Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17291
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Fily Traoré
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
TP Mazembe, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Represented by Thibaud Grandsaert
RESPONDENT 1 / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Fily Traoré, Mali
Represented by Lamjed Belkahia
RESPONDENT 2:
Swehly Sports Club, Libya
RESPONDENT 3:
Alittihad Tripoli SC, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17291
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 January 2020, the club from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, TP Mazembe,
(hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or TP Mazembe) and the player from Mali,
Fily Traoré, (hereinafter: Mr. Traoré, the Respondent 1 / Counterclaimant or the Player)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 February
2020 until 31 May 2025.
2.
On 13 March 2024, TP Mazembe and the Player allegedly concluded a new employment
contract (hereinafter: the Second Contract), valid as from 1 April 2024 until 30 June 2027.
3.
In accordance with the Second Contract, TP Mazembe undertook to pay the Player a yearly
salary of USD 50,000 for each season in 10 monthly instalments, as annual leave periods
will not give rise to any remuneration.
4.
In addition, article 1.2 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“By signing this Contract, the Player acknowledges that the Club has no obligation towards
him/her regarding his/her registration on the list of players who can actually play in Linafoot
and/or CAF, or any other League. The Player thus acknowledges that such registrations are at
the discretion of the Club and/or its coaching staff, taking into account, in particular, the Player's
sporting performance, physical condition, etc.”
(Freely translated from French)
5.
Furthermore, article 10 of the Second Contract read as follows:
“[…] The Player agrees to compensate and hold the Club harmless from any loss, damage,
expense, lawsuit, and action directly related to, caused by, or arising from the Player's violation
or breach of the obligations, terms, and conditions included in this Contract. [...]”
(Freely translated from French)
6.
Lastly, article 11 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“Both Parties agree that this Contract shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with
the labor laws of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Contract or any breach thereof shall be submitted
to the competent Congolese courts and tribunals in accordance with Congolese civil procedure
rules.”
(Freely translated from French)
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17291
7.
On 14 August 2024, TP Mazembe publicly announced the signing of the Second Contract
on its website.
8.
On the same day, i.e., 14 August 2024, TP Mazembe received an offer (hereinafter: the Offer)
from Alittihad Tripoli SC (hereinafter: the Respondent 3 or Alittihad Tripoli SC) to acquire the
services of the Player on a definitive transfer basis.
9.
On 15 August 2024, the Player reportedly gave an interview to a local media, in which he
confirmed the extension of his employment relationship with TP Mazembe until 30 June
2027, and indicated that negotiations were underway well before the 2024 Summer
Olympics.
10. On 16 August 2024, TP Mazembe informed Alittihad Tripoli SC that there would be no
negotiations regarding the Offer as long as its debt remained unpaid.
11. On the same day, i.e., 16 August 2024, Alittihad Tripoli SC issued an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Purported Contract), setting out terms for an employment relationship with
the Player, although the Player did not sign this document.
12. On 25 August 2024, Alittihad Tripoli SC and the Player executed an agreement regarding
the Player’s transfer from TP Mazembe to Alittihad Tripoli SC (hereinafter: the Purported
Transfer Agreement) and Alittihad Tripoli SC sent it to TP Mazembe via email, accompanied
by the Purported Contract.
13. On the same day, i.e., 25 August 2024, Alittihad Tripoli SC sent the following
correspondence to TP Mazembe:
“Al-Ittihad Libyan Cub sends you its best regards and wishes you the best of times. We present
to you the final offer after reaching an agreement with the player, Fily Traore. We hope that if
you agree, you will approve the agreement and return it to us for the purpose of completing the
necessary legal and financial procedures. […]”
14. On 26 August 2024, the agent of the Player sent the following correspondence to TP
Mazembe:
“Please find attached the agreement signed by my player Fily Traore for Al-Ittihad Club.”
(Freely translated from French)
15. On 29 August 2024, TP Mazembe sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] 1. We are writing to you in our capacity as advisors to the Congolese professional club Tout
Puissant Mazembe, headquartered at 2100 Avenue Nguba, Stade Tout Puissant Mazembe,
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17291
Kamalondo, Lubumbashi, DR Congo (hereinafter: ‘TP Mazembe’), with which you are bound by
a professional player contract until 30 June 2027.
2. This letter is in response to the permanent transfer agreement signed by you and the Libyan
professional club Al Ittihad Club (hereinafter: ‘Al Ittihad’), dated 25 August 2024, which was
communicated by your agent, Mr Youss Keita, to our client, TP Mazembe, on 26 August 2024.
We must remind you that you are currently bound by a professional player contract with TP
Mazembe until 30 June 2027, and that you (and Al Ittihad) are therefore prohibited, in
accordance with Article 18 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: ‘RSTP’), from entering into negotiations with a third-party club for a permanent
transfer without the consent of TP Mazembe. This provision prohibits any negotiations between
a player, whose contract is still valid, and a third-party club for a permanent transfer without
the consent of the player's current club. ‘RSTP’), to enter into negotiations with a third club for a
permanent transfer without the consent of TP Mazembe. This provision prohibits any
negotiations between a player whose contract with his current club has not expired or is not due
to expire within six months and a third club without the prior consent of his current club.
3. However, the ongoing negotiations between you and Al Ittihad have not been authorised by
TP Mazembe. We therefore formally request that you immediately cease all negotiations with Al
Ittihad.
If negotiations between you and Al Ittihad continue despite this letter, TP Mazembe reserves the
right to consider this a breach of contract without just cause on your part, exposing you to
financial and sporting sanctions in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
4. This letter is addressed to you without prejudice and without any acknowledgement of liability.
[…]”
(Freely translated from French)
16. On 7 September 2024, the legal representative of the Player sent the following
correspondence to TP Mazembe:
“[…] I am writing to you in my capacity as solicitor for the professional footballer TRAORE Fily to
formally demand that you return my client's passport within 72 hours of receiving this letter.
The retention of my client's passport constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights and
freedom of movement, in breach of the principles of international law and the regulations
applicable to professional footballers.
I would also like to express our regret that no signed copy of my client's contract extension has
been provided to him, despite the commitments made during our discussions. The initial 5-year
contract was extended by 2 years on 30 March 2024, but to date, my client has not received the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17291
signed copy from the club since his own signature, obtained under duress on 30 March 2024.
This situation directly contravenes Articles 18(2) and 18(3) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which require that any contract signature be accompanied by
the delivery of an official copy to the player. In the absence of such delivery, the contract is legally
void, thereby depriving my client of his essential contractual rights.
Furthermore, the club's failure to provide formal confirmation, including the signing and delivery
of an official copy of the contract, invalidates any attempt at extension. We therefore consider
that no formalisation has been carried out in accordance with the legal provisions governing
contracts.
It should also be noted that the contract extension, which was supposed to take effect on 30
March 2024, was never implemented or officially communicated. This extension appears to have
been made to serve the unilateral interests of the club, which constitutes a violation of the
principles of reciprocity and good faith. Consequently, this extension is legally non-existent and
has no legal value.
I hereby inform you that any signature obtained without my client's consent, as well as any
extension made after the date of this formal notice, will be considered null and void.
Furthermore, if the passport is not returned within the specified time limit, my client will be
forced to terminate his contract unilaterally for just cause, in accordance with FIFA regulations
and the precedents of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
I therefore request that you rectify this situation as soon as possible and comply with your legal
obligations. In the absence of a favourable response, we reserve the right to take all necessary
legal action to protect my client's rights. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
17. On 9 September 2024, TP Mazembe provided the legal representative of the Player with a
signed copy of the Second Contract and responded to his correspondence as follows:
“[…] Regarding the ‘retention’ of Mr TRAORÉ's passport
1. Contrary to what your formal notice letter attempts to suggest, Mr TRAORÉ's passport has not
been retained by TP MAZEMBE against your client's wishes.
In fact, Mr TRAORÉ voluntarily made his passport available to TP MAZEMBE – as did all his
teammates – in order to allow the club to take the administrative steps necessary to enable all
club members, including your client, to travel to Zambia, where TP MAZEMBE will face the Red
Arrows club on 14 September the Red Arrows club on 14 September in order to qualify for the
CAF Champions League.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17291
2. Please note that Mr TRAORÉ's passport was only recently made available to TP MAZEMBE.
Your client, who went on holiday during the summer, must be aware of this, just as he cannot
be unaware of the reason why TP MAZEMBE is holding his passport. Consequently, demanding
that TP MAZEMBE return his passport is an act of bad faith on his part.
4. In any event, we hereby confirm that Mr TRAORÉ's passport will be returned to him once TP
MAZEMBE has completed the administrative procedures for the trip to Zambia.
Regarding the extension of Mr TRAORÉ's contract
5. You claim that your client was forced to sign the extension of his contract with TP MAZEMBE.
However, you provide no evidence of this coercion and therefore accuse TP MAZEMBE, without
foundation, of having obtained your client's consent in an improper manner.
6. It is striking to note that your client is only now claiming that his consent was obtained in a
flawed manner, even though the contract was signed on 13 March 2024. In reality, this ridiculous
position follows the formal notice letter received by your client from TP Mazembe asking him to
cease all negotiations with the Libyan club Al Ittihad with a view to a transfer.
Indeed, following your client's signing of a permanent transfer agreement with Al Ittihad –
attached hereto – on 25 August 2024 – and given that the negotiations between your client and
Al Ittihad had not been communicated to TP MAZEMBE, nor authorised by it – we reminded Mr
TRAORÉ of his contractual obligations and gave him formal notice – dated 29 August 2024 – to
cease all negotiations with Al Ittihad. This formal notice is also attached to this letter.
It was therefore less than ten days after receiving this formal notice that Mr TRAORÉ began to
contest the validity of his contract extension with TP MAZEMBE, arguing that his consent of 13
March 2024 was flawed. You will agree that the context in which this argument is put forward
raises questions.
7. You also argue that the new contract signed by your client and TP MAZEMBE on 13 March
2024 – which came into force on 1 April 2024 – was never implemented or officially
communicated by TP MAZEMBE. These allegations are false.
8. In fact, the salary increase that Mr TRAORÉ has been receiving since his contract extension
was indeed implemented by TP MAZEMBE, and your client now receives an increased fixed
salary, in accordance with Article 5 of the professional football player contract signed on 13
March 2024.
9. Therefore, contrary to what you claim, Mr TRAORÉ's contract extension was communicated
by TP MAZEMBE on 14 August 2024 in order to inform supporters of this news. The club's
communication is also attached to this letter.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17291
10. Finally, although the contract signed by your client on 13 March 2024 was communicated to
him by TP MAZEMBE, you will find a copy of it attached.
We therefore hereby strongly contest the accusations made by your client against TP MAZEMBE.
We also affirm that the extension of Mr TRARORÉ's contract is valid. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
18. On the same day, i.e., 9 September 2024, TP Mazembe lodged a claim against Alittihad
Tripoli SC before the FIFA Football Tribunal, which was subsequently closed for lack of
jurisdiction and referred to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for further consideration.
19. On 12 September 2024, the Player posted a picture on social media in which he appears to
be in possession of a passport.
20. On 14 September 2024, the Player took part in a game of TP Mazembe.
21. On 16 September 2024, the legal representative of the Player sent the following
correspondence to TP Mazembe:
“[…] With reference to your letter dated 9 September 2024, the contents of which are entirely
rejected as unfounded and based on false statements, I am writing on behalf of Mr Fily Traoré
to formally address the repeated and ongoing breaches of contract, which constitute legitimate
grounds for termination. Your other allegations, being unfounded and without legal impact, will
be addressed in due course if necessary.
Firstly, I strongly reject the club's justification for the prolonged retention of Mr Traoré's
passport. The claim that the retention was necessary for administrative purposes, in particular
for the CAF Champions League match against Red Arrows on 14 September 2024, is unfounded.
According to Zambian visa regulations, a 90-day e-Visa requires only a digital copy of the
passport, not the physical document. The processing time for this type of visa is 72 to 96 hours.
It is therefore unjustifiable to retain the passport for more than two months, and this
demonstrates clear bad faith on the part of the club, which is violating his rights to freedom of
movement.
Furthermore, upon his return from Zambia, the club again confiscated Mr Traoré's passport,
thus perpetuating illegal and repetitive behaviour. Administrative requirements cannot in any
way justify the continued retention of Mr Traoré's personal documents, especially in the absence
of any legitimate need. Since the beginning of his five-year contract, which ends on 30 June 2025,
TP Mazembe has systematically confiscated his passport after each international trip,
preventing him from properly managing his personal and professional affairs. Despite
numerous verbal requests to recover his passport, the club has never provided a valid legal
justification for this continued retention.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17291
Thus, this illegal practice of retention has not only hindered the management of his affairs, but
has also caused serious harm. Upon his most recent return to the Congo after the end of the
holidays, customs authorities confiscated his passport due to the expiry of his visa, and he was
detained at the airport until a club representative intervened. This could have been avoided if
the club had fulfilled its contractual obligations by providing a valid visa or residence permit.
Instead, he was issued with a temporary one-week visa, followed by a six-month visa, which does
not allow him to work as a professional player in Congo.
Furthermore, the club's failure to provide a valid work permit and residence visa exposes Mr
Traoré to serious legal risks. Despite multiple requests, the club has taken no steps to regularise
his legal status in Congo. The six-month visa, issued on 27 July 2024, does not allow him to work
legally as a professional player, in violation of labour laws and FIFA regulations. This lack of
adequate documentation exposes Mr Traoré to additional risks, including illegal work, and
further complicates his ability to support his family and maintain stability in his personal life.
As a result, the repeated retention of his passport has impeded Mr Traoré's ability to manage
essential personal obligations, such as obtaining residence permits for himself and his family
and ensuring their safety. The club has violated not only his freedom of movement, as stipulated
in FIFA regulations and international human rights laws, but also his ability to provide for his
family. The club's repeated actions have severely compromised his ability to organise financial
stability and ensure the well-being of his family, which is a direct violation of his professional
and family responsibilities.
