Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17503
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Ibrahim
Aliyu
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahim Aliyu, Nigeria
Represented by Chijioke Okpanku
RESPONDENT:
African Stars Football Club, Namibia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17503
I. Facts of the case
1.
According to the Nigerian player Ibrahim Aliyu (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant), on
10 July 2023 he and the Namibian club African Stars Football Club (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) concluded an Employment Contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from 15 July 2023 until 30 June 2025.
2.
Pursuant to clause 3.3 and the Annexure B of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the
Player (hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties), inter alia, the following salary and
bonuses:
•
Basic salary: USD 800 payable on the last day of the month.
•
Signing on fee: USD 6,000 payable on 1 August 2023.
3.
On 12 July 2023, the Club sent a visa application and a power of attorney on behalf of the
Player to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security of Namibia.
4.
On 26 July 2023, the visa was issued with an expiration date on 24 October 2023. The visa
included the following remark: “WORK VISA: AFRICAN STARS SOCCER CLUB PTY LTD ONLY.”
5.
Also on 26 July 2023, the Club provided flight tickets to the Player departing from Lagos
(Nigeria) to Johannesburg (South Africa) and returning on the same route on 25 October
2023.
6.
Between 16 and 17 August 2023, the Player’s agent contacted a person who allegedly was
the Club’s president (hereinafter: the Second Person). Both held a conversation through
WhatsApp as follows:
Player’s agent:
“How are you doing today?
No sign on fees
No agent fees
All what we agreed on you have not fulfilled it right
15 days gone (…)”
In the conversation, the Player’s agent sent a screenshot of a forex instruction dated
2 August 2023 for the amount of USD 5,000.
Second person:
“True, because the technical team is not happy with Aliyu and will terminate his agreement and
send it back to you. As for Okolo, they will make a final decision by next week.”
Player’s agent (quoted verbatim):
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17503
“That is a bridge of contract
It’s really obvious what the way you are taking things and we are also here looking and waiting
for the wonder you are performing there with the players”
Player’s agent:
“Are you pushing Aliyu or what no salary no food stuff…
Put him on board, the federal will handle other things”
7.
On 15 September 2023, the Player left Namibia.
8.
On 30 November 2024, the Player put the Respondent in default for the amount of USD
6,000 corresponding to the sign-on fee, plus the total amount of USD 12,000 for the salaries
from September 2023 to November 2024 both included. The Player gave a 15-day deadline
expiring on 15 December 2024 to the Respondent to remedy the default.
9.
On 16 December 2024, the Player terminated the Contract citing just cause due to overdue
payables.
10. On 17 February 2025, the Player informed FIFA that he has remained unemployed since
the alleged termination
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. 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
12. The Player argued that the Club’s behaviour was abusive and contrary to art. 14 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). Moreover,
the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause.
13. According to the Player, on 16 August 2023, his representative contacted the Club’s
president regarding the unpaid signing – on fee, as well as about the reason why the Player
was left without food. In this regard, the Player argued that his representative was
informed that the Club’s technical team had decided to terminate the Player’s contract.
.
14. The Player argued that afterwards, the Club booked him a flight back to Nigeria. The Player
also provided evidence of a screenshot from TMS where he appeared registered with the
Club.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17503
15. In order to prove his employment relationship, the Player mentioned that the Club met its
financial obligations in August 2023.
16. In this context, the Player argued that on 16 December 2024, he terminated the Contract
with just cause due to overdue payables, i.e. 15 days after having put the Club in default on
30 November 2024.
17. Consequently, the Player requested (quoted verbatim):
“25. The Claimant respectfully urges the DRC to award the Claimant the underlisted reliefs in the
present dispute: The breakdown of the Claimant’s relief is as follows:
● Provision of the Employment Contract by the Respondent.
● Outstanding salary for the month of September 2023 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as
from the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of October 2023 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of November 2023 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as
from the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of December 2023 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as
from the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of January 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of February 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of March 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of April 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the
due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of May 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the
due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of June 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the
due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of July 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the
due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of August 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of September 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as
from the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of October 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
● Outstanding salary for the month of November 2024 ($800) plus 5% interest Per Annum as
from the due date of payment.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17503
● Sign-on Fees ($6,000) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the due date of payment.
