Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17489
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Amah Chibundu
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Amah Chibundu, Nigeria
Represented by Amin Yusuf
RESPONDENT:
FC Lubumbashi Sport, Congo DR
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17489
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Nigerian player Amah Chibundu (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
•
The Congolese club FC Lubumbashi Sport (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the Fédération Congolaise de Football-Association (hereinafter: FECOFA).
2.
On 18 September 2023, a visa was issued to the Player by the Congolese Embassy in
Nigeria, valid for entry into Congo DR from 20 September 2023 until 19 October 2023.
3.
On 28 September 2023, the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) was
issued by the Nigerian Football Association (hereinafter: NFA) in favour of the FECOFA.
4.
On 30 September 2023, a flight ticket was issued for the Player to fly from Abuja (Nigeria)
to Kinshasa (Congo DR) on 4 October 2023 and from Kinshasa (Congo DR) to Abuja (Nigeria)
on 19 October 2023.
5.
According to the Player, on an unspecified date, he and the Club entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Alleged Contract) valid from 20 October 2023 until 20
September 2024.
6.
According to the Player, the Club undertook to pay him a monthly salary of USD 800 from
October 2023 to September 2024.
7.
Allegedly, on 27 November 2023, the Player sent a letter to the Club terminating the Alleged
Contract for family reasons. In this letter, the Player argued that he would not be able to
take up the position entrusted to him and was not entitled to claim any benefits. The Player
contested the validity of this letter.
8.
On 22 March 2024, a flight ticket was issued for the Player to fly from Lubumbashi (Congo
DR) to Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) on 23 March 2024, and from Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) to Abuja
(Nigeria) on 24 March 2024.
9.
On 23 March 2024, the Player left Congo DR.
10. On 23 July 2024, the Club issued a release letter to the Player.
11. On 2 August 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club, arguing that he joined the Club on 4
October 2023. The Player stated that the parties signed the Alleged Contract, valid as from
October 2023 until September 2024, and that he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD
800. The Player further contended that the Club retained his copy of the Contract and only
paid him USD 800 for October 2023. Additionally, the Player argued that he had to borrow
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17489
USD 300 to cover medical expenses and incurred USD 3,000 in feeding expenses, while the
Club finally paid him USD 1,000 and gave him a return ticket at the end of the season in
March 2024. Lastly, the Player alleged that the president of the Club promised to send him
the balance of USD 12,000 and USD 20,000 for damages and issued a clearance in July 2024.
The Player granted the Club 15 days to provide him with the Contract and to respond to
his letter, providing confirmation of the recruitment, contract terms and his registration
details.
12. On 16 August 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with the Nigerian club
Nasarawa United (hereinafter: Nasarawa United), valid as from the date of signature until
15 August 2025. The Player was entitled to NGN 400,000 per month.
13. On 22 August 2024, the Player sent a new letter to the Club dated 19 August 2024,
reiterating his requests and warning that, in case the Club failed to reply, he would escalate
his claim to FECOFA and FIFA.
14. On 26 August 2024, a Club representative replied to the Player’s email as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“BHello, you are a little scammer. The player had a trial with us for only 3 months and he
did not pass the test. There has never been an agent, he a free player and everything you
have reported is false. Thank you.”
15. Also on 26 August 2024, the Player replied to the email, arguing that he participated in
league and competitive matches for the Club during six months. The Player alleged that he
joined the Club on 4 October 2023 and was released on 23 March 2024. In this regard, the
Player clarified that the Club requested his ITC, that he received an identity card to be able
to participate in official matches and that he received a release letter. Based on this, the
Player again requested clarification.
16. On 27 August 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s communication, confirming that he had
been affiliated with the Club for a sporting season from 20 October 2023 to 20 September
2024. In addition, the Club pointed out that the Player acknowledged that all expenses
regarding travel, accommodation, food, local transport and medical care had been
complied with. Furthermore, the Club alleged that it did not withhold his contract but was
willing to send him another copy. The Club also stated that the Player acknowledged
receiving USD 1,000 corresponding to his salary for the month of November 2023 and a
return flight ticket, which proves that the Club was diligent. According to the Club, the
Player terminated the Alleged Contract without just cause on 27 November 2023 and,
therefore, it argued that the claim for USD 12,000 was an attempt to enrich himself without
cause.