In light of these facts, it is clear that TP Mazembe has repeatedly and deliberately violated Mr
Traoré's fundamental rights. These violations are not isolated incidents, but a continuous breach
of contract that has persisted throughout his employment with the club. The club's continued
bad faith, despite multiple reminders and attempts at resolution, demonstrates a deliberate
disregard for Mr Traoré's legal rights as a foreign professional player.
Furthermore, the club's failure to rectify these breaches after being informed on multiple
occasions reflects an unacceptable level of negligence. This has left Mr Traoré with no choice but
to seek redress under FIFA regulations, Congolese labour laws and international standards that
protect the rights of professional players. If the club does not immediately resolve this situation,
Mr Traoré will invoke just cause to terminate his contract, in accordance with Article 14 of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
TP Mazembe therefore has 48 hours from receipt of this letter to:
- Immediately return Mr Traoré's passport;
- Provide valid work permits and residence visas for Mr Traoré and his family
- Cease any future attempts to illegally retain his personal documents.
Failure to comply with these requirements within the specified time frame will result in the
immediate termination of Mr Traoré's contract for just cause, as well as the pursuit of
appropriate legal remedies to enforce his rights. […]”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17291
(Freely translated from French)
22. On 18 September 2024, TP Mazembe answered the correspondence from the legal
representative of the Player as follows:
“[…] Regarding TP Mazembe's retention of Mr TRAORÉ's passport
1. In a formal notice dated 7 September 2024, you formally requested TP Mazembe to return Mr
TRAORÉ's passport.
2. In a letter dated 9 September 2024, we responded – as TP MAZEMBE's legal advisers – to your
letter, stating that Mr TRAORÉ had made his passport available to TP MAZEMBE – as had all his
teammates – on a voluntary basis in order to enable the club to take the administrative steps
necessary to allow all club members – including your client – to travel to Zambia, where TP
MAZEMBE faced the Red Arrows club on 14 September in order to qualify for the CAF Champions
League. Your client also participated in this match (Exhibit No. 1).
In this regard, you will note that the use of physical passports is an integral part of TP MAZEMBE's
way of working when organising team travel, although the use of digital copies may suffice. Your
client is fully aware of this practice within the club, which is why he voluntarily submitted his
passport to TP MAZEMBE.
3. At the end of this trip, your client retrieved his passport. However, according to you, it would
appear that Mr TRAORÉ's passport was once again made available to TP MAZEMBE (which
confirms that it had been returned in the meantime). We will seek further information from our
client on this matter and get back to you in due course.
4. In any case, we dispute outright that Mr TRAORÉ's passport was illegally retained by TP
MAZEMBE. Moreover, you provide no evidence to support your claims that Mr TRAORÉ's passport
was ‘confiscated’ by TP MAZEMBE.
5. Furthermore, in your letter of 16 September 2024, you state that your client's passport has
been retained by TP MAZEMBE for more than two months. This is incorrect, as Mr TRAORÉ went
on holiday during the summer. You yourself indicate that his passport was confiscated by the
Congolese customs authorities on his return.
As for the provision of valid work permits and residence visas for Mr TRAORÉ and his family
6. In your letter dated 16 September 2024, you state that TP MAZEMBE has not provided your
client with a visa or a valid residence permit. However, your client has been playing for TP
MAZEMBE since 2020. Clearly, if he had not received the necessary documents to carry out his
professional activity within TP MAZEMBE, he would have been expelled from the Democratic
Republic of Congo long ago.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17291
7. Furthermore, the two contracts signed by your client with TP MAZEMBE – dated 24 January
2020 and 13 March 2024 – mean that Mr TRAORÉ is bound to TP MAZEMBE until 30 June 2027.
These contracts have been confirmed by FECOFA and the contract currently in force – that of 13
March 2024 – is being performed by TP MAZEMBE without the slightest breach.
8. In the absence of valid work and residence permits for Mr TRAORÉ, there is no doubt that the
contracts would not have been confirmed with FECOFA, nor would they have been performed to
date in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
9. TP MAZEMBE is under no obligation to provide visas and work permits to Mr TRAORÉ's family.
Your formal notice in this regard is therefore irrelevant.
As for the manoeuvres put in place by Mr TRAORÉ to force a transfer
10. Clearly, your formal notices of 7 September 2024 and 16 September 2024 constitute a series
of attempts to put pressure on TP MAZEMBE to accept a transfer for Mr TRAORÉ, or even to
obtain the termination of his employment contract so that he can sign for the club of his choice
on a free transfer.
11. In fact, your client and TP Mazembe have not had any problems in their contractual relations
to date, i.e. for almost five years.
12. However, recently, numerous agents acting on behalf of your client have contacted TP
Mazembe and its representatives with a view to concluding a transfer for Mr TRAORÉ (Exhibit
No. 2). All offers have so far been refused by TP MAZEMBE, which cannot be criticised given that
– as a reminder – Mr TRAORÉ is bound by an employment contract with the club until 30 June
2027.
13. However, this attitude – which is both legitimate and legal – on the part of TP MAZEMBE does
not seem to please your client.
14. It is therefore clear that Mr TRAORÉ is attempting to put pressure on TP MAZEMBE by sending
a formal notice – in an initial letter – demanding the return of his passport, which is legally held
by TP MAZEMBE, and contesting the validity of his contract extension.
We responded to this first letter by confirming that Mr TRAORÉ's passport would be returned to
him – which was done – and by demonstrating the validity of his contract extension. We proved
to you that the new contract signed by your client had indeed been executed and had been
publicly announced by TP Mazembe. We then sent you a copy of the contract signed by your
client on 13 March 2024.
15. Mr TRAORÉ then decided to put additional pressure on TP MAZEMBE by sending a second
formal notice dated 16 September 2024. We hereby contest all of the allegations made against
TP MAZEMBE in this letter.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17291
16. The sole purpose of the two letters sent to TP MAZEMBE is therefore to put pressure on TP
MAZEMBE, which is unacceptable and cannot continue. We therefore hereby request that you
cease sending formal notices to TP MAZEMBE on the basis of no valid grounds – and, moreover,
without providing any evidence to support your claims. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
23. On the same day, i.e., 18 September 2024, the legal representative of the Player sent the
following correspondence to TP Mazembe:
“[…] I am writing in response to your letter of 18 September 2024 in reply to our second formal
notice of 16 September 2024, which requested the immediate return of Mr Fily Traoré's passport,
the provision of valid work permits and residence visas for him and his family, and the cessation
of any unlawful retention of his personal documents. After careful consideration of your
response, we would like to clarify the following facts:
Illegal retention of Mr Traoré's passport
You claim that Mr Traoré voluntarily handed over his passport to TP Mazembe for administrative
reasons related to travel. However, this prolonged and systematic retention of his passport,
which has been ongoing since 2020, is completely unjustifiable. Under Congolese legal standards
and international regulations, the retention of personal documents, such as passports, without
explicit consent or legal justification constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights to freedom
of movement. The club has no right to retain a player's passport beyond the immediate
administrative requirements related to his travel. This practice, which has been going on for
several years, demonstrates the club's deliberate intention to restrict Mr Traoré's freedom of
movement, including for his personal and family affairs.
Return of passport and freedom of movement
You mention that Mr Traoré recovered his passport after his trip to Zambia and that he then
handed it over to TP Mazembe. We dispute this claim. A passport is an essential document that
should only be retained temporarily for specific administrative reasons. Your letter provides no
evidence or valid legal justification for this continued and prolonged retention. As a result, Mr
Traoré has been prevented from carrying out essential tasks, such as opening a bank account,
withdrawing money and managing his family obligations. It is also important to note that banks
require the presentation of his original passport for any significant financial transaction.
Passport copies are not accepted by local banks, which places Mr Traoré in a situation of total
dependence on the club to access his funds and manage his financial affairs. This withholding
constitutes a serious infringement of his freedom of movement and personal dignity.
Work permits and residence visas
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17291
With regard to the club's obligations concerning Mr Traoré's legal documents, we reiterate that
the continued provision of valid work permits and residence visas is a legal obligation incumbent
on the club as the employer of a foreign player. The fact that Mr Traoré has been able to remain
in Congo until now does not in any way mean that the necessary documents have been properly
provided by the club. The six-month visa issued on 27 July 2024 does not allow him to work as a
professional footballer in Congo, which is a direct violation of Congolese labour laws and FIFA
regulations.
Obligations to Mr Traoré's family
We dispute your assertion that the club has no obligation to provide work permits or residence
visas to Mr Traoré's family. Although this is not a strict obligation for each player, it is widely
recognised, particularly under FIFA regulations and international best practices, that the
employer must ensure a stable environment for its foreign players and their families. In this
context, facilitating the legal residence of the player's family is a normal, if not expected, practice
to ensure that the player can focus fully on his professional commitments. Ignoring these
responsibilities demonstrates negligence on the part of TP Mazembe in fulfilling its professional
obligations towards Mr Traoré.
Attempt to control the transfer to Al-Ittihad
We would like to point out that the negotiations with Al-Ittihad were initiated by TP Mazembe
itself, not by Mr Traoré. You requested that Al-Ittihad increase its offer to USD 1 million, which
was accepted. However, after accepting this offer, TP Mazembe blocked the transfer, preferring
to steer Mr Traoré towards a transfer to Belgium, where the club could exercise greater control
over his registrations and movements. This action demonstrates the club's ongoing attempt to
restrict Mr Traoré's career freedom by imposing options that are not favourable to him, while
limiting his transfer opportunities.
Contract extension and lack of copy
Finally, you mention that Mr Traoré signed a contract extension in March 2024, but it is
important to note that no copy of this contract was provided to him until our first notification
was received on 28 August 2024. This failure constitutes a breach of your legal obligations to
provide an up-to-date copy of any contractual document binding Mr Traoré to the club. This
absence of a copy for several months demonstrates that the contract extension is invalid.
Furthermore, Mr Traoré has clearly notified the club that he is no longer bound by this unofficial
extension. Consequently, the initial contract remains in force until its expiry on 30 June 2025,
with no valid extension.
Conclusion and final warning
In light of these facts, it is clear that TP Mazembe continues to violate its contractual and legal
obligations, particularly with regard to the return of Mr Traoré's passport and the regularisation
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17291
of his work and residence documents. Furthermore, the continued retention of his passport since
2020, without legal justification, constitutes a flagrant violation of his right to freedom of
movement and to manage his personal affairs.
The 48-hour deadline to comply with our requests expires at midnight today. In the absence of
a satisfactory response, Mr Traoré will invoke a legitimate reason for the immediate termination
of his contract under Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(RSTP) and will take the necessary legal action to defend his rights as a professional player. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
24. On 23 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative unilaterally terminated the
Player’s employment relationship with TP Mazembe by means of the following
correspondence addressed to TP Mazembe (hereinafter: the Termination Notice):
“[…] I am writing to you as the solicitor representing Mr Fily Traoré to formally declare the
immediate termination of his employment contract with TP Mazembe, effective 22 September
2024, due to your repeated breaches of contractual and ethical obligations.
The contract extension proposed by TP Mazembe, which was to begin on 1 April 2024 and end
on 30 June 2027, must be thoroughly reviewed due to serious procedural irregularities and
questionable practices on the part of the club. Although this extension was allegedly mutually
agreed upon on 13 March 2024, it was in fact handled solely with the player's signature, without
the club's reciprocal commitment at that time, raising serious doubts as to whether there was
genuine mutual consent.
Despite multiple verbal requests from the player, TP Mazembe only officially acknowledged the
contract extension on 14 August 2024. This acknowledgement coincides suspiciously with Club
Ittihad's interest in a possible transfer. This questionable timing raises questions about the true
intentions behind this late confirmation, suggesting that the announcement may have been
strategically timed to influence transfer negotiations.
The signed contract was only delivered to Mr Traoré on 9 September 2024, after my formal
objection and his notice of withdrawal dated 7 September 2024. In this notice, he explicitly
challenged the validity of the extension due to the club's failure to comply with contractual
delivery standards. This considerable delay, coupled with the lack of response to his previous
requests, constitutes a serious breach of contractual standards and seriously compromises the
principles of mutual consent and transparency, which are essential in any contractual
relationship.
Furthermore, TP Mazembe's retention of his passport, as well as its failure to provide essential
documents such as work and residence permits, severely restricts his freedom of movement and
violates the club's contractual obligations, as well as international labour standards and human
rights conventions. Despite his formal notice of 7 September 2024 requesting the immediate
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17291
return of these documents, TP Mazembe has taken no action to comply. The deadline, which
expired on 20 September 2024, has now passed without a response from the club, further
reinforcing their coercive and unethical behaviour.
Article 14.2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) prohibits
unilateral changes to the terms of a contract without mutual consent. TP Mazembe unilaterally
extended the contract under the pretext of a salary increase, without adequately informing Mr
Traoré of the true implications of this extension or obtaining his informed consent. This
manipulation constitutes a direct violation of Article 14.2, which protects players from such
unilateral changes.
Furthermore, Article 14 of FIFA's RSTP grants players the right to terminate their contract for just
cause when the club fails to fulfil its essential obligations. The retention of the player's passport,
the failure to provide the necessary permits and the manipulative practices aimed at obtaining
his signature without adequate consultation constitute serious breaches of TP Mazembe's
contractual obligations.
In view of these serious breaches, I hereby inform you that Mr Traoré Fily hereby declares the
immediate termination of his employment contract with TP Mazembe, in accordance with Article
14.2 and Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP. The club's manipulative practices, including the coercive
retention of his personal documents, the failure to issue the necessary permits and the unilateral
modification of the terms of the contract without his informed consent, fundamentally violate
the principles of transparency, mutual consent and trust necessary for a valid contract.
Furthermore, TP Mazembe's failure to comply with the formal notice of 7 September 2024
regarding the return of the player's documents before the deadline of 20 September 2024
further reinforces their breach of duty and trust.
In accordance with Articles 14.2 and 14 of the FIFA RSTP, Mr Fily Traoré declares the immediate
termination of his employment contract with TP Mazembe with effect from 22 September 2024.
