Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17628
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Nicholas Gyan
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Nicholas Gyan, Ghana
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
Fountain Gate FC, Tanzania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17628
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2024, the Ghanaian player, Nicholas Gyan (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant),
and the Tanzanian club, Fountain Gate FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid for one year.
2.
Clause 1 of the Contract established (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 1. CONSIDERATION AND DURATION OF CONTRACT
1. That effectively from this 1st day of JULY, 2024, in a consideration of FIFTEEN Million
Shillings only (TZS 15,000,000/=). At the time of signing this Tz Shs 7,500, 000 will be paid
upfront in the month of July 2024, and the remaining balance of Tz Shs 7,500, 000 will
be paid at the beginning of August 2024, of this contract known as SIGNING FEE and the
player has agreed to sign, play and offer other related services to the CLUB.
2. The Net Salary shall be FIVE million Tanzanian Shillings only (5.000.000 TZS) the player
has agreed to sign, play and offer other related services to the CLUB. (NOTE: USD 500
which went to cancellation of the travel air ticket will be deducted from your pay)
(…)
4. That regarding the payment issue of Signing fee, the registered player of FOUNTAIN
GATE FC {PREVIOUS KNOWN AS SINGIDA FOUNTAIN GATE FC}, will be paid for the firstround part of the payment and will be finished in the second part of the payment in the
season depending on the duration of the contract. Such payments shall be subject to the
tax as per the laws for the time being applicable in the United Republic of Tanzania. (…)”
3.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Contract set forth:
“ARTICLE 2. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY CLUB
1. Respecting the principle that none can prevail from his own faulty behavior, each of
the parties can immediately and permanently terminate the contract for just courses.
2. The following are notably considered as just courses on the side of a club:
(…)
Provided that in the event that the club terminates this contract without notice, the player
shall be paid one month’s salary in the lieu of notice and shall have no any other claim
save for arrears of previous payments to which he was entitled before the event of
termination if termination will take place before this contract end other payment on sign
fee for remaining years will not be paid.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17628
ARTICLE 3. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY PLAYER
1. Respecting the principle that none can prevail from his own faulty behavior, each of
the parties can immediately and permanently terminate the contract for just courses.
1. The following are notably considered as just courses on the side of player:
i. When a club fail to pay salary for more than two consecutive months.
ii. When a player is able to buyout his contract at the value of TZS 100,000,000 (ONE
HUNDRED MILLION TZS ONLY).
iii. When a club is declared bankruptcy by a competent organization.
iv. The player may mutually terminate this contract by giving a notice of three months or
pay full salary in lieu of notice to FOUNTAIN GATE FC. Whichever the case and his age
notwithstanding, he shall also pay compensation fees as shall be agreed between the
player and the club. In working out the compensation fees, the club shall consider the
duration he has been with the club, role in the club the signing fees he was paid at the
time he joined the club, the transfer and compensation fees paid to his previous club
among other factors.
V. The Contract may also terminate on proof of just cause and or sporting just cause
whichever the case; the player shall give a notice of three months or pay the club threemonth salary in lieu of notice. In applying this clause, the player shall state clearly the
cause that informed his decision to terminate the contract.”
4.
Clause 14 of the Contract stipulated:
“ARTICLE 14. SALARY AND COMPLIMENTARY BENEFITS
i. The Club shall pay to the player at least ten times per year a basic monthly salary as
shown in the present contract. Moreover, the Club may pay him possible complimentary'
benefits depending on the arrangement between the parties.
ii. For the avoidance of doubts the monthly gross salary of each player is subjected to
the monthly deduction of PAYE and Terminal Benefits {Payable to TRA and NSSF
respectively} for the whole lifetime of this contract.
iii. At the directions of the employer, the player may receive match win bonus. In the event
a bonus is pledged, the same shall be paid at as when the employer is financially able
to.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17628
5.
On 22 November 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of TZS
15,000,000 as signing fee, within 15 days. The Player stated that, in the absence of payment,
he would be entitled to terminate the Contract with just cause and he would lodge a claim
before the Football Tribunal.
6.
On 11 December 2024, the Player terminated the Contract, citing just cause in accordance
with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations). Furthermore, the Player requested payment of TZS 15,000,000 as signing fee
and TZS 35,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract, within 10 days.
7.
On 19 January 2025, the Club sent a letter to the Player, informing him that he had three
days to report back to work, as the time he was given to visit his mother was overdue. The
Club stated that the failure to do so would constitute a breach of contract.
8.
The Player informed that he has remained unemployed since the termination.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 30 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
10. The Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract, by means of which the Club
undertook to pay him TZS 15,000,000 as signing fee, of which TZS 7,500,000 were to be
paid in the month of July 2024 and TZS 7,500,000 at the beginning of August 2024.
