Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17914
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Adewale James Olufade
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Adewale James Olufade, Togo
Represented by Ludovic Delechat
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Alnasr, Oman
Represented by Rosalia Ortega Pradillo
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17914
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 August 2024, the Togolese player Adewale James Olufade (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Omani club Alnasr (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract).
2.
Clause 2 of the Contract established (quoted verbatim):
“Article (2) Contract Commencement and Termination
1) This Contract begins with the date 11/08/2024 day and terminates will be at end of
sports season 2024/2025 estimated at on 22/05/2025 (date). In case of sports season
2024/2025 continue after the contract date 22/05/2025, the contract will continue till
end of the sports season as per same rules and regulations of the contract, in case the
sports season end before 22/05/2025 balance days of salary will be deducted. (…)”
3.
Furthermore, clause 3 of the Contract stipulated (quoted verbatim):
“Article (3): Disciplinary Procedure
1. The disciplinary procedure aims to ensure that the Club behaves fairly in investigating
and dealing with allegations of unacceptable conduct with a view to helping and
encouraging all employees of the Club.
2. All records of disciplinary action will be recorded and retained by the Club.
3. In the event a Player violates their obligations and a breach of the Rules the Club will
adhere to the following procedure:
a. Investigation - The club will investigate the matter complained of, and during the
investigation, if the club considers it necessary to suspend the player for a period of three
days while the investigation is in progress. He will be entitled to his entitlement under the
contract but the player will not be entitled to access any of the club's premises without
the club's prior written consent. The decision to suspend a player will be made in writing
to the player by the club.
b. Disciplinary Hearing - The club may decide to continue the investigation to hold a
disciplinary hearing on the matter in question. The hearing will include the player and
the club. At the hearing, the player will be given the opportunity to present his case in
person. If the player decides not to attend the session, a penalty set out below will be
imposed.
1. Warning
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17914
2. Absentees will be deducted per day (51) R.O per day absent.
3. Deductions as per internal rules & regulations of Club.
4. Fine up to (currency/amount) (max. one basic monthly salary)
5. Suspension
6. Termination
c. Appeals - The player has the right to appeal to the club against any disciplinary action
and must inform the club in writing within three days from the date on which he was
notified of the sanction.”
4.
Clause 5 of the Contract established:
“Article (5) Sickness and Accident
1. Any incapacity or sickness shall be reported by the Player to the CLUB immediately
and the CLUB shall keep a record of any incapacity. The player shall submit promptly to
such medical examinations as the CLUB may reasonably require and shall undergo, at
no expense to him, such treatment as may be prescribed by the medical adviser of the
CLUB in order to restore the Player to fitness. The CLUB subject to its available resources
shall endeavor arrange promptly such prescribed treatment and shall ensure that such
treatment is undertaken and completed without expense to the Player.
2. Sultanate of Oman legislation regarding sickness and accidents applies to both parties
to the contract. Any provisions in the Regulations of the Oman Football Association and
OPL governing this matter also apply.”
5.
Clause 7 of the Contract provided, inter alia, as follows:
“Article (7): Player's Obligations:
1.The player undertakes to use all his energies and athletic abilities and to exert his
utmost effort without limitation for the benefit of the club and to refrain from doing
anything that might harm the club in general, especially before, during and after the
matches in which the club participates.
In accordance with these principles, the Player is subject to the following specific
obligations:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17914
a. To participate in all CLUB games and practice, in training, whether generally provided
for or specially arranged, in all player conferences and any other arrangements for the
purpose of preparing for games and competition. This shall also apply if his participation
as player or substitute player is not envisaged
b. In case of professional injury or illness in the course of his activities as a licensed
player, to immediately report to the doctor appointed by the CLUB and to inform the
board or the relevant person appointed by the CLUB of the doctor's diagnosis insofar as
it concerns the Player's obligations towards the CLUB. Should the Player’s playing
capacity be impeded for more than three 1 days, or if he is deemed unfit to play at all,
he must present a medical certificate.
c. To comprehensively undergo the athletic and therapeutic measures ordered by the
person duly authorized by the CLUB, taking into consideration the Player's individual
rights.