He also reserves the right to seek compensation and damages in accordance with FIFA
regulations and international labour laws in order to defend his rights and remedy the damage
caused by the club's serious breaches. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
25. On the same day, i.e., 23 September 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with
the Libyan club Swehly Sports Club (hereinafter: the Respondent 2 or Swehly Sports Club),
valid as from its date of signature until 31 July 2026.
26. In accordance with his new employment contract with Swehly Sports Club, the Player is
entitled to USD 500,000 as follows (quoted verbatim):
“[…] i. Amount of $250,000.00 in words. only two hundred and fifty thousand US dollars. It is an
advance payment paid by the first party to the second party from the total value of the contract
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17291
after the contract is signed between the two parties and the second party passes the
comprehensive medical examination.
ii. Amount of $125,000.00 in words, only one hundred and twenty-five thousand US dollars. It is
divided into equal monthly salaries for ten months in the amount of ($12,500.00) only, and is
paid to the second party from October 1. 2024 until July 30, 2025, and these salaries are
considered the 25/24 sports season.
iii. Amount of $125,000.00 in words, only one hundred and twenty-five thousand US dollars. It
is divided into equal monthly salaries for a period of ten months in the amount of ($12,500.00)
only, and is paid to the second party from October 1. 2025 until July 30, 2026, and these salaries
are considered the remaining value of the total contract amount. […]”
27. Also on 23 September 2024, Swehly Sports Club initiated a transfer instruction (cf., Transfer
ID: 932505) in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: the TMS) in order to engage the
Player permanently and uploaded a copy of the Termination Notice as proof.
28. Still on the same day, i.e., 23 September 2024, the Libyan Football Federation (hereinafter:
the LFF) requested the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: the ITC), listing
TP Mazembe as the Player’s former club.
29. On 24 September 2024, the LFF sent the following correspondence (quoted verbatim) to
the Fédération Congolaise de Football (hereinafter: the FECOFOOT), the Confédération
Africaine de Football (hereinafter: the CAF) and to FIFA, quoted verbatim:
“[…] Attached is a passport copy of a Malian player who was active with T.P. Mazembi FC of
Congo, lately the player contracted with our affiliated FC of Alswaihly.
The player contract with his for T.P mazembi is finished.
Unfortunately the club refused to give him his passport so he can travel and join his new club.
We tried with them but unfortunately no positive response from them.
Therefore, I ask you kindly interfere with the said club give him passport so he can travel. […]”
30. On 25 September 2024, TP Mazembe sent the following correspondence to the CAF, the
LFF, the FECOFA and FIFA:
“[…] TP Mazembe hereby provides you with information regarding the case of our Malian player
Fily Traoré, whom a Libyan club, with the support of its federation, is attempting to lure away
from Congo while he is still under contract.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17291
1. Mr Traoré is currently attending TP Mazembe training sessions and played the entire match
on 21 September between TP Mazembe and the Red Arrows, which enabled the club to qualify
for the group stage of the CAF Champions League.
2. Furthermore, Mr Traoré is in possession of his passport, as shown in a photo posted on his
Instagram account on 12 September 2024 (Exhibit No. 1).
3. During the summer, TP Mazembe was informed that Mr Traoré had signed a professional
football contract with another Libyan club, Al Ittihad, even though TP Mazembe had not given
its authorisation for negotiations to take place between that club and the player (Exhibit No. 2).
TP Mazembe filed a complaint with FIFA against Al Ittihad on 9 September 2024 (Exhibit No. 3).
Earlier, on 29 August 2024, TP Mazembe had also given Mr Traoré formal notice to cease all
negotiations with Al Ittihad, given that he was still under contract with TP Mazembe and that
negotiations with Al Ittihad had not been authorised (Exhibit No. 4).
4. Subsequently, on 7 September 2024, TP Mazembe was formally notified by a solicitor allegedly
acting on behalf of Mr Traoré to return his passport (Exhibit No. 5). This solicitor also claimed –
incorrectly – that the contract signed by Mr Traoré with TP Mazembe on 13 March 2024 – binding
him to the club until the end of the 2026/2027 season – was null and void because it had been
signed under duress and because no copy had been provided to the player. He also claimed –
again incorrectly – that this contract had never been implemented or officially announced by TP
Mazembe.
5. We replied to this letter on 9 September 2024 (Exhibit No. 6), explaining that Mr Traoré's
passport had been given to TP Mazembe – by Mr Traoré himself – for administrative purposes
only, in connection with the organisation of the team's trip to Zambia, where the club was
playing the Red Arrows in the CAF Champions League qualifiers. We assured Mr Traoré's solicitor
that his passport would be returned to him immediately once these administrative formalities
had been completed, which was done. We also refuted all the accusations made against TP
Mazembe regarding the conclusion of the contract signed on 13 March 2024 by Mr Traoré, while
proving its execution and official announcement by the club. We also provided a copy of this
contract to the player's counsel, although a copy had been given to Mr Traoré at the time the
contract was concluded.
6. On 16 September 2024, Mr Traoré's counsel once again formally requested TP Mazembe to
return the player's passport, but also – this time – to provide the player and his family with
residence and work permits. In his letter, Mr Traoré's solicitor threatened TP Mazembe with
terminating Mr Traoré's contract (Exhibit No. 7).
7. On 18 September 2024, we replied to Mr Traoré's solicitor that his passport had been returned
to him after the trip to Zambia (Exhibit No. 8). As for the provision of work permits and residence
visas for the player and his family, we replied that Mr Traoré was in possession of all the
requested documents and that TP Mazembe had no obligation towards the player's relatives.
We also pointed out to Mr Traoré's counsel our surprise at seeing so many problems suddenly
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17291
arise in the contractual relationship between him and TP Mazembe in the wake of the formal
notice sent by the club to the player on 29 August 2024, when no issues had been encountered
since the beginning of their contractual relationship in 2020.
8. Mr Traoré's counsel responded to this letter, this time citing the retention of the player's
passport since 2020 – even though, as a reminder, he was still seen with his passport on 12
September 2024 on Instagram (Exhibit No. 1) – and contesting our letter of 18 September 2024
(Exhibit No. 9).
9. On 22 September 2024, Mr Traoré's solicitor declared the immediate termination of the
player's contract with TP Mazembe (Exhibit No. 10). However, Mr Traoré is still training with the
club at present. This letter is therefore without effect and should not be taken into account in
the present proceedings.
10. Mr Traoré's contract with TP Mazembe has therefore not been terminated, and TP Mazembe
has not received – let alone accepted – any offer for its player from the Libyan club mentioned
in the email from the Libyan Football Federation.
Consequently, as Mr Traoré is still training with TP Mazembe at present, and given that he is
bound by an employment contract with TP Mazembe until the end of the 2026-2027 season, his
alleged transfer to the Libyan club cited by the Libyan Football Federation is not valid as it has
not been authorised by TP Mazembe.
In this regard, it should also be noted that the transfer registration period closed on 23
September in Libya, and Mr Traoré was not registered by any Libyan club before that date. It
would therefore appear that the Libyan Football Federation has informed you of a “phantom”
transfer.
Finally, Mr Traoré is in possession of his passport. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
31. On the same day, i.e., 25 September 2024, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee sent the
following correspondence to TP Mazembe:
“[…] Notification of opening of investigations
Dear Madam, Dear Sir,
We refer to the aforementioned matter that we are currently investigating in line with art. 35.5
of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (the FDC).
In this regard, allegations of abusive behaviour by the club TP Mazembe towards the player Mr
Fily Traore (the Player) have been reported to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (cf. enclosed). In
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17291
particular, the Libyan Football Federation (LFF) assured that the club TP Mazembe has seized
the Player's passport and refuses to return it.
In this context, on behalf of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee within the next 48 hours (i.e., by 12
May 2022) we urge the club TP Mazembe:
1. should the above information be accurate and the club TP Mazembe is indeed in possession
of the Player's passport: to immediately release the Player's passport and return it to its rightful
owner; or
or, in the alternative
2. to provide us via e-mail (i.e. [email protected]), with a statement in relation to the
abovementioned allegations (specifically as to why the Player does not hold his passport),
including any supporting documentary evidence (i.e. documents, witness' statements, videos,
etc.)
Notwithstanding the above, please be informed that the present investigations may result in
potential disciplinary proceedings which could lead to disciplinary sanctions (such as a
deduction of points, a ban on registering new players and/or a relegation to a lower division cf. art. 6 FDC).
Finally, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that the club TP Mazembe (and the
Congolese Football Federation) shall act in good faith and collaborate to establish the facts and,
in particular, comply with requests for information from the FIFA judicial bodies (cf. arts. 12.1
and 12.2 FDC). Failure to cooperate with the FIFA Judicial Bodies or their secretariat may lead to
the imposition of appropriate disciplinary sanctions (cf. art 12.4 FDC).
The Congolese Football Federation is kindly requested to forward this correspondence to its
affiliated club TP Mazembe. […]”
32. On 26 September 2024, the Player signed a letter of acknowledgement (hereinafter: the
Letter of Acknowledgement), in which he stated (i) that he acknowledged being under the
Second Contract with TP Mazembe; (ii) that he never instructed his legal representative to
terminate the Second Contract; (iii) that he still fulfils his contractual obligations to TP
Mazembe; (iv) that he has no intention of signing with a Libyan club; and (v) that his
passport was never confiscated by TP Mazembe but was voluntarily made available and
used for travel-related arrangements.
33. On the same day, i.e., 26 September 2024, TP Mazembe sent the following correspondence
to Swehly Sports Club, quoted verbatim:
“[…] 1. We write to you in our capacity as legal counsels of the Congolese professional football
club Tout Puissant Mazembe Englebert (hereafter: ‘TP Mazembe’).
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17291
Please find enclosed a duly signed power of attorney in this regard (Annexe 1).
2. On 25 September 2024, TP Mazembe received an e-mail from the CAF General Secretary,
transferring an e-mail sent by the Libyan Football Federation (hereafter: ‘LFF’) concerning the
Malian football player Fily Traoré (15 June 2001) (hereafter: ‘Player’) stating as follows:
“Attached is a passport copy of a Malian player who was active with T.P Mazembi FC of Congo,
lately the player contracted with our affiliated FC of Alswaihly. The player contract with his for
T.P mazembi is finished. Unfortunately the club refused to give him his passport so he can travel
and join his new club. We tried with them but unfortunately no positive response from them.
Therfore, I ask you kindly to interfere with the said club give him passport so he can travel.”
(Annexe 2)
However, the Player is still bound by a professional football player contract with TP Mazembe,
which was signed on 13 March 2024 and which is valid from 1 April 2024 until 30 June 2027
(Annexe 3).
3. During the 2024 summer, TP Mazembe exchanged several letters with the so-called legal
counsel of the Player, Mr Lamjed Belkahia (hereafter: ‘Mr Belkahia’) (Annexe 4).
Finally, on 22 September 2024, Mr Belkahia informed TP Mazembe that the Player decided to
unilaterally terminate his contract with TP Mazembe (Annexe 5).
Nevertheless, this unilateral termination was not motivated by any just cause. Moreover, the
Player has still been training with TP Mazembe since then. The Player even signed and delivered
on 26 September 2024 a declaration in which he states that his contract with the club until 30
June 2027 is still valid and in which he rejects – both in form and content – the letter of
termination sent by Mr Belkahia at the time (Annexe 6).
Therefore, the Player is not a free agent and is still under contract with TP Mazembe until 30
June 2027. This has also been explained to the CAF General Secretary by e-mail of25 September
2024 (Annexe 7).
4. It is obvious, in view of the elements developed above and the timing in which they all
intervened, that your club SWEHLY CLUB (hereafter: ‘Swehly’) tried to induce the Player to
unilaterally terminate his contract with TP Mazembe, following which the Player could then join
Swehly as a free agent.
Indeed, already on 24 September 2024, only two days after TP Mazembe received the Player’s
termination letter on 22 September 2024 from Mr Belkahia (Annexe 5), TP Mazembe received
thee-mail from the CAF General Secretary in which the LFF stated that the Player had signed a
contract with Swehly (Annexe 2).
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17291
Such actions from Swehly are clearly in violation of Art. 17 (4) and (5) RSTP, which inter alia
states as follows (own emphasis):
“In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any
club found to be in breach of contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the
protected period. It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing
a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional
to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods. [...]
Any person subject to the FIFA Statutes and regulations who acts in a manner designed to induce
a breach of contract between a professional and a club in order to facilitate the transfer of the
player shall be sanctioned.”
5. Therefore, we hereby give you formal notice to cease all contact with the Player. Should any
contact between Swehly and the Player nevertheless continue, we reserve the right to file a claim
before FIFA in view of the imposition of disciplinary and sporting sanctions.
This letter is sent to you under all reservations and without prejudice to our client’s rights. […]”
34. On 27 September 2024, TP Mazembe sent the following correspondence to the Player’s
legal representative:
“[…] Please note the document attached to this email, in which Mr. Fily Traoré states that he
never gave you a mandate to terminate his contract with TP Mazembe.
It was therefore without authorization from the player that you sent TP Mazembe, on September
22, 2024, a letter requesting the immediate termination of Mr. Traoré's employment contract.
TP Mazembe reserves all rights in this regard and will no longer take your correspondence into
account in the future. […]”
(Freely translated from French)
35. On the same day, i.e., 27 September 2024, the Player travelled from Lubumbashi (Congo
DR) to Bamako (Mali).
36. In parallel, the FECOFA requested the cancellation of Swehly Sports Club’s transfer
instruction in the TMS (cf., Transfer ID: 932505), seemingly suggested that there was not a
valid termination
37. On 30 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative sent the following correspondence
to the Malian Ambassy in Congo DR:
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17291
“[…] Mr. Traoré recently terminated his contract with TP Mazembe for just cause, due to the
illegal confiscation of his passport and boarding pass. On September 27, 2024, club officials,
acting on the orders of the president, confiscated these documents at Lubumbashi airport.
Despite obtaining a valid travel document from the Malian consulate in Kinshasa, Mr. Traoré
was prevented from boarding his flight, placing him in a condition akin to detention. His freedom
of movement is completely restricted, and he is suffering from abuses of power that are putting
his life in danger, exposing him to serious physical and psychological threats.