Nevertheless, the Player argued that the Club failed to pay him the signing fee.
11. Based on the above, the Player alleged that he put the Club in default and granted it 15
days to comply with the payment. However, the Player argued that the Club failed to
remedy the breach and, therefore, on 11 December 2024 he terminated the Contract. The
Player also contended that he requested payment of the signing fee and compensation.
12. According to the Player, the Club failed to pay him an amount that corresponds to three
monthly salaries, considering that his monthly salary was TZS 5,000,000. Thus, he asserted
that he terminated the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations and that he is
entitled to compensation.
13. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“III —REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
The Claim shall be accepted.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17628
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that the Claimant Player terminated the
employment contract with the Respondent Club with just cause for outstanding salaries,
pursuant to the article 14bis.l.2. of the FIFA RSTP.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the
Claimant Player:
i. Tz Shs 7,500, 000 net overdue in the month of July 2024, and the remaining balance
of Tz Shs 7,500, 000 net overdue at the beginning of August 2024, in a total of TZS
15,000,000 net as SIGNING FEE, plus interest at 5 % rate since the overdue dates until
effective payment;
ii. 35,000,000 TZS net as compensation, pursuant Article 17.1.i of FIFA’s RSTP, plus
interest at 5 % rate since the overdue dates until effective payment.
TOTAL DUE = 50.000,000 TZS net, plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue dates until
effective payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
14. In its reply, the Club first stated that the Player’s claim was vague and unsupported by
documentation. Furthermore, the Club argued that this claim was related to an ongoing
disciplinary procedure and, therefore, the present claim could constitute a duplication of
issues already resolved.
15. Then, the Club alleged that, after the Player’s approved holidays, the Club contacted him
via official letters, emails and phone calls, requesting him to return to training. The Club
further stated that it even purchased a flight ticket to him to rejoin the squad, but he did
not reply to the communications.
16. Furthermore, the Club asserted that it fully paid the signing fee in accordance with the
Contract and that the Player did not raise any formal concerns prior to his departure.
17. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“In light of the above:
• The Respondent maintains that there is no breach attributable to the Club.
• The Claimant voluntarily and without justification refused to resume his duties.
• The claim lacks substance and fails to meet the burden of proof under Article 12.3 of
the FIFA Procedural Rules.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17628
• The Respondent respectfully requests the dismissal of the claim in its entirety and
reserves the right to seek damages and compensation under Article 17 of the RSTP for
breach of contract without just cause.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
18. The Player contended that the claim was not vague and that the disciplinary procedure
referred in the Club’s response was not related to this claim. In this regard, the Player
alleged that the nature of this claim is contractual and does not constitute re-litigation or
res judicata.
19. Additionally, the Player asserted that he terminated the Contract in December 2024, and
that the Club claimed to have sent him a letter on 19 January 2025, after the termination.
Moreover, the Player remarked that the Club failed to prove that it booked a flight for that
specific date. According to the Player, the Club’s subsequent communications were not
good-faith efforts but rather attempts to fabricate a defence.
20. Lastly, the Player argued that he did not receive the payment of the signing fee and that
the evidence provided by the Club consists of a WhatsApp screenshot that does not have
evidentiary value. In this sense, the Player pointed out that the screenshot does not
disclose the identity of the person certifying the information, nor does it indicate the date
of receipt of the alleged payment. In any event, the Player stated that the alleged date was
after the deadline set in the termination letter.
21. The Player made the following request for relief:
“III – REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that the Claimant Player terminated the
employment contract with the Respondent Club with just cause for outstanding salaries,
pursuant to the article 14bis.1.2. of the FIFA RSTP.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the
Claimant Player:
i. Tz Shs 7,500.000 net overdue in the month of July 2024 and the remaining balance of
Tz Shs 7.500, 000 net overdue at the beginning of August 2024, in a total of TZS
15.000,000 net as SIGNING FEE, plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue dates until
effective payment:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17628
ii. 35,000,000 TZS net as compensation- pursuant Article of FIFA’s RSTP, plus, interest at
5 % rate since the overdue dates until effective Payment
TOTAL DUE = 50,000,000 TZS net, plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue dates until
effective payment.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
22. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its final comments.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. 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 30 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 5 November 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.
24. 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 Ghanaian player and a Tanzanian club.
25. 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. Admissibility
26. Without prejudice to the above, the Chamber recalled that the Club argued that this claim
was related to disciplinary proceedings and could therefore constitute a duplication of
issues already resolved. In this regard, the Chamber considered that, in other words, the
Club alleged that this claim was affected by res judicata or lis pendens.
