Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17704
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Ben Traore
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ben Traore, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Ricardo Cardoso
RESPONDENT:
Al Hazem, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17704
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 June 2023, the Ivorian player, Ben Traore (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Hazem (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2023 to 30 June
2025.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Player was entitled to the following amounts:
3.
-
A monthly net salary of USD 41,667 for the season 2023/2024;
-
A monthly net salary of USD 50,000 for the season 2024/2025;
-
A “fixed financial payment” of USD 200,000 payable in 4 instalments: USD 50,000 on 1
August 2023, USD 50,000 on 1 February 2024, USD 50,000 on 1 August 2024 and USD
50,000 on 1 February 2025.
Clause 12 of the Contract read as follows:
“Termination
1.In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries on their
due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this Contract, provided
that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for
the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
2.If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause, if there is no agreement on the amount,
compensation for breach of contract is payable in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players.
3.The Club shall not terminate the contract due to the Player sustaining an injury during play or
training.
4.The validity of the Contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination
and/or the grant of a work permit.
5. The Club shall not suspend, interrupt or delay the Player’s remuneration due to the Player
sustaining an injury during play or training.
6.The Contract may not be terminated by either party during the sporting season in any
circumstances, with the exception of cases where: (a) there is just cause; and/or (b) the Parties
have agreed to terminate the Contract before the date of its expiry by mutual consent.”
4.
On an unspecified date, an unidentified person sent the following message via WhatsApp
to the Club’s president (hereinafter: the Club’s President) (quoted verbatim): “Please Ben
Hassan is about to sign the contrat of the Fk Zalgiris club so I just wanted to confirm with you
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17704
that you said you will make the transfert of 60 000 USD for both of us as promised right please?”.
The Club’s President replied “yes”.
5.
On 30 January 2024, the Player, the Club and the Lithuanian club, Zalgiris (hereinafter:
Zalgiris) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the First Loan Agreement), in order to
transfer the Player from the Respondent to Zalgiris from 30 January 2024 until 30
November 2024.
6.
Clause 4 of the First Loan Agreement read as follows:
“A reference to the employment contract between the first party (Al Hazem) and the Third party
(Player) dated on 21-06-2023, The player will receive a monthly salary an amount of: (41.667
USD), The first party will pay the monthly salary of the player during the loan period as follows:
The first party: will pay the salary of the Third party (Player) an amount of (USD 41.667).
The second party: will pay to the Third party (Player) an amount of (1.000 EUR) as a monthly
prize.”
7.
Clause 5 of the First Loan Agreement stipulated:
“Article Five - CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE:
The terms of this Contract are strictly confidential and shall not be disclosed at any time by
either party to any third party without the prior written consent of the other party to this
agreement, except the following cases:
To all football authorities applicable to that party, in order to comply with any rule binding.
If required by applicable laws or the regulations; As required by any governmental department
or any governmental or semi-governmental authority; In confidence to that party’s professional
advisers and officials “
8.
On the same date, 30 January 2024, the Player and the Club concluded a document titled
“payment reschedule agreement” (hereinafter: the Payment Agreement) according to
which the parties agreed inter alia the following:
“1- Both parties mutually agree to the transfer of the player on loan to FK Žalgiris Club, a
Lithuanian club from January 30, 2024, until November 30, 2024
- 2-The parties agree that the first party, the club, will pay an amount of USD 41,667 as the salary
for December 2023 to the player after signing this agreement.
3-The parties agree that the first party, the club, will pay an amount of USD 50,000, specified as
the fixed financial payment under the contract executed between the club and the player, as
outlined in its fifth article, second paragraph, which was payable on February 1, 2024
4-these amounts shall be paid after signing this agreement, and the player's signature on this
agreement shall constitute his receipt of the aforementioned amounts.
5- the parties agreed, upon the player's written request, The player has the right to terminate
the loan agreement and return the player to Al -Hazm Club on June 1, 2024.
6-Business class flight tickets for the player and his family will be provided for travel from Saudi
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17704
Arabia to Lithuania, and From Lithuania to the destination specified by the player himself, either
at the end of the Loan Agreement or in the event of terminating the loan.”
9.
On 25 April 2024, Zalgiris informed the Club, the Player’s desire to undergo a surgery and
requested its permission.
10. On 25 May 2024, the Club confirmed Zalgaris that they allowed the Player to undergo a
surgery at his expenses.
11. On 27 May 2024, Zalgiris contacted the Player to confirm the surgery and requested that
he provide further details regarding the location and dates of the planned procedure, as
well as the rehabilitation plan and its expected duration. The Player replied to Zalgiris via
the email address t***[email protected] on 12 June 2024 and shared the rehabilitation plan..