His family is deeply concerned for his safety and well-being, given the alarming circumstances
in which he finds himself. I would like to emphasize that FIFA and all its bodies, the Consul of the
Republic of Mali in Kinshasa, and the Malian Football Federation are already aware of Mr.
Traoré's worrying situation, which underscores the urgency of taking action.
It would be crucial to try to contact him directly [...] to assess his current situation and provide
him with the necessary support. I kindly ask you to consider the following measures:
1. Immediate consular protection: Provide Mr. Traoré with access to consular protection so that
he can receive adequate support in the face of these abuses of power.
2. Safe accommodation: Provide a safe place where Mr. Traoré can take refuge temporarily until
he can leave the country safely.
3. Assistance with departure: Facilitate his departure from the country by working with the
relevant authorities to ensure safe passage, taking into account the risks he faces.
Mr. Traoré's situation is extremely worrying, and it is crucial to act quickly to avoid serious
consequences. [...]”
(Freely translated from French)
38. On 8 October 2024, the Player’s legal representative sent the following correspondence to
TP Mazembe:
“[…] I am writing to formally notify you of significant violations of legal ethics and professional
responsibility in your representation of TP Mazembe in the matter of Mr. Fily TRAORÉ. Your
actions have compromised Mr. TRAORÉ's rights and resulted in serious breaches of professional
conduct. This letter serves as a formal warning regarding the consequences of your continued
involvement in such violations.
First, it has been revealed that on March 13, 2024, you facilitated the signing of a document
under duress by presenting Mr. TRAORÉ with a salary increase agreement. This document was
not implemented by TP Mazembe until August 14, 2024, several months after you coerced him
into signing it. This constitutes fraudulent behavior, aimed at deceiving Mr. TRAORÉ into an
agreement under undue pressure, in direct violation of ethical standards.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17291
It should also be noted that you did not require the club to provide a copy of the contract to the
player, which deprives Mr. TRAORÉ of his fundamental rights and the necessary transparency in
this situation.
Furthermore, on September 18, 2024, you made false statements regarding the possession of
Mr. TRAORÉ's passport, claiming that it had been voluntarily surrendered for administrative
purposes. In reality, the passport was confiscated without Mr. TRAORÉ's consent, severely
restricting his freedom of movement and career options. This misrepresentation of the facts
serves to mask the illegal retention of his passport by TP Mazembe, which remains in their
possession to this day.
Furthermore, you falsely claimed that the notice of termination issued on September 22, 2024,
by his legal representative, Maître Lamjed Belkahia, was done without Mr. TRAORÉ's consent.
This is entirely false, as Mr. TRAORÉ was fully aware of and agreed to the termination, which was
executed in accordance with the appropriate legal procedures. Your assertion that these
documents were obtained under duress is unfounded, and any suggestion to the contrary is
misleading.
It is imperative to remind you of the obligation to respect the legal authority granted to Attorney
Lamjed Belkahia, the designated legal representative of Mr. TRAORÉ. Any communication,
documentation, certification, or signature of any document sent to Mr. TRAORÉ without first
being addressed to his attorney constitutes a violation of his legal rights and will have no legal
value.
Furthermore, any document signed by Mr. TRAORÉ after September 22, 2024, without
consultation or approval from his legal representative, is considered invalid and unenforceable.
The continuation of such actions would constitute a serious violation of his right to defense,
thereby compromising his procedural protections.
Furthermore, your advice to TP Mazembe to compel Mr. TRAORÉ to train and play official
matches after the termination of his contract is highly unethical. This action violates FIFA
regulations and the Swiss Code of Obligations, and has caused significant psychological and
physical harm to Mr. TRAORÉ. Your participation in these illegal actions is indefensible and
further exacerbates the damage caused.
Finally, your involvement in these fraudulent activities, ranging from obtaining illegal signatures
to obstructing Mr. TRAORÉ's defense, has caused substantial damage. Mr. TRAORÉ has suffered
both physically and morally as a result of your actions, and you are directly responsible for the
harm caused. As such, you share full responsibility for the legal consequences that will ensue.
In light of these facts, I ask you to immediately cease all actions that violate Mr. TRAORÉ's legal
rights and return his passport without delay. If you do not comply, we will bring the matter
before the competent authorities and file a formal complaint, requesting disciplinary measures.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17291
We expect you to comply with these requests. [...]”
(Freely translated from French)
39. On the same day, i.e., 8 October 2024, the Player sent the following correspondence to the
LFF:
“[…] I, the undersigned, Fily Traoré, professional soccer player, born on June 15, 2001, in
Bamako, Republic of Mali, of Malian nationality […] hereby certify that my participation in the
last match with TP Mazembe, which took place on October 5, 2024, was against my will and
despite my true intentions. Indeed, as I am currently in Lubumbashi and my passport has been
confiscated by TP Mazembe, I am unable to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo. Refusing
to train or play while here in Lubumbashi could cause me trouble with various people. My
professional future is now linked to my new club, Swehly SC, with which I wish to move forward
with peace of mind. I confirm that my lawyer is Maître Lamjed Belkahia, and that he is my legal
representative. I approve and confirm that all correspondence sent by him fully represents me.
[…]”
(Freely translated from French)
40. On 12 October 2024, the LFF confirmed the Player’s transfer from TP Mazembe to Swehly
Sports Club in the TMS (cf., Transfer ID: 932505), and that the Player was officially registered
with Swehly Sports Club.
41. On 14 October 2024, the LFF sent the following correspondence to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee:
“[…] We are writing to bring to your urgent attention a serious matter concerning the player Fily
Traore, who has been misled by TP Mazembe. The club has coerced the player into traveling with
the team under the false promise of returning his passport, while the player was then found
listed in TP Mazembe’s squad for the match scheduled on 15 October 2024, despite his clear
refusal to participate.
This situation is in direct violation of FIFA regulations and the player's fundamental rights. The
player has contacted us in distress, urgently seeking to leave Congo DR but is unable to do so
due to the continued confiscation of his travel documents. TP Mazembe is using coercion to force
the player's participation in the upcoming match against his free will, which is a clear breach of
the rules.
We request the immediate intervention of the FECOFA to ensure the following:
1. Immediate return of the player's passport and any other travel documents that were
confiscated by your affiliated club on 27 August 2024 to prevent his departure through the
Lubumbashi International Airport.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17291
2. Guarantee that the player is not coerced into participating in the match scheduled for 15
October 2024.
3. Ensure the player's safe departure from Congo DR so that he can travel to his new club without
further obstruction.
The player has been de-registered from the rolls of the FECOFA, following the invoking of Article
8.2, paragraph 6, of the FIFA RSTP, and he is now registered with the Libyan Football Federation
(LFF). According to Article 1(1) of Annex 3 of the FIFA RSTP, the player is no longer eligible to
participate in matches for TP Mazembe or any other club affiliated with the FECOFA.
This unacceptable situation requires immediate attention to prevent further harm to the player.
Failure to act swiftly may result in an escalation to FIFA's Disciplinary and Ethics Committees for
non-compliance with FIFA regulations and violations of the player’s rights.
We trust that you will take urgent and decisive action to protect the safety and freedom of Fily
Traore. […]”
42. On 15 October 2024, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee confirmed to TP Mazembe that the
ITC of the Player had been transferred to the LFF and that the Player was no longer eligible
to play for TP Mazembe. Accordingly, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee requested TP
Mazembe to return within 24 hours the Player’s passport and to release him to travel to
Libya.
43. On the same day, i.e., 15 October 2024, TP Mazembe answered the correspondence from
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee as follows:
“[…] 1. We write to you again as legal counsels of the Congolese football club TP Mazembe
(hereafter: ‘Club’), and this in relation to your last email dated 15 October 2024 in which you
require, within 24 hours so by 16 October 2024 the latest, the Club to immediately return to the
Malian football player Mr. Fily Traoré (hereafter: ‘Player’) his passport, to release him to travel
to Libya and to send FIFA confirmation thereof, because meanwhile the ITC of the Player has
been transferred from the Congolese Football Federation (hereafter: ‘CFF’) to the Libyan Football
Federation (hereafter: ‘LFF’) in favour of the Libyan football club Swehly Club (hereafter: ‘Swehly’).
By the present letter, we hereby would like to express our astonishment and disagreement with
the content of said email, which is disputed in full.
2. First, and from the start of your investigation, the Club has always fully cooperated, despite
the fact that all the accusations made against the Club by the LFF, Swehly and/or some
unmandated Tunisian lawyer Mr Belkahia were false, offensive and more importantly
unsupported by any evidence. Until today, there has not been one piece of evidence provided
that the Player was not in the possession of his passport, or that he was not able to leave the
Club to travel to Libya.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17291
On the other hand, the Club has provided multiple exhibits that evidence the fact that (i) the
Player is in the possession of his passport, (ii) the Player denied having mandated Mr Belkahia
to terminate his contract with the Club, (iii) the Player wishes to stay with the Club. We even
provided you several times with the Player’s phone number, so FIFA could have a call or
conversation with the Player to get the truth, however, as far as we now, no such conversation
took place.
Despite such convincing evidence provided by the Club, and despite the lack of any evidence
provided by the LFF, Swehly or Mr Belkahia, FIFA still chooses to disregard this all, and to follow
the false accusations made against the Club.
3. Further, you refer to the ITC of the Player having been transferred from the CFF to the LFF on
12 October 2024. Again, such action of FIFA to allow such transfer despite the protest made by
the CFF has been reckless and based on false information. The facts, all supported by evidence,
are however that:
- the Player had a valid contract with the Club until 30 June 2027;
- the Player never terminated his contract with the Club unilaterally;
- Swehly never formally contacted the Club to negotiate a transfer of the Player, and once the
Club was aware of Swehly contacting the Player directly to force a transfer to Swehly, the Club
made it very clear that it was no interested in such transfer, and that Swehly should stop
contacting the Player, in violation of art. 18 (3) RSTP;
- only Mr Belkahia, a lawyer that clearly does not act in the interest of the Player but for some
agent, for the LFF and/or for Swehly, decided to terminate the Player’s contract with the Club,
without being mandated hereto; the Player himself never signed or confirmed such termination;
- therefore, it was clear that a unilateral contract termination was simulated by Swehly and Mr
Belkahia in order to force a free transfer of the Player. It’s no coincidence that such termination
letter was sent on 22 September, followed by an ITC request on 23 September, being the last day
of the transfer window in Libya;
- since this alleged termination, the Player nevertheless still attended trainings and matches with
the Club, still received his salary from the Club, and explicitly stated in writing that he hasno
intention at all to leave the Club or to travel to Libya;
- the transfer of the ITC was finalised on 12 October, whilst the transfer window in Libya closed
on 23 September;
Despite all the above, FIFA decided to ignore all these evidenced facts, and to go along with the
fabricated and unsubstantiated story of the LFF, Swehly and Mr Belkahia, which is
incomprehensible and unacceptable.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17291
4. We hereby nevertheless confirm you again, that the Player is in the possession of his passport,
and that if the Player wishes to travel to Libya, he is free to do so. If the Player refuses to do so,
then the Club cannot be held responsible for the Player’s actions and decisions.
In any case, the Club will file a formal claim with the FIFA Football Tribunal against the LFF,
Swehly and the Player for termination of contract without just cause in due course. […]”
44. On 17 October 2024, Swehly Sports Club posted a picture on social media showing the
Player shaking hands with another individual.
45. On 29 October 2024, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee sent the following correspondence
to TP Mazembe:
“[…] In this context, please be informed on behalf of the Chairperson of the Disciplinary
Committee that we reject any notion of wronging and confirm that the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee as well as its Secretariat conducted the investigation properly and in accordance
with usual standard and practice.
By way of background, we note that on 9 September 2024, the Club filed a complaint before the
Football Tribunal against Al Ittihad claiming a breach of art. 18 par. 3 of the FIFA Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The Club now claims that FIFA did not respond to said
complaint. However, we wish to draw your attention to the fact that on 12 September 2024, the
Football Tribunal duly communicated to the Club via the FIFA Legal Portal the closure of the
case, noting that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that any claim against
Al Ittihad for inducing the player to terminate the contract without just cause was premature as
no termination had yet taken place.
We further note that on 22 September 2024, Mr Lamjed Belkahia, who has submitted to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee a power of attorney to represent the Player, sent a letter to the Club
unilaterally terminating the employment contract on the basis of art. 14 par. 2 RSTP. The
following day, on 23 September 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with Swehly
Club of the Libyan Football Federation (LFF), which proceeded to request the Player’s
International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
On 12 October 2024, following standard procedure and since no objection was properly raised
by the Congolese Football Association, the ITC was automatically delivered to the LFF.
In parallel to the abovementioned events, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee received a complaint
from Mr Belkahia on 29 September 2024 that the Player’s passport had been withheld by the
Club. Accordingly, an investigation – also following standard procedure – was initiated by the
FIFA Disciplinary Committee. The Club was urged to return the Player’s passport or, if it was not
in possession thereof, to provide with a statement in relation to the allegations raised by Mr.
Belkahia. Following the Club’s response, this investigation was initially closed on 27 September
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-17291
2024. However, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee reserved its right to reopen the investigation
should new facts or evidence be brought to light in relation to the matter.
After further facts and evidence was brought to light by Mr Belkahia, the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee decided to reopen the investigation on 2 October 2024. It exchanged several
communications with the Club seeking confirmation and proof that the Player was in possession
of his passport and urging the Club to return his passport if it was not already in his possession.
After analyzing the evidence submitted by the Club, Mr Belkahia and other sources, the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee reached the conclusion on 11 October 2024 that the Player was not in
possession of his passport and, accordingly, instructed the Club to return it to him. It repeated
this request on 14 October 2024 after the FIFA Disciplinary Committee came to know that the
Player’s ITC was transferred to the LFF.