(…)”
6.
Clause 11 of the Contract included the following:
“Article (11) Other Agreements
1. The [Club] will not be in breach of the Contract and shall not be liable for delay in
performing, or failure to perform, any or all of its obligations under this Agreement if
FIFA, OFA or the League suspends League and/or Cup competitions due to a Force
Majeure Event. If the force majeure event continues for fifteen consecutive days of the
league period, the club may terminate this contract by giving fourteen days' written
notice. The [Player] acknowledges that there is no compensation due for the force
majeure event.
2. In the event of stopping or cancelling sports activity by the Oman Football Association
based on the decision of the Supreme Committee or the Ministry of Culture, Sports and
Youth due to the Corona pandemic (Covid-19) or any other reason and it exceeds fifteen
days, the [Player] is not entitled to any salaries for that is until the activity returns as it
was.
3. The player is not entitled to terminate the contract in the event of stopping or
cancelling the sports season 2024/2025, which is decided by the Oman Football
Association based on the decision of the Supreme Committee or the Ministry of Culture,
Sports and Youth.
4. In case the [Player] signed a professional contract, the [Club] is entitled for 25% of
such contract gained by the [Player] to be paid by the club offered such contract to the
[Player] of the contract is subject to the approval by the [Club].
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17914
5. The player hereby accepts deductions from his monthly salaries in the following
circumstances:
1. Deduction of ($ 135) One Hundred Thirty Five US Dollars if the player failed to show
up or participate in any team practices without permission of the physiotherapist or the
technical/Coaching staff of the Club.
2. Deduction of ($ 3000) Three Thousand US Dollars if the player failed to participate in
any official game without permission of the physiotherapist or the technical/Coaching
staff of the Club.
(…)”
7.
Clause 13 of the Contract set forth (quoted verbatim):
“Article (13) Contract Mutually Termination Terms
The club will be entitles to terminate this contract and deduct all outstanding payment
balances without any compensation if the player:
1. Displays bad and/or immoral conduct and behaviour towards any of the technical or
administrative members of the team or Club.
2. Disrespects, or is found in breach of, the laws, customs, and traditions of the Omani
society and in a manner harmful to the reputation, integrity, and prestige of the Club.
3. Violates any of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this contract.
4. Violation of the regulations of the club or the Omani Football Association, or
absenteeism from exercises or matches without an acceptable excuse.
5. If the Club elects to terminate this contract before its due date, for reasons other than
the ones mentioned in clause 13.1,2,3,4 of the contract, the club must pay the Player on
going month and plus three Months Salary only as compensation.
6. if the player elects to terminate this contract before its due date, or has received an
offer from any other club, he must pay to the AI Nasr Club a sum of ($ 100000) One
Hundred Thousand Us Dollars only.”
8.
Schedule 1 of the Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Duration of agreement as written above dates for the SPORTS SEASONS 2024/2025.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17914
a. An amount advance from salaries ($ 10000/=) Ten Thousand US Dollars only from the
sports season 2024/2025 will be paid at dated: 01-09-2024.
b. A monthly salary ($ 3000/=) Three Thousand US Dollars only will be paid from starting
of the contract till end of the sports season 2024/2025.
Allowance:
1. Providing a single accommodation according to the capabilities of the club.
2. Entitled for an economy class air ticket for him by any airlines one time during the
contract from Republic of Togo - SALALAH (OMAN)- Republic of Togo.
3. Providing a Saloon Car, if he has international or Omani driving License.
4. In the event of obtaining the first place in His Majesty's Cup or the Omantel League for
the sports season 2024/2025, the first party (Al-Nasr Club) will pay a reward amount
($4000) Four Thousand US Dollars to the second party for each event.
5- The player is entitles for a reward amount (150 $) One Hundred Fifty US Dollars for
each winning match of his Majesty Cup and Omantel League.
Notice: Salaries will be providing in Rial Omani only.”
9.
According to the Club, on an unspecified date - which the Club claims was 17 August 2024
- the Player received OMR 100 in cash as part of his August salary.