17. Also on 27 August 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, acknowledging the Club’s
statement that he was affiliated with the Club from 20 October 2023 to 20 September 2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17489
The Player, however, expressed his concern of not receiving a copy of the Alleged Contract
and confirmed that he received USD 1,000 for November 2023 and a return flight ticket.
The Player also requested a copy of the alleged termination notice. Thus, the Player granted
the Club 10 days to clarify the matter.
18. On 31 August 2024, the Player sent a new letter reiterating that the Club had acknowledged
that he was affiliated for one season and supported the existence of an employment
relationship. The Player also argued that the allegation that he signed a termination notice
was false, as he remained with the Club until March 2024. The Player again requested that
the parties reach an amicable solution.
19. On 21 October 2024, the Player sent another letter to the Club stating that he had not yet
been provided with the copy of the Alleged Contract. Furthermore, the Player remarked on
the Club’s contradictory statements based on the communications dated 26 and 27 August
2024. The Player also denied having signed a termination letter and mentioned that the
alleged letter was fabricated. The Player asserted that he was released because the season
ended and again requested a signed copy of the Alleged Contract.
20. On 10 December 2024, the Player sent a letter to FECOFA requesting assistance in obtaining
a copy of the employment contract, as well as a list of official matches he had participated
in.
21. On 13 January 2025, the Player was released from Nasarawa United.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 17 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
23. According to the Player, he arrived on 4 October 2023 in Congo DR to sign a contract with
the Club. The Player asserted that the parties concluded the Alleged Contract, valid from
20 October 2023 until 20 September 2024, under which he was entitled to USD 800 per
month. The Player mentioned that the Club confirmed that the parties had a contract but
failed to provide him with a complete and signed copy of the Alleged Contract.
24. In this respect, the Player alleged that he was granted a visa, played matches for the Club
and was paid USD 800 for October 2023. Furthermore, the Player stated, inter alia, that (i)
he was provided with an identity card, (ii) the Club provided him with plane tickets from
Congo DR to Nigeria after the end of the season and with accommodation, (iii) the Club
obtained his ITC, (iv) conducted a medical test, (v) and issued a release letter on 23 July
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17489
2024. Therefore, the Player argued that there was a valid employment relationship
between the parties.
25. The Player referred to the email exchanges held between the parties and pointed out the
acknowledgement made by the Club on 27 August 2024, stating that the Club not only paid
him USD 1,000 but also issued an official clearance dated 23 July 2024. Moreover, he
referred to several pieces of evidence, such as photos taken during matches for the Club
to demonstrate the employment relationship.
26. In this context, the Player asserted that the Club withheld the Alleged Contract and
fabricated a termination notice with his forged signature, even though he actively
participated in matches for the Club. The Player contended that, in fact, the Club
terminated the Contract on 23 March 2024 after having failed to pay him for over four
months, citing just cause, and provided him with the flight ticket along with a payment of
USD 1,000. Furthermore, the Player stated that he played a match on 4 January 2024 and
that he continued living in the accommodations provided by the Club until March 2024.
Therefore, the Player requested that the alleged letter be disregarded.
27. The Player further argued that the Club’s position - that he had a trial with the Club - lacks
credibility and evidence, as the Player was registered with the Club and an ITC was issued.
28. The Player argued that he is entitled to the salaries from December 2023 until September
2024, totalling USD 8,000, as well as compensation equal to USD 20,000. He also stated that
he offered several opportunities to remedy the situation, to no avail.
29. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“The CLAIMANT respectfully urges the DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER for the following
ORDERS AND ALL PAYMENTS IN USD8000 (AMERICA DOLLARS)
• AN ORDER that the RESPONDENT has unlawfully breached the contract of employment
by failing to provide the player the necessary documents to resume.