The Club now complains that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee ‘considered the Club to be guilty
from the outset of the investigations’. However, the fact of the matter is that the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee took the necessary and usual steps as per the standard practice to conduct its
investigation and considered all arguments and evidence provided by the Club, as well as from
other sources, in reaching its conclusion that the Player was not in possession of his passport.
The FIFA Disciplinary Committee remained fully independent and impartial during the
investigation and simply relied on the evidence before it in assessing the matter.
Furthermore, all time limits set by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for the Club to provide it with
evidence that the Player was in possession of his passport were in full compliance with the FIFA
Disciplinary Code (FDC). Due to the urgency of the matter, the deadlines were appropriately set
for 24 to 48 hours, as per standard practice in cases dealing with the release of a passport. As
for the complaint that one of the deadlines fell on a Saturday, we refer you to art. 38 FDC, which
states that when a deadline expires on a weekend day that it is carried forward to the next
working day. In accordance with said provision, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee allowed the
Club to submit its response 14 October 2024.
The FIFA Disciplinary Committee firmly rejects the accusation that it was “complicit in the Player’s
organized escape”. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee simply investigated whether the Player was
in possession of his passport and, after concluding, based on the evidence before it, that that
Player was not in possession thereof, urged the Club to return it to him, as he is the rightful
owner and entitled to be in possession thereof.
The FIFA Disciplinary Committee also rejects the claim that it has caused the Club damage from
said alleged ‘complicity’. Beyond the fact that, as just mentioned, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
independently and impartially investigated the matter, any question as to potential damages
arising from said alleged breach was beyond the scope of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee and
cannot be attributed to it. In matters of this kind, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s task is simply
to ensure that the player is in possession of his passport and, if he is not in possession thereof
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-17291
due to the club’s confiscation, to determine whether disciplinary action should be taken against
the club.
Finally, with regard to your complaint that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee has not opened an
investigation against Al Ittihad, we wish to draw your attention to the fact that even though you
are entitled, pursuant to art. 55, par. 2 FDC, to file a complaint with regard to a conduct
considered incompatible with the FDC and/or any other provisions of FIFA, it does not follow that
you become a party to the proceedings (if any). The FIFA Disciplinary Committee retains full and
sole discretion to assess the matter and determine whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Notwithstanding, for the sake of transparency and as an exception to the aforementioned, we
wish to inform you that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided not to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against Al Ittihad because at the time of your complaint no breach of contract had
occurred and, moreover, the Player ultimately did not join Al Ittihad.
For the sake of completeness, please be informed that the proceedings with the captioned
reference are closed. Nonetheless, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee reserves the right to re-open
it at any time, as appropriate, as well as to initiate (new) disciplinary proceedings against the
Club for potential breach of the FDC. […]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
46. On 29 November 2024, TP Mazembe filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of TP Mazembe
47. In its claim, TP Mazembe argued that it was forced by the Player to accept his transfer to
another club, without success, and that the Player subsequently terminated the Second
Contract without just cause. In this respect, TP Mazembe referred to the Letter of
Acknowledgement signed by the Player and the fact that the latter performed his
obligations under the Second Contract until 15 October 2024, which demonstrates the
absence of just cause for terminating the employment relationship.
48. In this context, TP Mazembe argued that it is entitled to compensation of USD 6,127,000
for the termination of the employment relationship with the Player. In this respect, TP
Mazembe stated that (i) the residual value of the Second Contract amounts to USD 170,000;
(ii) it would not have accepted an offer of less than USD 5,000,000 to dispense with the
Player’s services, as demonstrated by the rejection of the Offer; (iii) it lost the services of
the Player, i.e., an undisputed starter in its team and registered in the CAF Champions
League, which caused it damages of USD 400,000; and (iv) the termination of the Second
Contract occurred during the protected period, thus the compensation must be increased
by 10%.
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-17291
49. In addition, TP Mazembe argued that Swehly Sports Club and Alittihad Tripoli SC must be
subject to sporting sanctions and held jointly liable for the compensation for the
termination of the Second Contract. In this respect, TP Mazembe argued, based on the
sequence of events in the present matter, that Swehly Sports Club and Alittihad Tripoli SC
breached art. 5bis and art. 18 par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) and induced the Player to terminate the Second Contract.
50. Lastly, TP Mazembe stated that the Player must be subject to sporting sanctions given that
he terminated the Second Contract without just cause during the protected period.
51. In view of the above considerations, TP Mazembe’s requests for relief were the following:
“- Declare the claim admissible and well-founded;
- Order Swehly Club to provide, in the context of these proceedings, a copy of the contract signed
by the Player and Swehly Club;
- Declare that the Player's Contract with the Claimant was terminated without just cause, at the
instigation of Swehly Club and Alittihad;
- Award compensation to the Claimant in the amount of USD 6,127,000 for this termination of
the Player's Contract without just cause and declare the Defendants jointly and severally liable
for the payment of this compensation;
- Sanction the Player with a suspension from official matches for a period of four months and
sanction Swehly Club and Alittihad with a ban on registering new players for two full and
consecutive registration periods, based on Art. 17 RSTP;
- Impose appropriate sporting and disciplinary sanctions on the Player, Swehly Club and
Alittihad for violating Art. 18.3 RSTP;
- Impose appropriate sporting and disciplinary sanctions on the Player, Swehly Club and
Alittihad for implementing a transfer-on in violation of Art. 5bis RSTP;
- Order the Respondents to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.”
(Freely translated from French)
b. Additional comments from TP Mazembe
52. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations and the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), on 14 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited TP Mazembe to
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-17291
amend its position, should it wish to do so, exclusively in relation to the possible
consequences of the application of the interim regulatory framework to this case.
53. In reply thereto, TP Mazembe reiterated its initial position, noting that the Player
terminated the Second Contract without just cause and that Swehly Sports Club and
Alittihad Tripoli SC induced him in doing so.
c. Reply and counterclaim of the Player
54. In his reply to TP Mazembe’s claim, the Player argued that he had just cause under art. 14
of the Regulations and art. 121 of the FECOFA’s regulations to terminate his employment
relationship with TP Mazembe. In this respect, the Player stated that TP Mazembe failed to
provide him with a work permit or visa and confiscated his passport from 24 January 2020
until 16 October 2024. According to the Player, it was under these circumstances of duress
that he signed the Letter of Acknowledgement, and it must therefore be considered null
and void.
55. For the sake of completeness, the Player argued that he was prevented from leaving Congo
DR without an authorisation from TP Mazembe. In support of his position, the Player
referred to (i) an incident at the airport on 26 September 2024; (ii) the validity of his tourist
visa dated 14 July 2024, which was limited to seven days; and (iii) the validity of his travel
visa dated 29 July 2024, which was limited to six months and prevented him to work in
Congo DR.
56. In addition, the Player argued that the Second Contract should be considered null and void
as it was signed without his consent or that of his representative and was never registered
with the FECOFA. In fact, the Player stated that TP Mazembe unilaterally extended the
Contract to prevent his transfer to Alittihad Tripoli SC, which he alleged to be consistent
with the wording of art. 1.2 of the Second Contract. In this regard, the Player stated that he
became aware of the Second Contract when TP Mazembe publicly announced its signing
on its website on 14 October 2024, which coincided with the receipt of the Offer from
Alittihad Tripoli SC.
57. Having stated the above, the Player lodged a counterclaim against TP Mazembe and his
requests for relief were the following:
“1. DECLARE TP Mazembe's claim inadmissible due to lack of valid contractual basis, lack of
evidence, lack of consent, and use of documents obtained under duress;
2. FIND that the initial contract of February 1, 2020, expired legally on January 31, 2025, in
accordance with Article 18(2) RSTP, any excess duration being null and void;
3. DECLARE the so-called ‘Contract 2’ dated March 13, 2024, null and void and unenforceable,
due to:
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-17291
•
•
•
a total lack of free and informed consent;
a non-existent registration;
fraudulent use for subsequent defensive purposes;
4. DECLARE inadmissible all the documents invoked by TP Mazembe, in particular Exhibits 10,
15, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, for having been:
• produced after the termination of the contract;
• obtained under physical or psychological coercion;
• signed without advice, without freedom, without translation, and in violation of the
player's fundamental rights;
5. RECOGNIZE that Mr. Fily Traoré validly terminated the contract on September 22, 2024, for
just cause, on the basis of:
• the absence of a work permit;
• the prolonged and abusive retention of his passport;
• the impossibility of leaving Congolese territory to join his new club;
• the concealment of the contract and the threats suffered;
6. REJECT IN THEIR ENTIRETY the claims for damages or compensation made by TP Mazembe, in
the absence of wrongful termination, a protected period, or proven prejudice;
7. DISMISS any claim against Al-Swehly SC, a third-party club that signed in good faith, outside
of any protected period, without inducement, prior contact, or coordination with any third party.
PLAYER'S COUNTERCLAIMS
1. RULES that the player's counterclaim is accepted
2. ORDER TP Mazembe to pay the player damages for the moral and psychological harm
suffered as a result of:
• the illegal retention of his passport between September 22 and October 15, 2024;
• the physical prevention of travel despite a valid consular document;
• forced isolation at the home of the club president;
• psychological pressure and fraudulent recordings;
3. SET the amount of this moral damage at fifty thousand US dollars (USD 50,000), or any other
amount that the Chamber deems appropriate, as compensation for:
• the violation of the right to freedom of movement (Art. 14(2) RSTP);
• the violation of the player's dignity, integrity, and professional reputation;
• the circumstances of ‘de facto detention,’ as recognized by foreign diplomatic
authorities, including the Libyan and Malian interventions and the findings of FIFA.
III. SUBSIDIARY CLAIMS (EX ABUNDANTI CAUTELA)
1. If, hypothetically, the Chamber does not recognize the existence of just cause (which the
Defendant formally contests);
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-17291
STRICTLY LIMIT any compensation to an amount of USD 29,467, representing:
USD 12,800 in residual salary (until January 31, 2025);
USD 16,667 in unamortized transfer fees (subject to verification in the TMS)
2. DISMISS any claim for compensation based on the speculative offer from Al-Ittihad SC (USD
1,000,000), as this offer:
• was made after TP Mazembe was banned from registering players;
• was not acted upon or negotiated;
• was used solely as a strategic lever to block a transfer;
3. REJECT any increase for the protected period, as this expired on January 31, 2023, and no
valid extension has been registered since;
4. REJECT any argument based on a ‘bridge transfer’ with Al-Ittihad SC, in the absence of any
factual or legal evidence of collusion between clubs, in accordance with FIFA Circular No. 1917
and Article 5bis of the RSTP.
5. ORDER TP Mazembe to bear all costs of the proceedings, attorneys' fees, and expenses, in
accordance with the principle of the unsuccessful party paying the costs (Art. 25 of the
Procredural Rules), for:
• abusive use of inadmissible evidence;
• filing a legally unfounded complaint;
• instrumentalization of the disciplinary process for strategic and dilatory purposes.”
(Freely translated from French)
d. Reply of Swehly Sports Club
58. In its reply to TP Mazembe’s claim, Swehly Sports Club argued that the Second Contract
was procedurally unenforceable and null and void under Congolese law for lack of consent
of the Player and homologation to the FECOFA, as stipulated in art. 3 and 9 of the Arrêté
ministériel n°045/MJSCA/CAB/MIN/01/2012. Accordingly, Swehly Sports Club claimed that the
Player in fact terminated the Contract rather than the Second Contract.
59. In any event, Swehly Sports Club argued that FIFA’s Football Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present matter in view of the wording of the Second Contract. In fact, Swehly
Sports Club stated that art. 11 of the Second Contract establishes the exclusive jurisdiction
of Congolese national courts for any dispute arising out of the employment relationship
between TP Mazembe and the Player.
60. Alternitavely, Swehly Sports Club argued that it did not breach the Regulations in any way,
for example by participating in a bridge transfer, nor did it induce the Player to terminate
his employment relationship with TP Mazembe. In this respect, Swehly Sports Club stated
that it only initiated an employment relationship with the Player on 23 September 2024,
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-17291
i.e., after the Player’s lawful termination of his employment relationship with TP Mazembe.
Regarding the foregoing, Swehly Sports Club emphasized that TP Mazembe exploited and
coerced the Player, in particular by confiscating his passport, which placed him in a
condition of legal vulnerability. Therefore, Swehly Sports Club alleged that the Player had
just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations to terminate his employment relationship with
TP Mazembe.
61. Having stated the above, Swehly Sports Club’s requests for relief were the following
(quoted verbatim):
“1. Declare the claim inadmissible under Article 18 of the FIFA Procedural Rules;
2. Recognize that Contract 1 exceeded the five-year limit under Article 18(2) RSTP and that
Contract 2 is void ab initio;
3. Declare Exhibits 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 15, 10, and all post-termination documents inadmissible;
4. Confirm that the Player lawfully terminated Contract 1 on 22 September 2024 for just cause;
5. Reject all claims for compensation, damages, or other reliefs sought by the Claimant;
6. Reject all allegations of inducement, misconduct, or co-liability under Articles 17(2) or 17(4)
RSTP;
7. Reject all claims related to a so-called bridge transfer or relais mechanism under Article 5bis
RSTP;
8. Declare the Tribunal without jurisdiction over any claim predicated upon Contract 2 or other
documents to which the player is not a party;
9. Order TP Mazembe to bear all procedural costs, legal fees, and expenses arising from this
arbitration.
Subsidiary,
or In the alternative, and without prejudice to its primary position that the Player, Mr. Fily Traoré,
terminated his contract with TP Mazembe on 22 September 2024 for just cause, the Respondent
respectfully submits the following:
If the Tribunal concludes that the Player terminated his contract without just cause:
- compensation should be strictly limited to a Total compensation cap of USD 29,467 (USD
12,800 as Residual salary for 4.3 months @ USD 3,000): and USD 16,667 as Amortized transfer
fee for 4 months remaining.
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-17291
Reject TP Mazembe’s compensation demand of USD 6,127,000 as excessive, speculative, and
unsupported by evidence or applicable legal valuation standards under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP.