10. According to the Club, on 8 September 2024, the Player received OMR 516 in cash as salary
for August 2024.
11. According to the Club, on 10 September 2024, the Player received OMR 1,925.
12. On 21 October 2024, the Club paid OMR 350 to the Player as part of the salary for
September 2024.
13. According to the Club, on 10 November 2024, the Player received OMR 805.
14. On 28 December 2024, the Player received OMR 100 as part of the salary for October 2024.
15. On 30 December 2024, the Player placed the Club in default, alleging that it had failed to
pay the salaries for October, November, and December, as well as part of the USD 10,000
signing bonus and various performance bonuses. Additionally, the Player claimed he had
not been provided with a car, as stipulated in the Contract. He requested payment of the
outstanding amounts within 15 days, i.e., by no later than 14 January 2025.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17914
16. On 4 January 2025, the Player was diagnosed with feverish gastroenteritis by a doctor in
Togo. The doctor attested that the Player required 72 hours of rest for treatment.
17. On 5 January 2025, the Club sent a notice to the Player, stating that he had submitted a sick
leave certificate allegedly issued by a doctor in Togo, despite currently being in Oman. The
Club argued that the Player had been provided with a medical treatment card and was
contractually required to seek medical attention in Oman in the event of illness or injury.
Accordingly, the Club requested that the Player visit a government hospital in Oman for a
proper medical examination and rejected the submitted sick leave. Finally, the Club
informed the Player that his absences would be deducted from his salary in accordance
with the Club’s policy.
18. On 6 January 2025, the Player responded to the Club’s letter, stating that he was unable to
attend training due to illness and had submitted a valid sick leave certificate issued by a
licensed medical professional in Togo. He argued that the certificate’s validity should not
be questioned solely because the issuing doctor was based outside Oman and asserted
that the Contract did not contain any provision requiring him to exclusively seek medical
treatment in Oman. Furthermore, the Player reiterated that there were outstanding
payments owed to him and reiterated his demand for payment. He concluded that, given
the submission of a valid sick leave certificate, any salary deduction would constitute an
additional breach of the Contract.
19. On 7 January 2025, the Club sent an email to the Player’s representative requesting his
contact number.
20. Also on 7 January 2025, the Player’s representative replied, expressing appreciation for the
Club’s outreach. However, he noted that the Club had failed to address the issues
concerning the outstanding remuneration owed to the Player and the salary deductions
mentioned in its earlier correspondence. Additionally, the representative stated that he
was aware of a conversation between the Player and the Club’s representatives, during
which the Club expressed its intention to terminate the Contract. In this regard, the Player’s
representative requested that a formal offer be submitted in writing. Lastly, the
representative reminded the Club of its obligation to settle all outstanding payments, which
consisted of three-monthly salaries and bonuses plus part of the signing fee.
21. On 15 January 2025, the Club sent a notice to the Player, requesting his attendance at a
meeting with the Club’s administration at 20:00 to discuss the termination of his Contract.
The Club cited the following reasons: (i) absences without valid justification, (ii) failure to
attend several matches, and (iii) unsatisfactory performance with the team. The Club also
requested the return of the car provided to the Player.
22. Also on 15 January 2025, 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17914
Regulations), due to the Club’s failure to pay the overdue amounts. He stated that he would
return the car provided to him the previous week.
23. On 15 January 2025, the Player returned the car.
24. On 17 January 2025, an invoice was issued by “Professional Objectives Trading LLC” to the
Club for OMR 307. The breakdown included: OMR 27 for “car checking with computer”,
OMR 200 for “ABS fixing”, and OMR 100 for “car electric system & warning light fix”.
25. On 28 January 2025, the Club signed a contract with Jordanian player Aon Abbaas
Mahmoud Almaharmeh (hereinafter: the New Player), valid from the date of signature until
the end of the 2024/2025 sporting season, estimated to conclude on 30 May 2025. The New
Player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 5,000.
