute receipt of the default
notices nor provide any proof of payment. Furthermore, the DRC outlined that by the time
the Player raised the issue of overdue payables and terminated the Contract, he had
already been bound to the Club for over two months without receiving any remuneration.
75. In addition, the Chamber observed that both parties appeared to agree that the Player was
requested to attend individual training sessions and that he was not provided with a visa.
Conversely, the Club alleged that the Player failed to attend medical examinations, but it
did not submit any evidence to support this claim.
76. Similarly, the Chamber considered that the Club had also failed to contest the Player’s
allegations regarding his eviction from the apartment and the proposed termination
agreement.
77. Hence, taking all the above into account, the Chamber concluded that the Player had
sufficiently demonstrated that the overall circumstances of his employment could
reasonably have led him to conclude that the Club was no longer interested in retaining his
services. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations.
C. CONSEQUENCES
78. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17117
79. The Chamber first established that the Club was liable to pay to the Player the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract (per the Club’s version) at the moment of the
termination, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
ALL 16,774.19 for the August 2024 salary
ALL 40,000 for the September 2024 salary
ALL 40,000 for the October 2024 salary
ALL 40,000 for the November 2024 salary
80. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s unspecified request as well as the
constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award
him interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the total debt (ALL 136,774.19) as from the date of
the claim until the date of effective payment.
81. The Chamber then recalled that the Player requested reimbursement of the costs incurred
with flight tickets and hotel. However, the DRC observed that the Contract did not provide
for payment of such expenses. Furthermore, it considered the evidence submitted by the
Player to be poorly translated and insufficient to prove actual disbursement.
82. Consequently, the DRC rejected this part of the claim.
83. In continuation, 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.
84. 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 was included in the employment contract at the
basis of the matter at stake.
85. For the sake of completeness, the DRC emphasized that the termination clause contained
in the Contract did not provide for a pre-established compensation for breach of contract
by the Club, thereby being inapplicable in the present case.
86. 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 the Player by the Club shall be equal to the residual
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17117
value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the player signed a new
contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the
Regulations).
87. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the Contract (again per the
Club’s version) from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that the amount of ALL 760,000 (i.e., ALL 40,000 times 19 months,
which according to the Chamber matched the official end of the second contractual season
in accordance with TMS) served as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
88. In continuation, the Chamber confirmed that the Player did not mitigate his damages, as
well as that no additional compensation applied.
89. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of ALL
760,000 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
90. Lastly, employing the same rationale outlined above, the Chamber decided to award the
Player 5% interest p.a. on the compensation as from the date of the claim until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17117
94. The Club 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.
95. 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
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17117
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Victor Egalie Jaiyeola, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Klubi Sportiv Kukesi, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- ALL 136,774.19 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17
November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- ALL 760,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17
November 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17117
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. 21