12. On 30 May 2024, the Player sent a WhatsApp message to a person called “doctor Fahad” in
which he expressed his intention to return to the Club.
13. On 3 June 2024, the Player informed the Club that he would like to terminate the “loan
contract” in accordance with clause 5 of the “Loan Agreement”. The Player did not provide
clarity as to which document he was referring to.
14. On 5 June 2024, the Club replied to the Player the following:
“With reference to your letter expressing your desire to terminate the loan agreement with the
Lithuanian club and return to Al-Hazem Club, we would like to inform you of the following:
While we understand your desire to return, it is essential to note that your return is subject to
certain conditions, the right to terminate the loan and return to the club is a conditional right
rather than an absolute one.
The termination of the loan agreement and your subsequent return depend on the consent of
Žalgiris Club, as they hold rights over you during the loan period. Failure to adhere to this
process could have serious consequences that also expose both you and Al-Hazem club to
significant disciplinary.
Therefore, the activation of the aforementioned clause necessitates the written explicit approval
of Žalgiris Club in Lithuania.”
15. On 6 August 2024, the Player’s legal representative informed the Club that pursuant to
clause 5 of the “Loan Agreement”, he would like to return to the Club and requested the date
on which the Player would have to report to the Club. Moreover, he mentioned that
following the exchanges with the Club’s President, an additional amount of USD 60,000 is
to be paid to him.
16. On 20 September 2024, Zalgiris reportedly sent a notice to the Player alleging a breach of
material clauses of the contract between the Player and Zalgiris (hereinafter: the Zalgiris
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17704
Contract). The Player contested receipt of this notice, asserting that it had been sent to an
incorrect email address.
17. On 5 October 2024, Zalgiris reportedly sent a notice to the Player to the email address
t***[email protected], alleging his failure to fulfill contractual obligations. In the notice,
Zalgiris requested that the Player disclose his whereabouts and confirm whether he
intended to continue under the Zalgiris Contract by no later than 11 October 2024. Zalgiris
further indicated that the Zalgiris Contract would be terminated within 10 days should no
response be received. The Player contested receipt of this notice, asserting that it had been
sent to an incorrect email address.
18. On 8 October 2024, the Club sent the Player the following letter (quoted verbatim):
“With reference to the last letter sent from FC Zalgiris, Lithuania, which you are bound to this
club under a tripartite loan agreement, which was signed by you, as well as by Al Hazem Club
and the Lithuanian Club.
The letter highlights your absence and lack of communication since August 31, 2024.
It states your failure to respond to their correspondences following your rehabilitation, as well
as your non-compliance with the appointments set by the club, of which you have already been
notified.
Club [sic]
Furthermore, your continued disregard for these obligations, including ignoring all
correspondence sent to you, has left the club unaware of your current whereabouts, at the very
least.
Consequently, Al Hazem Club hereby completely disclaims any responsibility for your actions
concerning your current club.
It is without a doubt and imperative to note that Al Hazm Club bears no responsibility and
derives no benefit from your breach of contract as a professional player.
Nevertheless, we strongly advise you to engage with the relevant communications to avoid any
potential sporting sanctions that may be imposed upon you by either Al Hazm Club, FC Zalgiris,
or the FIFA Players' Status Chamber. Such penalties will undoubtedly be applicable should your
breach of the executed contract be established. “
19. On 13 October 2024, the Player (via his legal representative) provided the following
response to the Club:
“As you know, and with your authorization, my constituent has been undergoing treatment and
recovery so that he can be in top form this sporting season.
As you are also aware, the contract signed with your club FK Žalgiris Club, the player, and AlHazem Club, ends in November of this year.
However, as stated in clause 5 of the loan agreement, the player could express his interest in
returning to Al-Hazem Club sooner, a fact that he made known to Al-Hazem Club in July and
August and to which he has received no response to date.
He has not and will never have any intention of acting against your club or against Al-Hazem
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17704
Club- he is only awaiting instructions from Al-Hazem Club to inform him of the day of his return
to the club with which he has a signed employment contract, regardless of the transfer between
clubs.
Therefore, and so that there are no questions, I hereby inform you that my constituent intends
to return to al and has no intention of harming or raising any question with your institution”
20. On 22 October 2024, Zalgiris reportedly sent a notice to the Player to the email address
t***[email protected], terminating the Zalgiris Contract due to his continued breaches of
contractual obligations. The Player contested receipt of this notice, asserting that it had
been sent to an incorrect email address.