27. The Player, however, asserted that this claim was not related to the disciplinary
proceedings and, therefore, did not constitute re-litigation.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17628
28. Therefore, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the admissibility of the claim, a task it
considered should be carried out ex officio.
29. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that proceedings had indeed taken place
before the FIFA Disciplinary Committee involving the same parties, under reference FDD21515. Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that these disciplinary proceedings concerned
the enforcement of a previous decision regarding a claim lodged by the Player before the
Football Tribunal (FPSD-11568), related to outstanding remuneration under an
employment contract signed in 2022.
30. The Chamber further noted that the aforementioned proceedings were not related to the
present claim, but rather concerned disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Club for its
failure to comply with a decision issued by the Football Tribunal on 25 September 2023, as
well as a related settlement agreement.
31. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the present claim is not affected by res
judicata or lis pendens, as, although there was a previous dispute involving both parties, the
subject matter / object of this claim is different. Therefore, the Chamber decided that this
claim is admissible.
c. Burden of proof
32. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
33. 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
34. 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 compensation for
breach of contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17628
35. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just
cause in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations, as the Club failed to pay him the
signing fee, which was equivalent to more than two monthly salaries. Thus, he argued that
he is entitled to compensation.
36. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Club alleged that it fully paid the signing fee and
that it was the Player who left the Club, despite the Club’s communications.
37. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause and its consequences.
38. While considering the above, the Chamber preliminarily noted that the remuneration
under the Contract was not entirely clear, which is why it decided to begin its analysis by
determining the amounts to which the Player was entitled and the respective payment
dates.
39. The Chamber first observed that, according to the Contract, the Player was entitled to TZS
15,000,000 as signing fee, of which TZS 7,500,000 were to be paid in July 2024 and TZS
7,500,000 “in the beginning of August 2024”. Although clause 1.4 stated that “regarding the
payment issue of Signing fee, the registered player (…), will be paid for the first-round part of the
payment and will be finished in the second part of the payment in the season depending on the
duration of the contract”, the Chamber determined that, based on the legal principle in dubio
contra stipulatorem, the due dates for the signing fee were those clearly specified in clause
1.1.
40. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the Club was obliged to pay the Player TZS
7,500,000 in July 2024 and TZS 7,500,000 in August 2024 as signing fee.
41. Additionally, the Chamber observed that the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of TZS
5,000,000 net. The Chamber pointed out that clause 14, par. 1 of the Contract, established
that “The Club shall pay to the Player at least ten times per year a basic monthly salary as shown
in the present contract”. In this regard, the Chamber considered that, despite the lack of
clarity in this clause, the Player was entitled to 12 monthly salaries because: (i) clause 14
stipulated that the Player was entitled to at least 10 monthly salaries, meaning he could be
entitled to more; (ii) the Contract was valid for one year; and (iii) neither the Player nor the
Club argued that the Player was entitled to only 10 monthly salaries. Rather, the Chamber
noted that the Player is requesting his salary until June, which the Chamber deemed
evidence that he claimed entitlement to a salary for each month of the Contract.
42. The Chamber then concluded that, in addition to the abovementioned signing fee, the
Player was also entitled to 12 monthly salaries of TZS 5,000,000 net each.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17628
43. Having established the Player’s entitlements, the Chamber then proceeded to assess the
outstanding remuneration at the time of the relevant events, particularly the termination
by the Player.
44. At this point, the Chamber stressed that the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the Contract and/or that it had a valid reason for not
doing so. However, the Chamber noted that, although the Club claimed that it paid the
signing fee, the Club only provided a WhatsApp screenshot, which does not clearly
corroborate the payment. In particular, the Chamber observed that this alleged evidence
consisted merely of a WhatsApp message, rather than an official proof of payment issued
by a bank.
45. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the Club had failed to pay the Player the
signing fee.
46. Additionally, the Chamber recalled that the Player put the Club in default on 22 November
2024, requesting payment of this sum (i.e., TZS 15,000,000) within 15 days. The Chamber
also highlighted that on 11 December 2024, 19 days after sending the notice, the Player
terminated the Contract.
47. At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 14bis of the Regulations, which establishes:
“1. In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision
coming into force may be considered.
2. For any salaries of a player which are not due on a monthly basis, the pro-rata value
corresponding to two months shall be considered. Delayed payment of an amount which
is equal to at least two months shall also be deemed a just cause for the player to
terminate his contract, subject to him complying with the notice of termination as per
paragraph 1 above.”