● The sum of $5,600 (Five Thousand, Six Hundred United States Dollars) which is the residual
value of the contract dated 15th of July 2023.”
b. Position of the Respondent
18. In its reply, the Club argued that the arguments of the Player were false and in bad faith.
19. The Club begun arguing that Mr. David Segun Taiwo, who was the Player’s agent, offered
them three U-23 players.
20. The Club argued that on 10 July 2023 it sent a letter to the Player inviting him for trials and
that said letter established that subsequent to that the Club would consider his position in
the Club.
21. In this regard, the Club argued that it did not undertake to pay any monthly salary to the
Player, just to accommodate him in the clubhouse, provide meals and pay for travel
expenses. In this sense, the Club provided the visa application for the Player under section
9 of the Immigration Control Act 7 of 1993 from Namibia as evidence arguing that it was
only for three months.
22. Moreover, the Club argued that the Player’s agent co-signed the visa application as a
witness. The Club argued that the Player successfully obtained his visa for 3 months valid
as from 26 July 2023 until 24 October 2023
23. The Club argued that on 26 July 2023, it booked flight tickets for the Player departing on
the said date from Lagos (Nigeria) to Windhoek (Namibia) and returning on 25 October
2023.
24. The Club argued that it paid a monthly stipend of NAD 6,000 between August and
September 2023. In this sense, the Club argued that such payment was made directly to
the Player because he did not have a Namibian bank account.
25. The Club argued that on 16 August 2023, after an unsuccessful scouting session, the Club’s
coach deemed that the Player was not a player of outstanding merits. The Club stated that
the Player’s agent was informed about this through WhatsApp.
26. The Club stated that on 2 August 2023 it made a transfer of USD 5,000 corresponding to
the signing-on fee. However, the Club argued that the payment could not be processed
because the Player was on a work visa and the Player’s agent could not accredited his
condition as agent.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17503
27. The Club argued that the Contract was only effective, valid and binding if the Player
obtained his work permit. The Club insisted that a copy of the Contract was only provided
to the Player to assist him in obtaining a two-year residence and work permit.
28. Finally, the Club argued that the Player continued to be paid until he left Namibia on 15
September 2023.
29. Lastly, the Club requested for the claim to be dismissed based on the argument that the
Player submitted the claim in bad faith and he is not entitled to any payment.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 17 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 28 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
31. 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, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Nigerian player and a Namibian club.
32. 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
33. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17503
c. Merits of the dispute
34. 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
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Player argued that he had a valid and binding contract and terminated his employment
relationship with just cause due to overdue payables on 16 December 2024 after having
put the Club in default on 30 November 2024.
36. Conversely, the Club argued that there was not a valid and binding contract because the
submitted document was not signed by the Club. In this sense, the Club explained that the
Player was invited for a trial and only had a work visa for 3 months, period after he left
Namibia.
37. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse whether (i) there
was a valid and binding contract between the parties; (ii) and, if so, who breached the
Contract and what are the consequences.
I. Was there a valid and binding contract between the parties?
38. Firstly, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he concluded the Contract with the
Club on 10 July 2023. In this sense, the Chamber stressed that he provided a copy of the
Contract signed by him but missing the Club’s signature.
39. Secondly, the Chamber observed that the Player argued that the Club complied with its
financial obligations for the month of August 2023 and that he left the country on 15
September 2023.
40. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Club argued that the parties did not have a
valid and binding contract because the Club did not sign the Contract. Moreover, the Club
argued that the Player only had a work permit for three months, i.e. 26 July 2023 until 24
October 2023. Moreover, the Club provided evidence of flight tickets for the Player from 26
July 2023 and returning on 25 October 2023.
41. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that while the copy of the Contract provided by
the Player only has his signature, the copy of the Contract that the FIFA general secretariat
could retrieve from TMS was duly signed by the Parties. The Chamber remarked that this
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17503
copy has the same content as the copy the Player provided and confirmed that the Player
was registered in TMS by the Club.
42. Furthermore, from the analysis of the Contract, the DRC observed that (i) the period
stipulated in its definition section is as from 15 July 2023 until 30 June 2025; (ii) there is no
indication that the Contract was subject to any condition such as a three-month visa or
successfully completing the scouting process with the Club as argued by the Respondent
based on the invitation letter sent by the Club to the Player.