26. On 10 July 2025, the Player and the Afghan club Abu Muslim Farah signed an employment
contract, valid from the date of signature until 20 August 2025. Under this contract, the
Player was entitled to a seasonal salary of USD 5,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
27. On 23 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
28. The Player argued that, under the terms of the Contract, he was entitled to, inter alia, USD
10,000 payable on 1 September 2024, a monthly salary of USD 3,000, a USD 150 bonus for
each winning match in the Majesty Cup and Omantel League, and a “saloon car”. However,
he stated that the Club failed to provide the car and only paid half of the USD 10,000 signing
bonus, and that payment was made late. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the Club
ceased paying his salary as of October 2024.
29. According to the Player, by the end of December 2024, the Club owed him USD 14,600,
broken down as follows: USD 9,000 for unpaid salaries for October, November, and
December; USD 600 for four match-winning bonuses; and USD 5,000 representing the
unpaid portion of the signing bonus.
30. In this context, the Player stated that on 30 December 2024, he sent an official notice to
the Club granting 15 days to remedy the breach. He further asserted that on 7 January
2025, the Club contacted him to discuss a potential termination of the Contract, and he
requested that a formal offer be made in writing. Nevertheless, the Player claimed that the
Club failed to make any payments, leading him to terminate the Contract on 15 January
2025.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17914
31. Based on the above, the Player claimed entitlement to USD 14,600 net as outstanding
remuneration, USD 15,000 net as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the
Contract, and an additional USD 9,000 net as further compensation.
32. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. The claim of the Claimant shall be accepted in its entirety.
2. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 14,000 net
as outstanding salaries, plus interest at a rate of 5% per year over said amount, as from
the relevant due dates until the effective date of payment.
3. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 15,000 net
as compensation for breach of the employment contract, plus 5% interest per annum
over said amount as of the date of termination of the employment contract, i.e. on 15
January 2025.
4. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 600 net as
bonuses, plus interest at a rate of 5% per year over said amount, as from the relevant
due date until the effective date of payment.
5. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 9,000 net
in accordance with article 17 par. 1 lit, ii) FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
(hereinafter: RSTP).
6. Art. 24bis of the FIFA RSTP shall be applied in the present matter. Consequently, a ban
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and
consecutive registration periods shall be applied against the club Defendant.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
33. In its reply, the Club first argued that the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD
3,000. However, according to the Club, at the time of signing, the Player lacked funds, and
the Club, in an effort to assist him, paid USD 5,000 in advance as part of his salary. The Club
clarified that, despite the Contract stipulated that the amount to be paid as advance would
be USD 10,000, it only paid USD 5,000 and that, since this was merely an advance, the
Player never requested the remaining amount.
34. Additionally, the Club stated that the Player received a total of USD 9,860 during the entire
duration of the Contract, out of the USD 13,935 he should have earned by the end of 2024.
According to the Club, the amount that he should have received by 30 December 2024
included USD 1,935 for August and USD 3,000 per month for September through December
2024. However, the Club contended that this calculation assumes the Player had not been
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17914
absent for at least 17 days without justification, which he had. In support of this, the Club
submitted witness statements from the team captain and the team doctor.
35. The Club alleged that the Player was absent on 18, 19, and 20 September; 14, 15, 16, and
17 November; 22 through 27 December 2024; and on 2, 5, 6, and 7 (sic) January 2025.
According to the Club, under the Contract, a fine of USD 135 per day applied, totalling USD
2,295. Furthermore, the Club claimed that the Player missed three matches (on 20
September, 17 November, and 25 December 2024), each incurring a fine of USD 3,000,
totalling USD 9,000. Thus, the Club asserted that the total penalty for absences and missed
matches amounted to USD 11,295, resulting in an excess salary paid to the Player of USD
7,355. Moreover, the Club affirmed that the deductions were communicated to the Player
via the letter dated 15 January 2025 and the Player failed to appeal them.
36. The Club further argued that the Player was claiming amounts as if he had worked for
seven months and 20 days, whereas he had actually worked only four months and 20 days.
Moreover, the Club emphasised that the Player was treating the advance payment as a
bonus, when it was clearly an advance on salary.