Order TP Mazembe to bear all procedural costs, arbitration fees, and administrative expenses
incurred in these proceedings pursuant to Article 25 of the FIFA Procedural Rules.
Additionally, order TP Mazembe to reimburse Al-Swehly SC for its reasonable legal fees and
related costs, including expert fees, translation expenses, and document filing charges, due to
the procedural abuse, exaggeration of claims, and reliance on inadmissible evidence.
Accordingly, the Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to reject all of the Claimant’s
demands in their entirety, and to confirm that no sporting sanctions, no bridge transfer
violation, and no co-liability may be imposed on Al-Swehly SC in the absence of inducement.
Should the Tribunal nonetheless find that the Player lacked just cause, which is not the case, any
financial liability must be strictly limited to demonstrable residual obligations, with no
automatic imputation of joint liability to the Respondent under the 2025 FIFA RSTP.”
e. Reply of Alittihad Tripoli SC
62. In its reply to TP Mazembe’s claim, Alittihad Tripoli SC argued that it did not breach the
Regulations as it engaged in official and lawful negotiations with TP Mazembe in order to
acquire the services of the Player, to no avail. In this respect, Alittihad Tripoli SC argued
that it acted in good faith in seeking to settle its debt to TP Mazembe as part of the
acquisition of the Player’s services, that it was not involved in a bridge transfer of the Player,
and that it did not in any way induce the Player to terminate the his employment
relationship with TP Mazembe.
63. For the sake of completeness, Alittihad Tripoli SC stated that TP Mazembe never rejected
the Offer, but simply imposed a condition that no agreement regarding the transfer of the
Player would be concluded until its debt was paid. In other words, Alittihad Tripoli SC
alleged that TP Mazembe remained actively engaged in negotiations for the transfer of the
Player, notably by providing its bank account details after 16 August 2024.
64. In continuation, Alittihad Tripoli SC argued that it interpreted TP Mazembe’s silence
regarding its final offer dated 25 August 2024 for the transfer of the Player as a refusal and
changed its recruitment strategy accordingly. In support of its position, Alittihad Tripoli SC
stated that it never signed an employment contract with the Player.
65. In view of the above considerations, Alittihad Tripoli SC’s requests for relief were the
following:
“1. That the DRC declare Al-lttihad SC improperly joined to these proceedings, as the club is
neither a party to any contract with the player nor involved in any formal registration process
pg. 35
REF. FPSD-17291
concerning Mr. Fily Traore. Consequently, the DRC should exclude Al-lttihad SC from the present
arbitration and remove it from the list of respondents.
2. That all claims raised by the Claimant, TP Mazembe, against Al-lttihad SC be dismissed in full
for:
o Lack of jurisdiction,
o Absence of any signed employment agreement between the player and Al-lttihad,
o No transfer registration initiated or finalized,
o No evidence of inducement, circumvention, or bridge transfer as alleged under
Articles 17(4), 18(3), or 5bis of the FIFA RSTP.
3. That the Chamber confirm that Al-lttihad SC acted transparently, communicated exclusively
through TP Mazembe, and formally ceased its interest in the player by 26 August 2024-well
before the player's independent termination on 22 September 2024 or his subsequent
registration with any third party.
4. That the Chamber reject any request to impose:
Disciplinary or sporting sanctions against Al-lttihad SC,
Joint liability for compensation,
Transfer bans or registration suspensions.
5. That the costs of the proceedings be borne entirety by the Claimant, given the lack of
foundation for including Al-lttihad SC in the claim and the mischaracterization of its role.
6. That any further relief the Chamber may find appropriate be granted to ensure the complete
release of Al-lttihad SC from these proceedings and the protection of its legal and sporting
integrity.”
f. TP Mazembe’s reply to the Player’s counterclaim
66. In its reply to the Player’s counterclaim, TP Mazembe argued the validity of the Second
Contract, emphasizing that the Player freely agreed to its terms, which increased his salary,
and to its conclusion on 13 March 2024. In this respect, TP Mazembe referred to an
interview given by the Player to a local media on 15 August 2024, in which he confirmed
the extension of his employment relationship with TP Mazembe until 30 June 2027, and
indicated that negotiations were underway well before the 2024 Summer Olympics. TP
Mazembe also argued that the registration of the Second Contract in the TMS was not a
condition for its validity.
67. With respect to the Player’s assertion that TP Mazembe unilaterally extended the Contract
to prevent his transfer to Alittihad Tripoli SC, TP Mazembe argued that it was illogical, as
the Contract's validity until 31 May 2025 would have been sufficient to achieve the same
purported objective.
pg. 36
REF. FPSD-17291
68. In continuation, TP Mazembe highlighted various contradictions in the Player’s behavior
and statements. In particular, TP Mazembe pointed out that five days after his
correspondence dated 7 September 2024 addressed to TP Mazembe, in which he alleged
that his passport was confiscated by TP Mazembe, the Player posted a picture on social
media in which he appears to be in possession of a passport. Lastly, TP Mazembe stated
that the Player acknowledged in the Termination Notice that he signed the Second
Contract, but that TP Mazembe did not.
69. Having stated the above, TP Mazembe reiterated its requests for relief, namely that the
Player terminated the Second Contract without just cause during its protected period and
must therefore be subject to sporting sanctions and be held liable for the payment of USD
6,127,000 as compensation, alongside Swehly Sports Club and Alittihad Tripoli SC.
70. In this context, TP Mazembe’s requests for relief were the following:
“Declare TP Mazembe's complaint admissible and well-founded and, consequently:
- Order Swehly Club to provide, in the context of these proceedings, a copy of the contract signed
by the Player and Swehly Club;
- Declare that the New Employment Contract was terminated without just cause by the Player,
at the instigation of Swehly Club and Alittihad;
- Order the Player to pay TP Mazembe:
o Primarily: the sum of USD 6,127,000 plus annual interest of 5% from September 22, 2024, as
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the termination of the New Employment
Contract without just cause;
o Alternatively: the sum of $5,415,000 plus annual interest of 5% from September 22, 2024, as
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the termination of the first employment
contract without just cause;
- Declare Swehly Club and Alittihad jointly and severally liable for the payment of this
compensation;
- Sanction the Player with a suspension from official matches for a period of four months and
sanction Swehly Club and Alittihad with a ban on registering new players for two full and
consecutive registration periods, based on Article 17 RSTP;
- Impose appropriate sporting and disciplinary sanctions on the Player, Swehly Club, and
Alittihad for violating Article 18.3 RSTP;
pg. 37
REF. FPSD-17291
- Impose appropriate sporting and disciplinary sanctions on the Player, Swehly Club, and
Alittihad for implementing a relay transfer in violation of Article 5bis RSTP; and
- Dismiss the Player's counterclaim as unfounded.”
(Freely translated from French)
g. Other correspondence from the parties
71. On 30 July 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to submit his replica on this
matter by no later than 6 August 2025.
72. On 5 August 2025, the Player requested an extension of the deadline to submit his replica
on this matter.
73. On 6 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat granted the Player an extension of the
deadline until 13 August 2025.
74. On 14 August 2025, and after the deadline granted by the FIFA general secretariat had
already expired, the Player submitted his replica.
75. On 15 August 2025, for the sake of completeness, the FIFA general secretariat invited TP
Mazembe to submit its duplica on this matter by no later than 22 August 2025.
76. On 18 August 2025, TP Mazembe requested an extension of the deadline to submit his
duplica on this matter.
77. On the same day, i.e., 18 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat granted TP Mazembe an
extension of the deadline until 29 August 2025.
78. On 29 August 2025, TP Mazembe submitted its duplica.
79. On 31 August 2025, the Player filed unsolicited correspondence.
80. In response, the FIFA general secretariat reverted to art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules,
in accordance with which submissions and evidence filed outside the relevant time limit
shall be disregarded. Consequently, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties on 9
September 2025 that the aforementioned correspondence from the Player had been
disregarded.
81. On 9 September 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the parties of the closure of the
submission phase.
pg. 38
REF. FPSD-17291
82. On 10 September 2025, i.e., after the closure of the submission phase on 9 September
2025, the Player filed further unsolicited correspondence, which has also been disregarded
in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
83. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 29 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 5 March 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January
2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules
is applicable to the matter at hand.
84. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a club from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a player from
Mali with the involvement of two Libyan clubs.
85. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took note that Swehly Sports Club contested
FIFA’s jurisdiction in view of the wording of the Second Contract. In particular, the Chamber
acknowledged that, according to Swehly Sports Club, art. 11 of the Second Contract
establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of Congolese national courts for any dispute arising
out of the employment relationship between TP Mazembe and the Player. However, the
Chamber noted that the Player, as the direct counterparty to TP Mazembe under the
Second Contract, did not challenge FIFA’s jurisdiction. On the contrary, by submitting a
reply on the merits of TP Mazembe’s claim without raising any jurisdictional objections, the
Chamber considered that the Player tacitly accepted the jurisdiction of FIFA.
86. As a result, the Chamber held that the objection of Swehly Sports Club to the jurisdiction
of FIFA is accessory to the primary dispute, which exists between TP Mazembe and the
Player. In other words, the Chamber considered that any potential liability of Swehly Sports
Club or Alittihad Tripoli is contingent upon the resolution of that primary contractual
dispute and cannot be used to circumvent FIFA’s jurisdiction.
87. With the above in mind, the Chamber decided that the objection of Swehly Sports Club to
the jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected. Accordingly, the
Chamber decided that it is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
to consider the present matter as to the substance.
pg. 39
REF. FPSD-17291
88. In continuation, the Chamber pointed out that the Player’s replica was uploaded to the FIFA
Legal Portal on 14 August 2025, while the deadline was set on 13 August 2025. In this
respect, the Chamber took note of the assertion of the Player’s legal representative,
according to which 13 August 2025 was a non-working day in Tunisia.
89. In this context, the Chamber recalled the following art. 11 par. 3 and 4 of the Procedural
Rules:
“If the last day of a time limit coincides with an official public holiday or a non-working day in
the place of domicile of the party required to comply, the time limit will expire at the end of the
next working day.
A time limit is deemed to have been complied with if the action required or requested has been
completed by latest the last day of the time limit at the location of the party’s domicile or, if the
party is represented, of the domicile of its main legal representative. Submissions and evidence
filed outside the relevant time limit shall be disregarded.”
90. After a thorough analysis of the evidence on file submitted by the Player in support of his
assertion, the Chamber observed that 13 August 2025 was indeed a non-working day in
Tunisia, but only for individuals employed by the government, local authorities, or public
administrative institutions. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence on file establishing
that the Player’s legal representative falls within the scope of such categories of employees,
the Chamber considered that he has not demonstrated the applicability of this holiday.
91. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Player’s replica was not timely submitted and
must therefore be declared inadmissible. As a result, the Chamber noted that the
procedural basis for a second round of submissions was therefore no longer present and
decided accordingly that TP Mazembe’s duplica is procedurally moot.
92. 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
93. 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. 40
REF. FPSD-17291
c. Merits of the dispute
94. 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
95. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
present matter concerns (i) a claim lodged by a club against a player and two other clubs
for breach of contract; and (ii) a counterclaim brought by the same player against his
former club.
96. In particular, the Chamber first acknowledged that, according to TP Mazembe, the Player
terminated the Second Contract without just cause and Swehly Sports Club and Alittihad
Tripoli SC induced him in doing so.
97. In addition, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, the Second Contract should
be deemed null and void, and he therefore terminated the Contract with just cause in a
context of coercion by TP Mazembe.
98. The Chamber further took note of Swehly Sports Club’s submissions, in which it argued
that the Second Contract is procedurally unenforceable, that the Player terminated the
Contract with just cause, and that it neither engaged in a bridge transfer nor induced the
Player to end his employment relationship with TP Mazembe.
99. With regard to Alittihad Tripoli SC, the Chamber observed that, according to its
submissions, it engaged in official and lawful negotiations with TP Mazembe to sign the
Player, to no avail, and that it neither participated in a bridge transfer nor induced the
Player to terminate his employment relationship with TP Mazembe.
100. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (i) the contractual
basis governing the employment relationship between TP Mazembe and the Player,
particularly whether the Second Contract was null and void; (ii) the circumstances as well
as the justice of the termination of the employment relationship between TP Mazembe and
the Player; and (iii) the consequences thereof.
pg. 41
REF. FPSD-17291
Should the Second Contract be considered null and void?
101. Given the fundamental disagreement between the parties as to whether the Second
Contract allegedly concluded between the Player and TP Mazembe on 13 March 2024 could
be considered as a valid and binding employment contract, the Chamber first noted that
the Player disputed before FIFA having signed the Second Contract and asserted that it was
signed without his consent or that of his representative and was in any event never
registered with the FECOFA.
102. With the above in mind, the Chamber recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be
considered as valid and binding, apart from the proof of consent from the parties, it should
contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the
contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee. In that sense, the actual signature of an
employment contract is not the sole (or even a necessary) element to determine whether
the parties did in fact agree on its terms.
103. After a thorough analysis of the documentation on file and the position of the respective
parties in the present matter, the Chamber considered that all such elements were
included in the Second Contract, except for the Player’s signature, as he claimed that he
never signed it. In other words, the Chamber pointed out that the Second Contract indeed
included all the relevant information at the basis of an employment relationship between
contractual parties. Specifically, the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed between
the parties that the Second Contract provides for the duration of the employment
relationship, the remuneration payable and that the Player is employed as a footballer with
TP Mazembe.
104. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, a party claiming a right based on an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of
proof. On this note, the Chamber held that it was up to TP Mazembe to prove that the
Second Contract based on which it claims compensation for its breach from the Player was
in fact validly executed.
105. Within this framework, the Chamber established the following facts based on the evidence
on file:
•
On 13 March 2024, TP Mazembe and the Player allegedly concluded the Second
Contract, valid as from 1 April 2024 until 30 June 2027.
•
On 14 August 2024, TP Mazembe publicly announced the signing of the Second
Contract on its website.
pg. 42
REF. FPSD-17291
•
On 15 August 2024, the Player reportedly gave an interview given to a local media,
in which he confirmed the extension of his employment relationship with TP
Mazembe until 30 June 2027, and indicated that negotiations were underway well
before the 2024 Summer Olympics.