(emphasis added by the Chamber)
48. In this case, the Chamber recognized that the Club had not failed to pay the Player any
“monthly salary” but only the signing fee. Hence, the majority of the Chamber considered
that the requirements of art. 14bis were not met, as this provision strictly refers to the
concept of “salaries” and therefore does not encompass payments such as a sign-on fee.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17628
49. Nevertheless, the same majority of the Chamber also referred to the Commentary on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 153 et seq.), which
stipulates:
“Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this does not imply
that delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration cannot
amount to just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A player
invoking other outstanding remuneration to terminate their contract may still have just
cause. The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the general definition
of what constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of article 14, along with the
relevant general criteria set out in jurisprudence and described above. Particular
attention should be paid to factors such as whether the outstanding amount is
significant (i.e. that it is neither negligible nor totally subordinated), the extent of
the delay, the general attitude of the parties in the specific case and other relevant
factors.
[…]
Alternatively, where less than two monthly salary payments are due but other
outstanding remuneration (e.g. sign-on fee or bonuses) are also due, and the total
outstanding amount exceeds two monthly salaries, the DRC has held that although
the article 14bis threshold was not explicitly met, the player had just cause to
terminate pursuant to article 14.”
(emphasis added by the Chamber)
50. Hence, given that (i) the Club failed to pay the Player the signing fee, which was equivalent
to three monthly salaries, and (ii) the Player put the Club in default and granted it 15 days
to comply with the payment, the majority of the Chamber considered that the prejudice
caused to the Player was significant enough to justify the termination of the Contract as an
ultima ratio measure.
51. Similarly, taking into account the particularities of the case, the Chamber considered that
the Player sufficiently demonstrated that, due to the financial arrangement between the
parties and the relevance of the singing fee vis-à-vis his monthly remuneration, he could no
longer be reasonably expected to maintain a contractual relationship.
52. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause,
with the majority of its members deciding that such termination was grounded on art. 14
of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17628
ii. Financial Consequences
53. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
54. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the Chamber noted that the Player is claiming
TZS 15,000,000 net as signing fee, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates. In this regard,
and while recalling that the Club failed to provide evidence demonstrating that it paid the
signing fee, the Chamber decided to award the Player TZS 15,000,000 as outstanding
remuneration. Since the Contract did not establish that the signing fee was to be paid as a
net amount, the Chamber decided not to award this amount as net.
55. Regarding interest, the Chamber noted that the due dates for the instalments were “July
2024” and “the beginning of August 2024”. Since it was not possible to establish the exact
due date for the second instalment, the Chamber decided to award the Player 5% interest
p.a. as from the first day of each subsequent month, namely 1 August 2024 over the first
instalment and as from 1 September 2024 over the second instalment.
56. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Player is claiming TZS 35,000,000 net as
compensation, which includes seven monthly salaries. Although the Player has not
specified the salaries claimed, given that the Contract was valid until 1 July 2025, the
Chamber concluded that the Player requested the residual value from 1 December 2024
until 30 June 2025. However, since the termination occurred on 11 December 2024, the
Chamber decided to consider the salary for December 2024 as part of the compensation,
based on the standard practice of the Football Tribunal.
57. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
58. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber noted
that clauses 2 and 3 of the Contract provided for several scenarios for termination by the
Player or by the Club. Nevertheless, the Chamber considered that the parties did not
establish in advance the amount that would be owed to the Player in the event that he
terminated the Contract with just cause.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17628
59. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
60. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of TZS 35,161,290.32 net serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as
follows:
•
•
TZS 5,000,000 net times seven months, from December 2024 to June 2025; and
one day for July 2025 (TZS 5,000,000 / 31 = TZS 161,290.32).
61. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
62. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
63. In this context, the Chamber stressed that the Player would be entitled to TZS
35,161,290.32 net as compensation. However, considering that the Player is claiming TZS
35,000,000 net and, based on the principle ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided to award
him TZS 35,000,000 net plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the termination (i.e., 11
December 2024) until the date of effective payment.
iii. Sporting sanctions
64. 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 Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17628
65. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates 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”.
66. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 23 December 1997 and
the Contract with the Club was concluded on 1 July 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber noted
that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause on 11 December 2024. The DRC
then confirmed that the breach of contract by the Club occurred within the protected
period.
67. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had already been held liable of breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, for example in cases
FPSD-13709, FPSD-15706 and FPSD-19428. In the Chamber’s view, the Club’s status as a
repeat offender warranted the imposition of additional consequences in order to uphold
the principle of contractual stability enshrined in the Regulations.
68. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17628
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
73. 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 the Player, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for further consideration
and formal decision.
74. 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.
e. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17628
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nicholas Gyan, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Fountain Gate FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- TZS 15,000,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of TZS 7,500,000 as from 1 August 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of TZS 7,500,000 as from 1 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- TZS 35,000,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 11 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17628
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. 18