37. In this context, the Club maintained that the Player was not owed two full monthly salaries
at the time he sent the notice, but rather one month and 12 days.
38. Separately, the Club mentioned that on 4 January 2025, although the Player was
supposedly in Oman, he submitted a medical certificate issued by a doctor in Togo.
Consequently, the Club requested that he undergo a medical examination in Oman,
pursuant to clause 7.1(b) of the Contract.
39. The Club also stated that it attempted to engage in discussions with the Player’s legal
representative regarding his situation, but the representative did not cooperate and
limited his response to demands for salary payments. Furthermore, the Club pointed out
that on 15 January 2025, it had requested a meeting to address the Player’s continued
absences, but the Player terminated the Contract immediately thereafter.
40. Moreover, the Club stated that the Player returned the car in a severely damaged condition,
with significant engine issues, and without providing any explanation. The Club also alleged
that two days after terminating the Contract, the Player left the country and, according to
publicly available information, may have joined the Bahraini club Al Shabab.
41. The Club explained that, due to the Player’s termination, it was left without a defender and
was only able to sign a midfielder, which resulted in additional expenses and financial
damage amounting to USD 20,000.
42. In this regard, the Club argued that the Player did not have just cause under art. 14bis of
the Regulations, as - at best - he was only owed one month and 12 days of salary.
Furthermore, the Club claimed that the termination was disproportionate, asserting that
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17914
the Player could not reasonably argue that the non-payment rendered the relationship
untenable, especially considering that he himself had breached the Contract.
43. According to the Club, the Player committed the following breaches:
•
•
•
•
He failed to obtain prior approval for his prolonged absences, in violation of clause 4;
He did not attend training sessions and official matches;
He failed to consult the Club’s designated doctor, instead seeking medical attention
from a doctor outside the country;
He travelled without authorisation.
44. Based on the above, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player. It stated that,
although it had grounds to terminate the Contract, it made efforts to pursue negotiations.
However, the Club contended that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause
and, pursuant to clause 13.6 of the Contract, must pay USD 100,000. The Club emphasised
that this clause was freely agreed upon by both parties and is proportionate.
45. Additionally, the Club argued that the liquidated damages clause should be supplemented
with the residual value of the Contract (USD 15,000), expenses incurred in hiring a
replacement player (USD 20,000), fines for unauthorised absences (USD 11,295), and costs
related to the repair of the Club’s vehicle (USD 800). Furthermore, the Club stated that
sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the Player.
46. In the alternative, the Club alleged that the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) could
determine that both parties contributed to the termination, and therefore art. 17 of the
Regulations should not apply.
47. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“87.In light of the arguments and evidence presented, Al Nasr Sports Club, respectfully
requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
I. Dismiss the Player's petition in its entirety.
II. Order the Player to pay the amount of USD 100,000 as compensation for the
termination of the contract without just cause.
III. Order the Player to pay the amount of USD 15,000 representing the residual value of
the contract.
IV. Order the Player to pay the amount of USD 20,000 as compensation for damages
resulting from the signing of a new player.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17914
V. Order the Player to pay the penalty for absences and missed games, amounting to
USD 11,295, or alternatively, the club be paid the excess in salaries paid, equivalent to
USD 7,355.
VI. Order the Player to pay the amount to fix the car, amounting to USD 800.
VII. Impose a registration ban of up to six months on the Player.
VIII. In the event that the Tribunal finds both parties responsible for the termination of
the contract, order that neither party be entitled to any compensation.
The Club respectfully requests that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber rule in favor of
the Club’s interests as outlined in this submission, with interest and costs, if applicable.”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
48. The Player denied having been absent from training or matches without justification,
except for three days in January 2025, during which he stated he was ill and submitted a
valid medical certificate issued by a licensed doctor. He argued that, had he truly been
absent without cause for 17 days and missed three matches, the Club would have issued
official notices or initiated formal disciplinary proceedings at the relevant times. However,
he pointed out that the only notification he received concerned the three days of illness in
January 2025. Furthermore, the Player asserted that the witness statements should be
disregarded, as the individuals in question are Club employees and therefore inherently
biased.