21. On 11 December 2024, the Player placed the Respondent in default of payment, requesting
the following amounts: USD 250,000 for salaries from July to November 2024; USD 50,000
as a bonus due on 1 August 2024; USD 60,000 as a loan payment; and SAR 10,000 as a
match bonus. The Claimant set a deadline of 15 days for payment and referred to art. 14bis
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
22. In December 2024, the Player and the Club engaged in discussions regarding a potential
transfer of the Player to the Bahraini club Al-Ahli (hereinafter: Alahli).
23. On 30 December 2024, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club indicating that the
Club failed to pay the requested salaries.
24. On 28 January 2025, the Club and Alahli concluded a loan agreement in order to transfer
the Player from the Club to Alahli as from 28 January 2025 to 31 May 2025 (hereinafter: the
Second Loan Agreement). The Agreement was signed by the Player, the Club and Alahli,
however, it should be noted that the Player signed the agreement on 26 January 2025.
25. The “whereas” section of the Second Loan Agreement indicated that the Club was the
current employer of the Player and its clause 2 stipulated that the Club would pay the
Player’s salaries.
26. Also on 28 January 2025, Alahli sent the Player a copy of the Second Loan Agreement and
their employment contract.
27. According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), three
transfers were initiated in order to transfer the Player from the Club to Alahli. However,
they were not finalized or were cancelled.
28. The Player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17704
II. Proceedings before FIFA
29. On 7 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
30. The Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract. The Claimant argued that he had just
cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
31. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“that Al Hazem Sport Club be condemned to issue to pay to Ben Hassan Traore the total net
amount of 760,000 USD plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment, corresponding to:
A) 300,000 USD, as outstanding remuneration for the salary’s months of July, August,
September, October, November, December 2024.
B) 50,000 USD, as bonus fixed financial payments the player had to receive on 08/01/2024 and
was not paid.
C) 350,000 USD, as a compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to 6 monthly salaries
and bonus fixed financial payments.
D) 60,000 USD, as loan repayment bonus.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
32. The Respondent first outlined the facts, noting that after the Club approved the Player’s
surgery, the Player failed to return to Zalgiris and did not respond to Zalgiris’
communications. As a result, Zalgiris ultimately terminated the Zalgiris Contract.
Subsequently, the Club indicated that Player requested payment of his outstanding
salaries; however, “in December 2024, through informal discussions, the Claimant’s
representatives presented an offer from Al-Ahli Bahrain Club for the Player’s loan transfer, under
the condition that Al-Hazem Club would cover the Player’s salaries Al-Hazem Club approved the
arrangement, and all parties duly signed the tripartite loan agreement, which was subsequently
sent by Al-Ahli Bahrain Club to the remaining parties via email.”
33. Regarding the termination, the Respondent argued that the Player’s default notice did not
specify that non-payment would result in termination of the contract. The Respondent
understood the notice merely as a request for overdue salaries, particularly since the
Player was actively negotiating a loan and had signed a tripartite loan agreement with
AlAhli. However, the Player later refused to sign the bilateral agreement, which the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17704
Respondent claims indicates a deliberate attempt to preserve his intended claim without
making any effort to resolve the situation: “The Player’s engagement in negotiations and
expressed intent to transfer to another club, as evidenced by his execution of the tripartite loan
agreement on January 26, 2025, constitutes an implicit waiver of the contract termination notice
previously issued by him. This understanding guided our actions, leading us to proceed
accordingly and cooperate with the Player once again.”
34. The Club further added that the Player’s inconsistent position reflects bad faith and a
disregard for his contractual obligations. The Club questioned the validity and effectiveness
of the termination of the Contract and mentioned that:
“The claimant unilaterally absolved himself of his contractual duties by failing to return to his
team and attend training. As a result, the contract between the parties effectively became a
financial arrangement benefiting the player without any effort or contribution from his side, and
without informing the club of his whereabouts, The Club made every possible effort to avoid
initiating the termination procedures of the Player’s contract mid-season, opting instead to wait
until the contractual term had expired.
23- Despite this, the club acted in good faith towards the player and did not file any complaints
or impose penalties, despite his continuous contractual breaches throughout the previous
season.
24- The player's persistent misconduct during the loan period and his failure to return to his
original club (the respondent) appear to be deliberate attempts to pressure the club into
terminating his contract or modifying its terms. Such actions constitute a clear breach of his
contractual obligations, demonstrating a lack of respect for legal and contractual commitments.
25-The Player’s failure to maintain a clear and consistent position in recent times—first
expressing a desire to transfer to another club and then unilaterally terminating his contract—
raises serious questions about his commitment and good faith in fulfilling his contractual
obligations.”