•
On 29 August 2024, TP Mazembe reminded the Player that he was bound by the
Second Contract, which runs until June 2027.
•
On 7 September 2024, the legal representative of the Player informed TP Mazembe
that the Player never received a signed copy of the Second Contract and that his
signature of the Second Contract was obtained under duress, which rendered the
extension of the Contract null and void.
•
On 9 September 2024, TP Mazembe provided the Player’s legal representative with
a signed copy of the Second Contract and rejected his assertions that it was signed
under duress, pointing out that his salary increased compared to the Contract.
•
On 23 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative unilaterally terminated the
Player’s employment relationship with TP Mazembe, asserting that the extension of
the Contract through the Second Contract was invalid due to a lack of mutual
consent, as it was handled solely with the Player’s signature and without any
reciprocal commitment from TP Mazembe at that time.
•
On 26 September 2024, the Player signed the Letter of Acknowledgement, in which
he acknowledged being bound by the Second Contract with TP Mazembe.
•
On 8 October 2024, the Player’s legal representative informed TP Mazembe that it
coerced the Player into signing the Second Contract on 13 March 2024 and that any
document signed by the Player after 22 September 2024 without his consultation
was invalid and unenforceable.
106. In light of the foregoing facts, and irrespective of the Player’s assertion before FIFA that he
did not sign the Second Contract and that it was concluded without his or his
representative’s consent, it appeared to the Chamber that the evidence on file indicates
that the Player did sign the Second Contract and subsequently claimed to have signed it
under duress. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player has taken a
contradictory position before FIFA compared to his earlier correspondence to TP Mazembe,
in which he expressly acknowledged having signed the Second Contract under duress.
107. In addition, the Chamber pointed out that, although the Player asserted before FIFA that
he signed the Letter of Acknowledgement under duress, TP Mazembe submitted evidence
including pictures of the Player signing the document and affixing his fingerprint. In this
regard, the majority of the Chamber considered that the Player could not prove that he
was subjected to coercion at the time of signing the Letter of Acknowledgement.
pg. 43
REF. FPSD-17291
108. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that, as analysed by the Football Tribunal
and confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on several occasions, any claim
of duress needs to be proven, and a signed contract is binding upon the parties unless
there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the Chamber evaluated the
evidence submitted by the Player in support of his argumentation of duress and, the
majority of the members, considered that he failed to meet his burden of proof in
accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
109. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to the Football Tribunal’s longstanding
jurisprudence according to which a party signing a document of legal significance,
generally, does so on its own responsibility and is so liable to bear the legal consequences
of it.
110. As a result, the Chamber recalled the wording of the Letter of Acknowledgement, which
notably expressed the Player’s acknowledgement that he was bound by the Second
Contract with TP Mazembe. Therefore, in the absence of further evidence filed by the Player
to support his argumentation of duress, the same majority of the Chamber concluded the
Second Contract and the Letter of Acknowledgement are valid and shall be considered in
the case at stake as the contractual basis of the dispute.
111. As this decision was already adopted by the majority, all subsequent considerations
were likewise determined by the majority. For ease of reading, any reference to the
Chamber shall be understood as referring to the findings of the prevailing majority
of the DRC.
When was the Second Contract terminated?
112. As a preliminary consideration, the Chamber held that the Letter of Acknowledgement
dated 26 September 2024 superseded the Termination Notice of 23 September 2024, as
its content was clear, unequivocal, and expressly confirmed the continuation of the
employment relationship between the Player and TP Mazembe.
113. In the Chamber’s view, the Letter of Acknowledgement prevailed over the Termination
Notice irrespective of the position of the parties and the fact that the Player signed a new
employment contract with Swehly Sports Club on 23 September 2024. In this respect, the
Chamber deemed important to recall the content of the Letter of Acknowledgement, which
notably stated that the Player acknowledged being bound by the Second Contract with TP
Mazembe, that he never instructed his legal representative to terminate the Second
Contract, that he still fulfils his contractual obligations to TP Mazembe and that he has no
intention of signing with a Libyan club. The Chamber further took note of the Player’s
correspondence addressed to the LFF on 8 October 2024, in which he confirmed that he
played his last match with TP Mazembe on 5 October 2024.
pg. 44
REF. FPSD-17291
114. In this context, and in the absence of any clear and unequivocal notification from either
the Player or TP Mazembe unilaterally terminating their employment relationship after the
Letter of Acknowledgement dated 26 September 2024, the Chamber decided that the
Player effectively terminated the Second Contract on 12 October 2024, i.e., the date of his
official registration with Swehly Sports Club.
115. For the sake of completeness of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled that, on 12 October
2024, the Player had already expressed his intention to terminate the Second Contract
through the Termination Notice. In other words, the Chamber underlined that although
the Termination Notice was subsequently "revoked" through the Letter of
Acknowledgment and the Player’s participation in an official match of TP Mazembe, the
Player’s intention to terminate the Second Contract was ultimately and definitively
confirmed when he became definitively registered with Swehly Sports Club. In particular,
the Chamber considered that, as of that moment, the Player was officially bound to a
different club and was therefore no longer in a position to render his services to TP
Mazembe.
Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Second Contract?
116. In this regard, the Chamber first recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity
justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when
there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of
the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated
prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an
employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures
must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an
employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure.
117. In addition, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Regulations, in general, just cause
to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can
no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship
(cf., art. 14 of the Regulations). The foregoing is in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the CAS.
118. In continuation, the Chamber deemed important to highlight that contractual stability is
the backbone of the entire football season, and employers and employees in the football
world are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship
without a valid reason. In this regard, the early termination of an employment contract
without just cause has consequences – both financial and sporting. The rules allow for the
parties to modulate the effects of such a premature termination, but the jurisprudence
also sets certain boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty
and the legitimate expectation of the contractual stability.
pg. 45
REF. FPSD-17291
119. With the above principles in mind, and based on the evidence on file, the majority of the
Chamber decided that the Player terminated the Second Contract without just cause on 12
October 2024, i.e., the date of his official registration with Swehly Sports Club.
120. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the following facts:
•
On 14 August 2024, TP Mazembe received the Offer from Alittihad Tripoli SC to
acquire the services of the Player on a definitive transfer basis.
•
On 16 August 2024, TP Mazembe informed Alittihad Tripoli SC that there would be
no negotiations regarding the Offer as long as its debt remains unpaid.
•
On 25 August 2024, the Player signed the Purported Transfer Agreement for his
transfer from TP Mazembe to Alittihad Tripoli SC.
•
On 26 August 2024, the agent of the Player sent the following correspondence to TP
Mazembe:
“Please find attached the agreement signed by my player Fily Traore for Al-Ittihad Club.”
(Freely translated from French)
•
On 29 August 2024, TP Mazembe informed the Player that the Second Contract
remains valid until 30 June 2027, that his transfer discussions with Alittihad Tripoli
SC were unauthorized and must cease immediately, failing which this could result
in a breach of the Second Contract with potential financial and sporting sanctions.
•
On 7 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative requested for the first time
that TP Mazembe returns the Player’s passport, which was allegedly being retained
unlawfully.
•
On 9 September 2024, TP Mazembe informed the Player’s legal representative that
the Player voluntarily handed over his passport, like his teammates, for
administrative arrangements related to the upcoming trip to Zambia, and that his
passport would be returned once those travel formalities are completed.
•
On 12 September 2024, the Player posted a picture on social media in which he
appears to be in possession of a passport.
•
On 16 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative rejected TP Mazembe’s
assertions and notably accused it of repeatedly and unlawfully retaining the Player’s
passport without justification, as well as failing to secure a valid visa and work
permit for the Player, thereby violating his freedom of movement. In addition, the
pg. 46
REF. FPSD-17291
Player’s legal representative granted TP Mazembe 48 hours to return the Player’s
passport and regularize his documentation, failing which would lead to an
immediate termination of their employment relationship with just cause.
•
On 18 September 2024, TP Mazembe reiterated that the Player voluntarily provided
his passport for team-travel procedures, that it was subsequently returned to him,
and that there is no evidence of any illegal retention of his passport or failure to
provide him with a valid visa and work permit. Further, TP Mazembe accused the
Player’s legal representative of issuing unfounded default notices to pressure it into
approving a transfer or facilitating a termination of the Second Contract, which it
maintained that it remains valid until 30 June 2027.
•
On the same day, i.e., 18 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative rejected
TP Mazembe’s explanations and reiterated the content of his latest
correspondence, noting that TP Mazembe unlawfully and systematically retained
the Player’s passport since 2020. In addition, the Player’s legal representative
accused TP Mazembe of restricting the Player’s transfer opportunities.
•
On 23 September 2024, the Player’s legal representative unilaterally terminated the
Player’s employment relationship with TP Mazembe.
•
On the same day, i.e., 23 September 2024, the Player signed an employment
contract with Swehly Sports Club.
•
Also on 23 September 2024, Swehly Sports Club initiated a transfer instruction (cf.,
Transfer ID: 932505) in TMS in order to engage the Player permanently and
uploaded a copy of the Termination Notice as proof.
•
Still on the same day, i.e., 23 September 2024, the LFF requested the Player’s ITC,
listing TP Mazembe as the Player’s former club.
•
On 26 September 2024, the Player signed the Letter of Acknowledgement in which
he stated (i) that he acknowledged being under the Second Contract with TP
Mazembe; (ii) that he never instructed his legal representative to terminate the
Second Contract; (iii) that he still fulfils his contractual obligations to TP Mazembe;
(iv) that he has no intention of signing with a Libyan club; and (v) that his passport
was never confiscated by TP Mazembe but was voluntarily made available and used
for travel-related arrangements.
•
On 27 September 2024, TM Mazembe provided the Player’s legal representative
with the Letter of Acknowledgement and informed him that he terminated the
Second Contract without authorization by means of his correspondence dated 23
September 2024.
pg. 47
REF. FPSD-17291
•
On 8 October 2024, the Player’s legal representative informed TP Mazembe that the
Player was fully aware of and agreed to the termination of their employment
relationship on 23 September 2024, and that any document signed by the Player
after 22 September 2024 without his consultation is invalid and unenforceable.
•
On 12 October 2024, the LFF confirmed the Player’s transfer from TP Mazembe to
Swehly Sports Club in the TMS, and that the Player was officially registered with
Swehly Sports Club.
121. Firstly, the Chamber stressed that the sequence of events and the evidence on file in the
present matter strongly suggest that the Player was persistently attempting to leave TP
Mazembe. In this regard, the Chamber underlined that the Player’s signature of the
Purported Transfer Agreement on 25 August 2024 for his transfer to Alittihad Tripoli SC,
particularly given TP Mazembe’s explicit refusal to negotiate the Offer, unequivocally
demonstrated his lack of interest in continuing to fulfil his obligations under the Second
Contract.
122. In addition, the Chamber noted that, on 26 August 2024, the Player’s agent clearly
communicated to TP Mazembe the Player’s intent to depart from the Second Contract and
join Alittihad Tripoli SC, prompting TP Mazembe to put the Player in default on 29 August
2024. In other words, the Chamber considered, in light of the content of TP Mazembe’s
default notice to the Player, that his subsequent behaviour must be regarded as a
continuation of a known and deliberate breach of the Second Contract.
123. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the unsuccessful negotiations between TP
Mazembe and Alittihad Tripoli SC through the Offer and the Purported Transfer Agreement
were immediately followed by an allegation from the Player’s legal representative that TP
Mazembe was unlawfully retaining the Player’s passport. Although the Chamber
acknowledged the severity of the Player’s accusation, it noted that his employment
relationship with TP Mazembe began in 2020 and that the evidence on file demonstrated
that he never raised concerns about the alleged retention of his passport prior to 7
September 2024, but only after his transfer to Alittihad Tripoli SC fell through. In fact, the
Chamber found it essential that the Player’s sudden passport-related accusations coincide
with and could reasonably support TP Mazembe’s position that they were ultimately linked
to, or a reaction of, his failed transfer attempts. In this respect, the Chamber also took
consideration TP Mazembe’s prompt reaction to refute the Player’s accusations with
consistent and valid explanations, which were subsequently confirmed by the Player
himself in the Letter of Acknowledgement.
124. Secondly, the Chamber underlined that, in any event, the Player failed to discharge his
burden of proof regarding his assertion that TP Mazembe unlawfully retained his passport,
allegedly justifying the termination of the Second Contract with just cause. In this respect,
the Chamber pointed out the lack of evidence on file to support the Player’s position, as
well as substantial inconsistencies in his behaviour.
pg. 48
REF. FPSD-17291
125. Indeed, the Chamber noted that, on 7 September 2024, the Player alleged that his passport
had been confiscated by TP Mazembe. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that, on 12
September 2024, the Player posted a picture on social media in which he appeared to be
in possession of a passport, contradicting his earlier claim. The Chamber also pointed out
that, on 26 September 2024, the Player admitted in the Letter of Acknowledgement that
his passport had never been confiscated by TP Mazembe but had instead been voluntarily
made available to TP Mazembe for travel-related arrangements.
126. The Chamber further observed that, in his correspondence dated 16 November 2024, the
Player alleged that his passport had been simultaneously withheld for a period exceeding
two months by TP Mazembe and, at the same time, retained by the customs authorities of
the Democratic Republic of Congo due to the expiry of his visa.
127. In the Chamber’s view, the aforementioned statements from the Player stand in direct
contradiction to his submissions before FIFA, where he argued that TP Mazembe failed to
provide him with a work permit or visa, rather than alleging that an existing visa had
expired. In fact, the majority of the Chamber highlighted that these statements are
incompatible with the Player’s claim that TP Mazembe allegedly retained his passport
continuously from 24 January 2020 to 16 October 2024.