49. Moreover, the Player contested the alleged proof of payments submitted by the Club,
stating that he only received payments via bank transfer. He claimed that he never received
any cash payments and that the Club failed to provide valid proof of receipt signed by him
or any bank records confirming the alleged payments.
50. The Player also argued that the Club’s attempt to deduct over USD 11,000 from his salary
based on alleged disciplinary infractions was both procedurally and substantively flawed,
as no formal disciplinary procedure had been initiated. He stated that he was never notified
of any alleged infractions, was not summoned to explain himself, and was not given an
opportunity to be heard. Additionally, he maintained that the deductions were excessively
punitive and clearly disproportionate. He further noted that he was unaware of any
deductions until the Club’s reply was filed.
51. The Player further contended that the Club’s claim regarding the return of a damaged car
was unsubstantiated and should be dismissed. He stated that the car was only provided to
him in January 2025, after months of contractual delay, and that when he returned it, the
Club raised no concerns or complaints. He emphasised that the alleged damages and the
invoice presented were never communicated to him. Additionally, he argued that (i) the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17914
videos submitted by the Club do not prove any wrongdoing, and (ii) the invoice is generic
and not linked to the specific vehicle he used.
52. In this context, the Player reiterated that he terminated the Contract based on art. 14bis of
the Regulations, as the Club owed him USD 14,600 at the time of termination. The Player
also stated that, even if the amount were less than two monthly salaries, the Club’s failure
to pay on time constituted a serious breach of contract and justified termination, as he
could not reasonably be expected to continue the contractual relationship under such
conditions.
53. Lastly, the Player argued that the Club’s counterclaim was without merit, asserting that the
liquidated damages clause was punitive, disproportionate, lacked legal basis, and was
unenforceable. Therefore, he requested that the counterclaim be rejected.
54. The Player updated his requests for relief as follows:
“For all the above reasons, the Player respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
Reject in full the Club's Answer and Counterclaim;
Confirm that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause;
Grant the Player's original claims as set out in his Statement of Claim dated 23 January
2025;
Order the Club to pay all outstanding dues and compensation with interest as per our
claim of 23 January 2025;
Reject any request for sporting sanctions against the Player;
Impose disciplinary and sporting sanctions on the Club for repeated violations and bad
faith conduct.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
55. 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 23 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 2 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17914
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
56. 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 Togolese player and a Omani club.
57. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
58. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
59. 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
60. 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, and a counterclaim of the club against the player for compensation for
breach of contract.
61. 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 owed him more than
two monthly salaries. Therefore, he argued that he is entitled to both outstanding
remuneration and compensation.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17914
62. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Club argued that the Player terminated the
Contract without just cause, as the amount owed was less than two monthly salaries. In
any event, the Club claimed that the Player committed several breaches of the Contract.
Hence, the Club requests compensation for breach of contract and contractual fines.
63. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause and to assess the legal consequences. In
particular, since the Player claims that the termination was based on non-payment of
salaries, the Chamber noted that the first step is to analyse whether the Club could validly
justify his salary deductions. After this analysis, the Chamber stressed that it would be able
to determine the actual payment obligations the Club had towards the Player at the time
he sent his notice of default, as well as if these were sufficient to justify his termination.
A. Was the Player liable to any salary deduction?
64. The Club alleged that the Player committed several breaches, which can be summarised as
follows: (i) he was absent for 17 days and missed three matches, and (ii) he returned the
Club-provided car in a damaged condition. Based on these allegations, the Club argued
that penalties and deductions should be applied, and that the Player was, in fact, overpaid.
65. First, regarding the absences, the Chamber noted that the Club alleged the Player was
absent on 18, 19, and 20 September; 14, 15, 16, and 17 November; 22 to 27 December
2024; and on 2, 5, 6, and 7 January 2025. However, based on the evidence on file, the
Chamber considered that the Club intended to refer to 4, 5, and 6 January for the final three
dates.