35. The Club further added as to the justice of the termination that “the player's demand for full
contractual entitlements based on a just cause for termination from his side alone is a unilateral
and entirely unreasonable claim, given that it has been established that the player himself failed
to comply with his contractual obligations. Moreover, such behavior may encourage other
players to adopt the claimant’s approach in dealing with clubs The claimant has not provided
any evidence demonstrating his adherence to his contractual obligations, his commitment to
the team, or his fulfillment of the terms outlined in the contract. It is unreasonable for a contract
to impose obligations on only one party while the other is entirely exempt.”
36. Accordingly, the Respondent concluded that the Player had unilaterally terminated the
Contract, which marked the end of all obligations between both parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17704
37. In this respect, the Respondent acknowledged the Player’s entitlement to his salaries solely
up to the date of termination of the contractual relationship. Nonetheless, the Club clarified
that the amount of USD 60,000, claimed as a bonus, lacked any contractual basis and
should not be granted.
38. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“FIRST - Acknowledgment of the invalidity of the Claimant’s position in unilaterally terminating
the contract.
SECOND - Acknowledgment of the Claimant’s non-entitlement to any compensation due to his
established breach of contractual terms, with his entitlements being limited to his dues until the
date of his unilateral termination of the contract, totaling USD 343,548 as follows:
USD50,000 – Salary for July 2024
USD 50,000 – Salary for August 2024
USD 50,000 – Fixed payment due on August 1, 2024
USD 50,000 – Salary for September 2024
USD 50,000 – Salary for October 2024
USD 50,000 – Salary for November 2024
USD 43,548 – Salary for December 2024, prorated until December 27, the date on which the
player unilaterally terminated the contract.
THIRD - The Claimant is not entitled to the claimed amount of $60,000 USD, which he has
arbitrarily referred to as a "loan repayment bonus." There is no legal basis for such a claim.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
39. The Claimant stated that surgery was one of the options for recovering from his injury and
that he informed Zalgiris of his decision to undergo surgery. Furthermore, he denied
receiving Zalgiris’ communications, asserting that they were sent to an incorrect email
address not specified in the Contract and, therefore, were not duly communicated to him.
The Claimant emphasized that he remained at all times available and reachable by
telephone and maintained regular contact with Club representatives.
40. The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the communication sent by the Club on 8 October
2024 and stated that he replied on 13 October 2024, confirming his status and intent to
continue his recovery. He further explained that the suggestion to return to the
Respondent was based on the medical reality that his rehabilitation period would exceed
the duration of the loan. Moreover, he added that “it must be emphasized that the possibility
of the Claimant returning to Al Hazem Club was expressly foreseen and contractually permitted
under the terms of the tripartite loan agreement signed on 30 January 2024. Moreover, it is
important to underscore that Al Hazem Club was fully aware that the Claimant was undergoing
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17704
post-surgery rehabilitation and that the Claimant intended to return to the Respondent upon
the conclusion of his recovery period”.
41. Regarding the alleged termination by Zalgiris, the Claimant stated that he did not receive
the correspondence, as it was sent to an incorrect email address. The Claimant concluded
that he “acted in good faith maintained availability, and was only prevented from engaging in
full communication due to the use of an incorrect email address by the Lithuanian club”.
42. The Claimant disputed the Respondent’s position that his communication dated 11
December 2024 lacked clarity regarding his intention to terminate the contract and the
legal basis for doing so. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertions, the Claimant explicitly
invoked art. 14bis of the Regulations.
43. Furthermore, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s argument that he acted
inconsistently by engaging in discussions about a potential loan to Alahli. The Claimant
explained that these negotiations were pursued in good faith as an alternative to
terminating the contract but ultimately did not result in a binding agreement. He
emphasized that his efforts to resolve the matter amicably do not negate his right to
terminate the contract due to persistent non-payment. Moreover, he noted that the
negotiations did not materialize into a final and binding agreement. The Claimant
concluded that the absence of a concluded loan agreement left no alternative to contract
termination in light of the continued non-payment.
44. Regarding the amount of USD 60,000, the Claimant stated that this sum was agreed upon
with the Club’s President as an incentive for the Claimant to accept the loan with Zalgiris.
45. Regarding the amount of USD 50,000, the Claimant asserted that this amount was
expressly provided for in the Payment Agreement concluded between the Claimant and
the Respondent on 30 January 2024.