128. In light of these inconsistencies, the absence of corroborating evidence, and the inherently
contradictory nature of the Player’s own statements, the Chamber found the Player’s
allegations regarding the retention of his passport highly improbable and incapable of
creating just cause for the termination of the Second Contract. For the avoidance of doubt,
the Chamber emphasized that the conclusions reached by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
regarding the retention of the Player’s passport are of different legal nature and without
prejudice to the adjudication of the present matter by the FIFA Football Tribunal.
129. Thirdly, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player’s signature of a new employment
contract with Swehly Sports Club on 23 September 2024, i.e., on the same day his legal
representative sent the Termination Notice to TP Mazembe, unequivocally demonstrates
the Player’s intention to leave TP Mazembe regardless of his obligations under the Second
Contract.
130. Having stated the above, the Chamber held that the sequence of events on 23 September
2024 rightfully contributed to TP Mazembe’s conclusion that the behaviour of the Player
was objectively incompatible with the continuation of their employment relationship. In
fact, based on the evidence on file, it appeared to the Chamber that TP Mazembe could no
longer reasonably expect the return of the Player, given that (i) on 8 October 2024, the
Player’s legal representative confirmed that the Player was fully aware of and agreed to the
termination of their employment relationship on 23 September 2024; (ii) on the same day,
i.e., 8 October 2024, the Player confirmed that his professional future is linked with Swehly
Sports Club; and (iii) on 12 October 2024, the LFF confirmed the Player’s transfer in the TMS
pg. 49
REF. FPSD-17291
from TP Mazembe to Swehly Sports Club, and that the Player was officially registered with
Swehly Sports Club.
131. For the sake of completeness of its assessment that the Player was persistently attempting
to leave TP Mazembe, the Chamber underlined the substantial disparity between his
remuneration under the Second Contract and the financial terms of his new employment
contract with Swehly Sports Club. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, under the
Second Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 5,000, whereas under
his new employment contract with Swehly Sports Club, he is entitled to an advance
payment of USD 250,000 as well a monthly salary of USD 12,500. In other words, the
Chamber established that, as part of his new employment contract with Swehly Sports
Club, the Player received an immediate payment equivalent to approximately 50 months
of his salary under the Second Contract a 2.5‑fold increase in monthly remuneration.
132. Although the Chamber acknowledged that the aforementioned remuneration differential
is not, in and of itself, determinative of the Player’s intent to leave TP Mazembe, it
considered that in the present context it corroborates his course of conduct and supports
the finding of a premeditated strategy to force an exit from TP Mazembe irrespective of his
obligations under the Second Contract.
133. Given the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that by failing to substantiate the
purported circumstances and allegations to exit from TP Mazembe, the Player seriously
misconducted and destroyed the relationship of trust with TP Mazembe, which rendered
impossible the continuation of the performance of the Second Contract. Put differently,
the Chamber held that the Player repeatedly and for a significant period of time had been
in breach of its contractual obligations towards TP Mazembe, thus the termination of the
Second Contract was not consistent with the principle of ultima ratio.
134. As a result, the Chamber decided that the Player terminated the Second Contract without
just cause on 12 October 2024, and that he is therefore to be held liable for the
consequences of early termination of the Second Contact without just cause.
ii. Consequences
135. Having stated the above, the same majority of the Chamber turned its attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of the Second Contract
committed by the Player.
136. As a preliminary consideration, the Chamber held that its finding that the Player did not
have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Second Contract, necessarily leads to the
conclusion that his counterclaim is rejected. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that
the Player did not request, as part of his counterclaim, any outstanding remuneration
arising from his employment relationship with TP Mazembe. Thus, in accordance with the
pg. 50
REF. FPSD-17291
principle of ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided that the Player is not entitled to receive
his remuneration until the date of termination of the Second Contract on 12 October 2024.
137. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that this matter is governed by the Interim
Regulatory Framework as reflected in the January 2025 edition of the Regulations,
applicable in casu. By way of context, the Chamber underlined that said framework
impacted the following rules:
•
the calculation of compensation payable in the event of a breach of contract by a
player or coach;
•
the burden of proof in relation to joint and several liability for compensation
payable for a breach of contract;
•
the burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract (and the
related sporting sanction against the new club of a player); and
•
the procedure regarding the issuance of an ITC.
138. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, for the present purposes, the relevant
rules are those related to (i) the calculation payable by a player in case of a breach of
contract; (ii) the question of the joint and several liability of the new club; and (iii) the
burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract.
139. Having established the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Player 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. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with the principle of
“positive interest”, the claiming party must be put in the position it would find itself in, had
the breach of the contract not occurred and had the contract been duly performed.
140. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify 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 Second Contract.
141. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Player to TP Mazembe had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set
out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations.
pg. 51
REF. FPSD-17291
142. Bearing in mind the above principles, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the onus is on TP Mazembe to quantify, substantiate and
prove the damage that it allegedly suffered as a result of the breach of the Second Contract.
143. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, according to TP Mazembe, it is entitled to
compensation of USD 6,127,000 for the termination of its employment relationship with
the Player, broken down as follows:
•
USD 170,000 as the residual value of the Second Contract;
•
USD 5,000,000 as the minimum amount it would have accepted to release the
Player from his services;
•
USD 400,000 as damages for losing an undisputed starter in the team, who was
also registered in the CAF Champions League; and
•
USD 557,000, representing a 10% increase applied to the aforementioned
amounts on the basis that the termination of the Second Contract occurred
during the protected period.
144. Regarding TP Mazembe’s claim for the residual value of the Second Contract as
compensation, the Chamber underlined that art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations does not
establish the residual value of an employment contract as the primary or automatic basis
for calculating compensation, but that it may serve as a reference point insofar as it is
supported by evidence of actual harm.
145. In this respect, the Chamber held that an amount corresponding to the amount payable to
a football player for rendering his services under an employment contract, could be – and
in certain specific cases, has been considered – appropriate to establish the damage
suffered by the claimant club. According to the Chamber, it could be considered reasonable
to depart from the fact that, under a fixed-term employment contract both parties (player
and club) have a similar and mutual interest and expectation that the term will be
respected, subject to termination by mutual consent or the existence of just cause.
146. The Chamber also referred to the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means
that agreements must be respected by parties in good faith and is a fundamental principle
of contractual stability and contract law. Indeed, the Chamber noted that when a player
and a club sign an employment contract, both parties are fully entitled to assume that both
parties will comply with their contractual obligations towards each other; if a different
approach was adopted, this could mean disregarding such an essential principle.
147. Within this framework, and in light of TP Mazembe’s specific request for relief, the Chamber
stated that the Player’s remuneration as foreseen in the Second Contract could a priori be
awarded as it constitutes a reliable basis on which to establish the economic value that the
pg. 52
REF. FPSD-17291
Player’s services represented for TP Mazembe. In other words, the Chamber stated that
the Player’s remuneration can be understood as bearing correlation to his value as a
football player, which TP Mazembe lost (and which thus could be alleged to have caused
damage to TP Mazembe) in light of the Player’s breach of the Second Contract.
148. The Chamber then assessed the evidence submitted by TP Mazembe in terms of its
damages suffered and the logical nexus between the Player’s breach of the Second
Contract and said damages. In doing so, the Chamber concluded that it was comfortably
satisfied that TP Mazembe had quantified, substantiated, and proven its damages in this
respect.
149. As a result, the Chamber decided that TP Mazembe is entitled to USD 138,225.81 as
compensation for breach of the Second Contract, corresponding to the Player’s
remuneration from 12 October 2024 until 30 June 2027. In reaching this conclusion, the
Chamber recalled that TP Mazembe undertook to pay the Player a yearly salary of USD
50,000 for each season in 10 monthly instalments, given that the annual leave periods do
not give rise to any remuneration.
•
Pro-rata monthly salary for October 2024: USD 3,225.81
•
Monthly salary from November 2024 to May 2025: USD 35,000
•
Monthly salary from August 2025 to May 2026: USD 50,000
•
Monthly salary from August 2026 to May 2027: USD 50,000
150. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber referred to the information generated by the TMS. In
this regard, the Chamber determined that the sporting seasons in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo runs from 1 August to 31 May each year, and therefore concluded that the
Player was not entitled under the Second Contract to a salary for the months of June and
July 2027.
151. In continuation, the Chamber assessed the evidence on file regarding TP Mazembe’s claim
for USD 5,000,000 as the alleged amount it would have accepted to release the Player from
his services and for USD 400,000 as its alleged damages for losing an undisputed starter in
the team. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the evidence on file does not
sufficiently prove the amount TP Mazembe would have accepted to release the Player from
his services and the damages allegedly suffered as a result of the breach of the Second
Contract. In fact, the Chamber established that TP Mazembe failed to demonstrate a clear
link between the amounts claimed and the loss of the Player’s services.
152. Regarding the Offer of Alittihad Tripoli SC to acquire the services of the Player, the Chamber
was not convinced of its probative value to quantify, substantiate and prove the damage
that TP Mazembe suffered as a result of the breach of the Second Contract. In any event,
pg. 53
REF. FPSD-17291
the Chamber noted that the amount of the Offer was not specifically included in TP
Mazembe’s requests for relief and that TP Mazembe did not provide any evidence
regarding the hire of a new player to replace the Player.
153. Lastly, the Chamber rejected TP Mazembe’s claim for USD 557,000 as a 10% increase of the
compensation for the termination of the Second Contract given that it occurred during the
protected period. In this respect, the Chamber noted that TP Mazembe’s claim lacks
contractual or regulatory basis and, in any event, is not supported by the necessary
documentary evidence.
154. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Player must pay the
amount of USD 138,225.81 to TP Mazembe, which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. Put
differently, the Chamber stated that this amount corresponds to a reliable parameter to
define the damages suffered by TP Mazembe and represented, in its view, the only element
that was sufficiently proven.
155. Taking into consideration TP Mazembe’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award TP Mazembe interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Sporting sanctions
156. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Player in accordance with art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
157. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which establishes, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
158. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 15 June 2001 and that
the Second Contract entered into force on 13 March 2024. In accordance with its finding
that the Player terminated the Second Contract without just cause on 12 October 2024, the
Chamber noted that the breach of contract occurred within the protected period.
pg. 54
REF. FPSD-17291
159. Consequently, again the same the majority of the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art.
17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the Player had to be sanctioned with a restriction of four
months on his eligibility to participate in official matches.
iv. Joint liability
160. The Chamber then referred to art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that a
player’s new club shall be held jointly liable to pay compensation if, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club
induced the player to breach their contract.
161. Similarly, the Chamber took note that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations states that a sporting
sanction shall be imposed on a player’s new club if, having regard to the individual facts
and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club induced the Player
to breach the contract during the protected period.
162. Within this framework, the Chamber turned to the consideration of the designation of “new
club” and the matter of inducement, as both are key for determining any consequences
that may apply to Alittihad Tripoli SC and Swehly Sports Club. In doing so, the Chamber
recalled that the Regulations define the “new club” as the club that the Player is joining and
that p. 205 of the Commentary on the Regulations read as follows:
“[…] Hence, while paragraph 2 relieves the financial and sporting burden on the player on the
one hand, it also helps to prevent the unjust enrichment of the new club, which would otherwise
profit from the breach of contract committed by the player. […]
When determining which club is to be regarded as the player’s new club for these purposes, the
approach has consistently been to identify the club with which the player was first registered
following the breach of contract […]“
163. In the present matter, the Chamber assessed the evidence on file, as well as the
information in the TMS, and noted that the Player never concluded an employment
contract or was registered with Alittihad Tripoli SC, thus only Swehly Sports Club can be
considered as the “new club”.
164. In the same vein, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 5bis par. 2 of the Regulations,
according to which “It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that if two
consecutive transfers, national or international, of the same player occur within a period of 16
weeks, the parties (clubs and player) involved in those two transfers have participated in a bridge
transfer.” Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that no bridge transfer of the Player
occurred in the present matter, as it appears, based on the evidence on file and the
information in the TMS, that the Player never concluded an employment contract or was
registered with Alittihad Tripoli SC.
pg. 55
REF. FPSD-17291
165. In this context, the Chamber turned to the consideration of the matter of inducement, as
it is key for determining any consequences that may apply to Swehly Sports Club. In doing
so, the Chamber highlighted that TP Mazembe had the burden of proof to demonstrate
that Swehly Sports Club induced the Player to breach the Second Contract.
166. With the above principes in mind and considering the individual facts and circumstances
of this case as well as the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that it is not possible to
determine that Swehly Sports Club induced the Player to terminate the Second Contract.
In particular, the Chamber found that, although it is uncontested that the Player signed an
employment contract with Swehly Sports Club on the same day his legal representative
sent the Termination Notice does not, in itself, prove inducement by Swehly Sports Club
for the Player to terminate the Second Contract.
167. In fact, the Chamber emphasized that TP Mazembe failed to satisfy its burden of proof
under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, as it did not submit sufficient evidence to
demonstrate any act of inducement from Swehly Sports Club. Rather, the Chamber
considered that TP Mazembe merely established a temporal connection between the
Player’s signing of his new employment contract with Swehly Sports Club and the
Termination Notice, which, absent further evidence, is not sufficient to meet the threshold
required by the Regulations.
168. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that Swehly Sports Club shall not be held
jointly liable for the payment of the amount of compensation due to TP Mazembe. For the
same reasons, the Chamber held that no sanctions shall be imposed on Swehly Sports
Club.
v. Compliance with monetary decisions
169. 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.
170. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
171. Accordingly, the Chamber established that, in casu, art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations shall
apply, insofar as in case the Player fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application
of a further restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts are paid
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
pg. 56
REF. FPSD-17291
172. In view of the above, the DRC decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of TP Mazembe, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
173. The Player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by TP Mazembe in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
d. Costs
174. 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.
175. 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.
176. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 57
REF. FPSD-17291
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, TP Mazembe.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent 1 / Counterclaimant, Fily Traoré, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent 1 / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amount:
- USD 138,225.81 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
12 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
A restriction of four months of eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the
Respondent 1 / Counterclaimant. This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the date
of notification of the present decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended in
the period between the last official match of the season and the first official match of the
next season, in both cases including national cups and international championships for
clubs.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 58
REF. FPSD-17291
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. 59