66. In this regard, the Club also stated that the Player missed three matches held on 20
September, 17 November, and 25 December 2024. The Player, conversely, denied having
been absent for 17 days and only acknowledged absences on 4, 5, and 6 January 2025,
which he justified by submitting a medical certificate.
67. At this stage, the Chamber noted that the only evidence submitted by the Club to support
the alleged absences not acknowledged by the Player consists of two witness statements one from the team captain and one from the team doctor. However, the Chamber was of
the opinion that these statements have limited probative value in the present proceedings,
as both individuals seem to be currently employed by the Club and may therefore lack
impartiality.
68. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Club did not submit any evidence indicating that it
issued a formal notice to the Player regarding the alleged absences in 2024. In the
Chamber’s view, had the Player indeed missed the number of training sessions or matches
claimed by the Club, it would be reasonable to expect that the Club would have issued at
least a warning. Additionally, the Chamber stressed that the Club failed to provide any
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17914
documentation confirming that the three matches in question were played and that the
Player was not part of the squad due to an unauthorised absence.
69. Therefore, in the absence of any objective evidence demonstrating that the Player was
absent on the 14 days he did not acknowledge, the Chamber concluded that the deduction
made by the Club was already not valid nor justified.
70. In any case, the Chamber considered that even if the Club had provided evidence of the
alleged absences, it would not be appropriate to impose sanctions retroactively,
particularly when the Club remained silent at the time the absences allegedly occurred and
did not notify the Player of any potential disciplinary consequences. Although the Club
stated that it notified the Player of these fines on 15 January 2025, the Chamber observed
that the letter sent on that date did not mention anything in this regard.
71. Hence, the Chamber considered that the USD 9,000 penalty for missing matches and the
USD 1,890 penalty for the alleged absences (USD 135 times 14) cannot be upheld, and that
these deductions are not applicable.
72. Regarding the absences of 4, 5, and 6 January 2025, which were acknowledged by the
Player, the Chamber noted that he also argued that he submitted a medical certificate. The
Chamber further stressed that, in its letter dated 5 January 2025, the Club stated that it was
mandatory for the Player to seek medical attention at a government hospital in Oman and,
therefore, his absences would be deducted from his salary.
73. In this regard, while the Chamber acknowledged that clauses 5 and 7 of the Contract
stipulated that the Player was obliged to report his illness to the Club and submit to any
medical examinations required by the Club, it also emphasised that there is no provision
establishing that a medical certificate issued by a doctor outside Oman would be deemed
invalid or that the absence would automatically be considered unjustified.
74. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that a fine of USD 135 per day for these absences
is disproportionate. Not only were these the first proven absences by the Player, and he
had not been previously warned, but also, considering that his monthly salary was USD
3,000, his daily wage was USD 100. This means the fine exceeded the amount he earned
per day.
75. The Chamber further remarked that clause 3 of the Contract outlines the steps required
for disciplinary proceedings, which were not followed in this case. Moreover, the Player
contested the deductions the day after receiving the Club’s letter, requesting immediate
recognition of the medical certificate and assurance that no improper salary deductions
would be made. Based on the evidence on file, the Chamber was of the opinion that the
Club did not react accordingly.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17914
76. In this context, considering that (i) the Player submitted a medical certificate, (ii) the
disciplinary measures imposed by the Club were disproportionate, and (iii) the Player
contested the deductions and the Club failed to react, the Chamber did not confirm any
deductions for these absences either.
77. Then, the Chamber recalled that the Club alleged the Player returned the car in a
completely damaged condition, with significant engine issues, and without providing any
explanation. To support this claim, the Club submitted: (i) a video showing the car being
returned, in which an unidentified individual appears to mention an engine issue, (ii) a
photo of the car’s pannel, and (iii) an invoice for OMR 307 related to car repairs.
78. Nevertheless, the Chamber highlighted that this evidence alone is insufficient to establish
that the Player caused the damage, that the damage resulted from his negligence, or that
the Club actually incurred the cost of OMR 307 to repair the vehicle. The Chamber
remarked that the invoice refers to a car, but the Club failed to prove that it pertains to the
specific vehicle provided to the Player. Additionally, the Club did not submit proof of
payment for the repair.