• The CLUB be ordered to pay the PLAYER his outstanding salaries for the months of
December 2023, September 2024 total USD 8,000.00 plus 5% interest per annum as from
December 2023 to date of effective payment.
X1. Compensation for any damages suffered due to the breach of agreement (e.g., loss
of potential earnings if the lack of payments affected his ability to sign with another
club).COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 20,000.00
plus 5% GRAND TOTAL= USD 28,000.00
a. AN ORDER granting additional monetary compensation to the CLAIMANT against the
RESPONDENT.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17489
b. Order the Club to be banned from registering new players until full payment of the
aforementioned sums.
c. According to FIFA RSTP art. 17 (3) and (4) Sporting sanctions against the club.
d. AND such other ORDERS or further ORDERS as the DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
may deem fit to make in this circumstance.”
b. Position of the Respondent
30. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
31. 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 17 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 7 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
32. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Nigerian player and a
Congolese club.
33. 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
34. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17489
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
35. 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
36. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract.
37. The Chamber first recalled that, according to the Player, the parties concluded the Alleged
Contract, under which he was entitled to USD 800 per month from October 2023 until
September 2024. However, the Player argued that the Club withheld a copy of the
document and terminated the employment without just cause in March 2024. Therefore,
the Chamber observed that the Player requested outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract.
38. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber acknowledged
that the decision shall be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
39. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether an
employment relationship existed between the parties and, if so, to assess the conditions
thereof, whether the Club terminated the employment, and the consequences arising
therefrom.
40. First, the Chamber referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, that has
established that the actual signature of the contract is not the sole or even a necessary
element to determine whether there was an existing contractual relationship between the
parties. Instead, the validity and the enforcement of the contract should be established on
the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions taken by the parties
within their context of their relationship.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17489
41. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the well-established jurisprudence has also
stipulated that the Chamber must be very careful with accepting documents other than the
employment contract duly signed by the parties, as evidence for the conclusion of a
contract.
42. Specifically, the Chamber stressed that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
mentioned that (i) the conclusion of a contract can sometimes, in very specific and limited
circumstances, be proved without a formal signature, provided that such proof meets
certain standards of confidence, and (ii) decisions determining that a contractual
relationship was formed, without having a copy of a signed contract on file, must require a
high standard of proof.
43. The Chamber also remarked that this jurisprudence is usually referred to in cases in which
the parties provide a copy of the contract, but this copy is unsigned by one of them. In this
case, however, the Chamber noted that the Player did not provide any copy of the Alleged
Contract, arguing that the Club withheld it. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that
there was not even an unsigned copy forming the basis of the petition.
44. Thus, the Chamber considered that the burden of proof on the Player was even higher in
this case, as he was required not only to demonstrate the existence of a contractual
relationship, but also to establish that the terms and conditions of such relationship were
agreed upon as he claimed.
45. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Player provided several arguments and
pieces of evidence, which must be analysed to determine whether a contractual
relationship existed between the parties, and to determine whether it is possible to
establish the terms thereof.
46. The Chamber first noted that the Player provided a copy of his ITC, which was issued on 28
September 2023 by the NFA in favour of FECOFA. In this regard, from the information
retrieved from TMS, the Chamber could confirm that this ITC was issued and that the Player
was transferred from his previous club to the Club. However, the Chamber highlighted that,
in this transfer, it was stated that the Player would be an amateur and that he would receive
no compensation. As a consequence, the Chamber confirmed that no contract was
uploaded to TMS.
47. Then, the Chamber noted that the Player provided an identity card in which he was
identified as a player of the Club for the 2023-2024 season. Nevertheless, the Chamber
emphasized that this card included the words “football amateur”.