43. At this point, the panel referred to the FIFA Commentary on the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 239) which clearly stipulates:
“Similarly to medical examinations, obtaining a valid work permit (…) is considered an
administrative formality that a club is required to complete prior to signing a contract with a
player. The engaging club is obliged to take all necessary administrative actions to ensure a work
permit and/or visa is granted to the player, thus allowing them to render their services to the
club. This action must be taken before the contract is signed. This principle is consistent with
Swiss law, according to which it is the employer’s responsibility to apply for a work permit for a
potential employee and/or liaise with the competent authority to obtain or renew a work permit
for any employee whose activity must be authorised.
If the parties sign the contract without having confirmed that any work permit or visa will be
granted, and if the competent authorities then refuse to grant the necessary authorization, the
contract will be considered valid and binding, and if it is terminated by the club because of the
refusal of the state authorities, the termination will be deemed to have been without just cause”
44. The Chamber outlined that the conclusion that follows from the above is that, in principle,
the Club should have undertaken all the necessary action to ensure that the work permit
for the duration of the Contract was approved.
45. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Contract concluded between the parties
was valid and binding.
II.
Who breached the Contract?
46. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber moved to establish whether there was a
breach of the Contract and who breached it.
47. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player firstly argued that on 16 December 2024,
he terminated the Contract with just cause due to overdue payables, 15 days after having
put the Club in default on 30 November 2024. However, the Chamber also recalled that the
Player argued that on 16 August 2023, the Club informed his agent that the Player’s
agreement was going to be terminated because the technical team was not happy with the
Player. In this regard, the Player provided a WhatsApp conversation dated 16 August 2023.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17503
Additionally, the Chamber highlighted that the Player argued that after this, he left Namibia
on 15 September 2023.
48. The Chamber observed that the Club provided the same WhatsApp conversation arguing
that the Player was not a player of outstanding merits for the team. Also, the Club argued
that it continued to pay the Player until he left on 15 September 2023.
49. Taking into account the above, the Chamber noted that both parties acknowledged having
the conversation through WhatsApp on 16 August 2023. However, the Chamber was of the
opinion that none of them considered it as a formal termination of their employment
relationship, especially taking into account that the Player did not leave the country until
15 September 2023.
50. The Chamber further stressed that. by sending the default notice on 30 November 2024
and the termination notice due to overdue payables on 16 December 2024 to the Club, the
Player, by his own actions, acknowledged that he considered that the employment
relationship was not terminated on 16 August 2023. Additionally, the Chamber recalled
that the Player is claiming outstanding salaries until November 2024.
51. In this sense, based on the evidence on file, the panel noted that the last communication
between the parties was on 16 August 2023 and that more than a year later, on 30
November 2024, the Player put the Club in default and on 16 December 2024 sent his
termination letter.
52. The Chamber also observed that it is undisputed that the Player left the country on 15
September 2023 and stopped rendering his services for the Club as of that date.
53. Based on the abovementioned timeline and the factual circumstances of the case, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the parties mutually departed from the Contract on 15
September 2023.
54. The Chamber emphasised that this conclusion was grounded in the behaviour that both
parties had, prior and since that date, which demonstrated a clear intention to disengage
from the employment relationship and had ceased to fulfil their respective obligations.
Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that there was a mutual departure on 15 September
2023 rather than a unilateral contract termination dated 16 December 2024.
55. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that while the Claimant acknowledged that
the Respondent fulfilled its obligations during the month of August 2023, the Respondent
failed to prove that it complied with its obligations for the month of September 2023.
Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Club failed to pay the Player USD 400 from 15
days of work considering the date the Contract ended, i.e. 15 September 2023-.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17503
56. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player is also claiming USD 6,000 for the signingon fee. In this case, the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that intended to pay
an amount of USD 5,000 but it could not make it because the Player did not have a bank
account in Namibia, and the agent did not accredit his condition. In this sense, the Chamber
concluded that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence of having paid the signing
fee. Thus, the Chamber also concluded that the Club failed to pay the Player USD 6,000,
that were to be paid on 1 August 2023.
57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
6,400 corresponding to (i) the signing fee amounting to USD 6,000; and (ii) USD 400 for the
prorated salary for September 2023.
58. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the day following the due date
for the signing fee and as from the day the Contract ended for the prorated salary.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
61. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
62. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17503
63. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17503
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahim Aliyu, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, African Stars Football Club, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
-
USD 6,400 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,000 as from 2 August 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 400 as from 15 September 2023 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17503
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. 14