46. The Claimant concluded the following:
“1. The termination of the employment contract occurred with just cause, in accordance with
Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP;
2. The amounts claimed in the claim are duly grounded in the contract and in FIFA regulations;
3. The Respondent should be held liable to pay the Claimant the total net amount of USD
760,000, plus applicable interest”.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
47. First, regarding the Player’s absence, the Club emphasized that he was duly notified on 8
October 2024 of Zalgiris’ efforts to contact him and was urged to respond and disclose his
whereabouts, medical status, and expected return date, a communication he
acknowledged receiving. Despite this, the Player failed to engage with either club, did not
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17704
provide any medical documentation, and instead expressed a unilateral intent to terminate
the loan and return, disregarding his contractual obligations under the First Loan
Agreement. The Club asserted that the Claimant’s claims of good-faith cooperation and
alleged phone contact are unsupported and contradicted by the documents he submitted.
The Player’s failure to return to Zalgiris constituted a breach of contract and reflected a
deliberate attempt to pressure changes to the agreed terms.
48. Second, regarding the Player’s intention to terminate the loan, the Club stated that it
replied to the Player’s correspondence and informed him that proper legal channels were
required, including Zalgiris’ approval, for an immediate termination of the loan and return.
49. Third, concerning the new loan agreement (i.e., the Second Loan Agreement), the
Respondent indicated that the agreement was duly signed by all three parties and provided
a copy of it.
50. Fourth, regarding the amount of USD 60,000, the Respondent argued that this claim lacks
supporting documentation and that the First Loan Agreement contained no provisions for
such payment, other than the cost of flight tickets, which in principle should be borne by
the Player’s new club. The Respondent affirmed that the Club is unaware of any informal
or personal arrangements between the parties.
51. Finally, regarding the amount of USD 50,000, the Club stated that this amount was fully
settled and provided documentation to that effect. Moreover, it noted that the Player
initially did not request this amount.
52. The Club concluded the following:
“29- The Player has failed to provide any evidence of fulfilling his contractual duties, showing
commitment to the team, or complying with the agreed terms.
30 -Instead of honoring his responsibilities, the Player consistently exhibited a pattern of
contractual misconduct, including prolonged absences, total disregard for communication with
the Club, and engaging in new existing loan agreements and subsequently withdrawing, in clear
violation of good faith and contractual integrity.
31- This behavior was not accidental, but rather a deliberate attempt to evade obligations while
pursuing greater personal gain, including repeated efforts to unilaterally alter the contract
terms in his favor. Such conduct reflects a disregard for the principles of contractual stability
and good faith.
32- The accumulation of these breaches presents more than isolated infractions—it establishes
a clear and sustained intent to disregard the contracts entirely.
33- In this context, the right to terminate the agreement is not exclusive to the Player, but rather
applies to all parties involved in the agreement are entitled to invoke termination where serious
violations occur.
34- Therefore, the Player’s claim for full contractual entitlements based solely on an alleged just
cause for termination is entirely unreasonable and unfounded, given that it has been established
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17704
that the Player himself failed to comply with his contractual obligations.
35- It is inconceivable that compensation should be awarded to a party who has failed to uphold
their own obligations.
36- Accordingly, the Club considers that all mutual obligations ceased on the date of the Player’s
unilateral termination, and no further entitlements are due, as the Player’s own actions led to
the breakdown of the employment relationship.
37- Moreover, tolerating such behavior may set a harmful precedent, encouraging other players
to adopt similarly opportunistic approaches in their dealings with clubs.”
53. The Club’s request for relief remained unchanged.
e. Additional comments
54. On 25 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties about the closure of the
submission phase.
55. On 5 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Claimant, on the basis of art.
23 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), to provide with his comments exclusively on the proofs of payments
presented by the Club in its duplica.
56. The Claimant provided the following information:
“At the outset, and for the sake of clarity, it must be expressly stated that the invoices referred
to in Exhibit 5 neither diminish nor offset in any way the outstanding amount claimed in these
proceedings. Furthermore, they do not undermine or affect the just cause invoked by the
Claimant in the present action. This position is fundamental, as the sums currently being
pursued are entirely separate from those reflected in the invoices under consideration.
It must also be stressed that the Respondent’s assertion that the amount of USD 50,000 has
already been paid does not correspond to the truth. Indeed, the Respondent merely states that
it has effected such payment and seeks to rely on the invoices now submitted as proof.
However, the Respondent fails to specify at what point in time this alleged amount was paid, nor
does it distinguish it from other amounts paid during the same period. The absence of such
specification is not accidental but inevitable, as these amounts in the invoices correspond to
ordinary salary entries entirely unrelated to the sums claimed in the present proceedings.