48. Moreover, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player provided many pictures of him
allegedly playing for the Club along with (i) a round-trip flight ticket from Nigeria to Congo
DR for the dates 4 October 2023 and 19 October 2023; (ii) a one-way flight ticket from Congo
DR to Nigeria for 23 March 2024; (iii) a visa issued from 20 September 2023 until 19 October
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17489
2023; and (iv) a stamp on his passport made by Congo DR’s migration office on 23 March
2024.
49. The Chamber also wished to remark that the Player provided a copy of a release letter
issued by the Club on 23 July 2024, and a response to a letter in which the Club
acknowledged that the Player was affiliated with the Club from 20 October 2023 to 20
September 2024. The Chamber observed that in this letter, the Club highlighted that the
Player acknowledged the fulfilment of several obligations such as travel expenses, food,
accommodation or medical expenses. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Club, in this
letter, argued that it was pleased to note that the Player acknowledged payment of USD
1,000 corresponding to the salary for November 2023 and a return flight ticket. Moreover,
the Chamber considered that the Club, (i) by arguing that the Player terminated the Alleged
Contract, tacitly acknowledged that there was a contract; and (ii) by offering to provide the
Player with another copy of the document, also expressly acknowledged its existence.
50. Based on all the above, the Chamber concluded that, in the present case, a contract existed
between the parties. In the Chamber’s view, the fact that the Club itself acknowledged both explicitly and implicitly - the existence of an employment contract was instrumental
in reaching this conclusion, despite the absence of a copy of the document on file.
Moreover, this finding is consistent with the fact that the Player was transferred to the Club
and registered as a player for the 2023–2024 season, which aligns with the evidence he
submitted demonstrating that he travelled to Congo DR.
51. Additionally, the Chamber considered that it could be concluded that the employment
relationship commenced in October 2023 and ended on 23 March 2024, when the Player
returned to Nigeria. Although the Club submitted an alleged termination notice, the Player
contended that the document was forged. In the absence of any response from the Club and considering that the letter in question was submitted by the Player himself - the
Chamber determined that this allegation remained uncontested. Furthermore, the content
of the termination notice was found to be inconsistent with the release letter issued by the
Club in July 2024.
52. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that in this case the Player was required
not only to prove the existence of a contractual relationship but also its terms, in the
absence of a written contract on file. In this regard, the Chamber stressed that the Player
failed to prove the financial conditions of the relationship, if any existed.
53. The Chamber remarked that, while it is true that the Club, in its letter dated 27 August 2024,
stated that the Player acknowledged receiving USD 1,000 as salary for November 2023 and
a flight ticket, it is also true that the Club did not acknowledge that the Player was entitled
to a monthly salary of USD 800, let alone USD 8,000 for the period from December 2023 to
September 2024, as claimed by the Player. In the Chamber’s view, this acknowledgment
could not be used to determine the Player’s future entitlements and, in any case, would
only apply to the month of November - a claim the Player is not making.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17489
54. The Chamber also wished to point out that, although the Player claimed to have received
a first payment for October 2023 in November 2023, he did not provide any evidence in
this regard. Therefore, the Chamber could not conclude that the Club had a consistent
practice regarding salary payments, despite the absence of a written contract on file.
55. In this context, the Chamber emphasized that the acknowledgment provided by the Club,
as submitted by the Player, was insufficient to establish his entitlement to the monthly
salary claimed, particularly in light of the absence of any copy of the contract, not even an
unsigned version. The Chamber recalled that, pursuant to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, the burden of proof rested with the Player. In this case, a higher standard of proof
was required, given the Chamber’s inability to access the contractual basis of the claim.
Consequently, the Chamber considered that any determination regarding the Player’s
alleged future entitlements would be speculative, as their existence could not be
confirmed.
56. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the Player
was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 800, the Chamber determined that it was not in a
position to award the Player any outstanding remuneration.
57. Furthermore, based on the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that it was not
possible to establish that the Alleged Contract had been breached by the Club, as there
was no evidence of a unilateral termination. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject
the Player’s claim for compensation, which would, in any event, be impossible to quantify
in the absence of any agreed financial terms.
58. In light of all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17489
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Amah Chibundu, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17489
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. 13