In this regard, it is important to emphasise that the invoices in question relate exclusively to the
initial contractual payments made to the player Ben Traoré. They bear no connection
whatsoever to any amounts allegedly paid during the period of contractual non-compliance that
forms the basis of the Claimant’s petition. Consequently, while the Claimant acknowledges that,
to the best of his knowledge, the amounts stated in these invoices were indeed duly paid, this
acknowledgement has no bearing on the central issue in dispute, namely, the failure to pay the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17704
amounts that remain outstanding.”
57. On 13 August 2025, the Club submitted an unsolicited correspondence.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
58. 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 7 January 2025 and submitted for decision on
4 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
59. 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Ivorian player and a Saudi Arabian club.
60. 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.
61. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that: (i) parties to the proceedings are
not authorised to supplement or amend their submissions or requests for relief or produce
new evidence once the submission phase is closed (cf. art. 23, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules); and (ii) any supplementary information and/or documentation shall only be
accepted if requested by the FIFA general secretariat in the course of the proceedings (cf.
art. 23, par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the
Respondent’s unsolicited correspondence of 13 August 2025 was inadmissible, hence
disregarded.
b. Burden of proof
62. 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. 14
REF. FPSD-17704
c. Merits of the dispute
63. 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
64. The Chamber proceeded to examine the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned
a claim for breach of contract between the Player and the Club.
65. The Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract. Conversely, the
Respondent maintained that the Claimant lacked just cause and is therefore only entitled
to overdue salaries up to the date of termination.
66. The Respondent contended that, while the Claimant was on loan and authorized to
undergo surgery, he failed to provide any information regarding his medical status or
expected return date. Furthermore, the Respondent asserted that the Player did not
respond to multiple communications sent by Zalgiris, thereby breaching his contractual
obligations for over five months. The Claimant disputed these allegations, stating that he
never received such correspondences as it was sent to an incorrect email address. He
further maintained that he informed the Club of his intention to return and remained
available at all times.
67. Regarding the termination of the Contract, the Respondent argued that the Player’s
intention to terminate was not clearly expressed. According to the Respondent, following
the Player’s default notice, the parties engaged in negotiations to conclude a loan
agreement with a third club, Alahli, and subsequently executed the Second Loan
Agreement. The Respondent therefore claimed that the Claimant implicitly waived any right
to compensation. The Claimant, on the other hand, insisted that no binding second
agreement was concluded and that he remains entitled to compensation.
68. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the parties’ positions diverged only in the
following amounts:
•
•
USD 60,000, allegedly agreed as a bonus for the Player to accept the loan to Zalgiris;
and
USD 50,000, based on the Payment Agreement of 30 January 2024.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17704
69. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the following:
-
Did the Player receive the communications sent by Zalgiris?
-
Did the Player terminate the Contract with just cause?
-
Did the Player waive his termination by the signature of the Second Loan Agreement?
Did the Player receive the communications sent by Zalgiris?
70. The Chamber recalled that the Player contested receipt of the correspondence allegedly
sent by Zalgiris on 20 September 2024, 5 October 2024, and 22 October 2024. In this
respect, the Chamber observed that a copy of the letter dated 20 September 2024 was not
provided. Furthermore, regarding the other two communications, the Chamber noted that
they were addressed to the email address t***[email protected].
71. The Chamber further observed that the email address specified for the Claimant in the First
Loan Agreement was t***[email protected] and not t***[email protected]. The Respondent
did not submit any evidence demonstrating or explaining that the Player was also the
owner of the email address t***[email protected] and, consequently, was receiving such
notifications.
72. In addition, the Chamber noted that, in his reply to Zalgiris on 27 May 2024, the Player
shared his rehabilitation plan using the email address t***[email protected], thereby
reinforcing that this was the only address used by the Player for official communication.
73. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not receive the correspondences
sent by Zalgiris on 20 September 2024, 5 October 2024, and 22 October 2024.
Did the Player terminate the Contract with just cause?
74. In order to address the above question, the Chamber started by recalling the main facts:
Date
Unspecified date
30 January 2024
27 May 2024
Facts
An unidentified individual sent a WhatsApp message to the
Club’s President requesting confirmation of a payment of
USD 60,000, to which the Club’s President replied
affirmatively.
The First loan Agreement and the Payment Agreement were
concluded.
Zalgiris informed the Player that he could perform the
surgery and requested information as to the recovery time
and its duration.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17704
30 May 2024
3 June 2024
5 June 2024
12 June 2024
6 August 2024
8 October 2024
13 October 2024
30
November
2024
11
December
2024
December 2024
30
December
2024
7 January 2025
26 January 2025
28 January 2025
The Player sent a WhatsApp to a person called “doctor Fahad”
regarding his intention to return to the Club.
The Player informed the Club that he would like to terminate
the First Loan Agreement triggering clause 5 of the “loan
agreement”.
The Club replied to the Player informing him that certain
conditions are to be fulfilled and that Zalgiris needs to
provide its consent.
The Player provided the rehabilitation plan to Zalgiris.
The Player informed the Club that he would like to return to
the Club and requested the date on which the Player would
have to report to the Club.
The Club informed the Player as to the letters sent by Zalgiris
and urged the Player to reply to Zalgiris.
The Player replied to the Club mentioning of his intention to
trigger clause 5 of the “loan agreement” and that he was
awaiting the Club’s instructions to return to the club.
The First Loan Agreement was supposed to end.
The Player sent a default notice.
Negotiations between the parties occurred in order for the
Player to be loaned to Alahli
The Player sent the termination. The letter is dated 27
December. However, as per the information on file, it was
sent on 30 December 2024.
The present claim was initiated.
The Player signed the Second Loan Agreement.
The Second Loan Agreement was signed by the Club and
Alahli
75. The Chamber stressed that, in order to assess whether the termination was with just cause
or not, it first needed to determine the outstanding amounts as of the date of the default
notice and termination.
76. With respect to the outstanding amounts, the Chamber noted that the parties did not
dispute that the Claimant was entitled to salaries from July 2024 until the termination of
the contract on 30 December 2024, totalling USD 350,000 net.
77. Regarding the amount of USD 60,000, the Chamber observed that the Player submitted an
undated WhatsApp message sent by a third party, in which it was stated that USD 60,000
was promised to both the sender and the Player. However, the Chamber stressed that the
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17704
identity of the sender was not disclosed, and the message was undated. It could only be
inferred that the message was sent prior to the conclusion of the First Loan Agreement and
the Payment Agreement on 30 January 2024. The Chamber highlighted that, following this
message, the First Loan Agreement and the Payment Agreement were executed, neither
of which made any reference to the USD 60,000. Instead, they specified payments of USD
41,557 and USD 50,000 under the Payment Agreement, as well as salary payments under
the First Loan Agreement. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Player was not
entitled to the claimed amount of USD 60,000, as the First Loan Agreement and the
Payment Agreement superseded any prior discussions and, therefore, there was no
contractual basis to award this amount.
78. With respect to the amount of USD 50,000, the Player argued that this amount was due
under the Payment Agreement, whereas the Club asserted that it had already paid this
sum. In this regard, the Chamber observed the following:
•
The Club provided two bank statements:
(i) SAR 156,501.03 (approximately USD 41,696) with the payment reference “salary
December 23” dated 19 February 2024; and
(ii) SAR 187,850 (approximately USD 50,000) with the payment reference “advance
payment” dated 24 February 2024.
•
The Claimant acknowledged receipt of these amounts but argued that they did not
correspond to the payments requested.
•
The Payment Agreement stipulated, inter alia:
Clause 2: “The parties agree that the first party, the Club, will pay an amount of USD 41,667
as the salary for December 2023 to the Player after signing this agreement.”
Clause 3: “The parties agree that the first party, the Club, will pay an amount of USD 50,000,
specified as the fixed financial payment under the contract executed between the Club and
the Player, as outlined in its fifth article, second paragraph, which was payable on February
1, 2024.” (emphasis added)
•
Clause 5 of the Contract also referred to a payment of USD 50,000 payable on 1 February
2024.
•
The Chamber noted that the Claimant only requested this amount in his replica, thereby
changing his initial position.
79. The Chamber considered that the payments made by the Respondent corresponded to the
amounts stipulated in the Payment Agreement, for the following reasons: (i) the first
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17704
payment of SAR 156,501.03 (approximately USD 41,696) clearly referenced “salary
December 23,” which aligns with the Payment Agreement provision for the December 2023
salary; and (ii) the second payment of SAR 187,850 (approximately USD 50,000) was
described as an “advance payment”, which corresponds to the fixed financial payment
specified in the Payment Agreement.
80. Furthermore, the Chamber noted contradictions in the Claimant’s statements, as he
initially did not request this amount and later included it in his claim, reinforcing the
interpretation that the payment had already been made.
81. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 50,000 had been paid and,
therefore, the Claimant’s request for this sum was rejected.
82. Having established the relevant facts and analyzed the amounts owed by the Club, the
Chamber turned to the question of whether the Player had just cause to terminate the
contract. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, in principle, the conditions set out in
art. 14bis of the Regulations were met. Specifically, as of the date of termination, more than
two monthly salaries were outstanding, a formal default notice had been issued, and a
deadline of 15 days for payment had been provided.
83. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the termination, arguing that
the Player had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations for a period of five months and
had not responded to communications from Zalgiris or the Club. Furthermore, the
Respondent claimed that the default notice did not indicate the Player’s intention to
terminate the contract and that negotiations were ongoing regarding a potential loan to a
third club, Alahli.
84. In this respect, the Chamber observed that:
•
The correspondences sent by Zalgiris were not received by the Player.
•
On two occasions, namely 3 June and 6 August 2024, the Player informed the Club of his
intention not to continue with Zalgiris and to return to the Club, thereby invoking clause
5 of the Payment Agreement (referred to by the Player as the loan agreement).
•
The Club responded to the Player’s communication dated 3 June 2024 but did not reply
to the subsequent correspondence dated 6 August 2024.
•
Clause 5 of the Payment Agreement stated: “The parties agreed that, upon the Player’s
written request, the Player has the right to terminate the loan agreement and return to AlHazm Club on 1 June 2024.”
•
The Player provided Zalgiris with a rehabilitation plan on 12 June 2024, and therefore,
Zalgiris was aware of the Player’s location and date of surgery and recovery.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17704
85. From the above, the Chamber noted that the conditions set out in clause 5 of the Payment
Agreement were not fulfilled, as the Player’s request was made after 1 June 2024.
86. Nonetheless, on both occasions, 5 June and 6 August 2024, the Player requested further
information regarding his return to the Club. He reiterated this request on 13 October
2024. However, the Club failed to provide any response, clarity, or instructions regarding
the date by which the Player was expected to return. Moreover, until 8 October 2024, the
Club did not request further information regarding his situation.
87. Following the official termination date of the First Loan Agreement, the Club did not contact
the Player, issue a default notice, or contest the Player’s communication dated 13 October
2024. Furthermore, after the Player issued a default notice, the Club did not request his
return to its premises or contest the default.
88. In light of the Club’s silence and lack of action, the Chamber concluded that the Club
implicitly accepted the Player’s absence due to his injury and did not request him to return
to the Club. Therefore, the Chamber found that the Player was not in breach of the
contract.
89. As to the default notice, the Chamber noted that the letter clearly referred to the
consequences of art. 14bis of the Regulations. Therefore, the argument that the Club was
unaware of the possible termination could not be upheld. Moreover, regarding the alleged
negotiations for a possible loan, the Chamber observed that there was no correspondence
or evidence on file concerning such negotiations, nor any clarity as to the stage they
reached prior to the notice of termination.
90. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate
the contract, as the conditions of art. 14bis of the Regulations were fulfilled.
Did the Player waive his termination by the signature of the Second Loan Agreement?
91. The Chamber noted that the Club submitted a copy of the Second Loan Agreement, which
was signed by the Club, the Player, and Alahli. However, it was further noted that the Player
did not sign an employment contract with Alahli, and the transfer was not completed in the
TMS system; it was ultimately cancelled.
92. The Chamber observed that the Second Loan Agreement was signed after the termination
of the contract and the filing of the present claim. This raised the question of whether the
Player intended to revoke or waive his termination. However, based on the available
documentation, there was no evidence to support the conclusion that, by signing the
Second Loan Agreement alone, the Player intended to revoke his termination. Nor was
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17704
there any indication that the signature was subject to specific conditions. The agreement
merely stated that the Respondent remained the employer of the Claimant.
93. Moreover, the Chamber stressed that the loan was not fully executed, as the Player did not
sign the employment contract and the transfer was not finalized in TMS. Due to the limited
information provided by the parties, the reasons for the failure to complete the transfer
remained unclear. Nevertheless, it was evident that the signing of the Second Loan
Agreement alone did not result in a completed transfer.
94. Although the circumstances surrounding the failed loan raised questions regarding the
Player’s conduct, the Chamber concluded that it could not be inferred that the Player, by
merely signing the Second Loan Agreement, intended to revoke or waive his termination.
Furthermore, it was undisputed that the Player did not withdraw his claim, despite signing
the agreement after the initiation of these proceedings.
95. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not waive his right to
compensation.
ii. Consequences
96. 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.
97. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounted to USD 350,000 net.
98. 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
350,000 net.
99. 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 amount as from 30 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
100. 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.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17704
101. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that the compensation clause referred to art. 17 of the Regulations.
102. 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).
103. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 USD 350,000 net (USD 50,000x7) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
104. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
105. 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).
106. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 350,000 net to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
107. Lastly, 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
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 30 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17704
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
108. 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.
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. 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
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17704
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ben Traore, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Hazem, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 350,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30
December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 350,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
30 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.
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. 24
REF. FPSD-17704
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. 25