79. More importantly, the Chamber underscored that when the Club received the car, it did
not raise any concerns about damage, nor did it inform the Player that he would be held
responsible for repair costs. In any event, the Chamber noted that the Contract did not
contain any provision allowing the Club to charge the Player for vehicle repairs, let alone to
deduct such costs from his monthly entitlements.
80. Thus, the Chamber determined that there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the
Player damaged the car or that he should be held liable for its repair.
81. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the Club failed to prove the alleged
breaches committed by the Player and, therefore, no deductions shall be applied to his
salary.
B. Did the Player terminate the Contract with just cause?
82. Having established the above, the Chamber observed that the Player argued he terminated
the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations, as the Club failed to pay him:
(i) half of the amount due on 1 September 2024, which he considered a signing fee; (ii) the
salaries for October, November, and December; and (iii) four match-winning bonuses totalling USD 14,600.
83. The Club, however, stated that at the time the Player sent his notice - i.e., on 30 December
2024 - he was only entitled to USD 13,935, consisting of USD 1,935 for August and USD
3,000 per month for September through December 2024. The Club claimed it had paid the
Player USD 9,860 and argued that the alleged signing fee was not a bonus but rather an
advance on salaries.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17914
84. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 14bis of the Regulations established:
“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.”
85. Based on the above, the Chamber moved on to determine the amounts owed to the Player
at the time he sent his notice of default.
86. First, the Chamber noted that the parties strongly dispute whether the amount the Club
undertook to pay on 1 September 2024 was an advance on salaries or an additional
payment. Although the Contract expressly refers to this amount as “an amount advance
from salaries”, the Chamber also observed that: (i) the Contract does not specify that this
amount would be deducted from future salaries; (ii) the Contract clearly stipulates that, in
addition to this “advance from salaries”, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD
3,000 from the beginning until the end of the Contract; and (iii) in the TMS, the Club
indicated that this payment was additional to the Player’s salary.
87. The Chamber considered that, had the parties intended for this amount to be deducted
from / offset against future salaries, they should have stated so explicitly. In the absence
of such specification, the Chamber concluded that the Player was entitled to USD 10,000
as an additional fixed payment, due on 1 September 2024. Since it is undisputed that the
Club failed to pay USD 5,000 of this amount, the Chamber considered that, at the time the
Player sent his notice, the Club owed him USD 5,000 for this payment.
88. Regarding the salaries, the Chamber stressed that the Contract did not specify their due
dates. Based on the standard practice of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber would, in
principle, consider that salaries were to be paid on the last day of each month. However,
although neither party indicated the specific due dates, the Chamber noted that the Club
admitted the salary for December was already due on 30 December 2024, as it expressly
stated that by that date, the Player should have received the December salary. Therefore,
the Chamber considered that, based on the Club’s acknowledgement, by 30 December
2024, the Player should have received the prorated salary for August 2024 (USD 2,032.25)
and the full salaries for September, October, November, and December 2024 (USD 12,000),
totalling USD 14,032.25.
89. Therefore, the Chamber determined that, by 30 December 2024, the Player should have
received USD 24,032.25 (USD 10,000 + USD 14,032.25). The Player acknowledged receiving
USD 5,000 and stated that he had received the salaries for August and September 2024.
Thus, the Chamber concluded that he acknowledged receiving the total amount of USD
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17914
10,032.25. The Club, on the other hand, claimed to have paid USD 9,860 excluding the USD
5,000, i.e., a total of USD 14,860. Accordingly, the Chamber noted that the Player did not
acknowledge the payment of USD 4,827.75.
90. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Club submitted several alleged proofs of
payment, which were mainly contested by the Player. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed
that (i) the payments allegedly made on 17 August, 8 September, and 21 October 2024
correspond to the salaries for August and September 2024, which are not in dispute, as the
Player acknowledged receiving them; and (ii) the documents submitted for the alleged
payments on 10 September and 10 November 2024 appear to be internal Club records,
not signed by the Player, and only partially written in an official FIFA language. Therefore,
these documents cannot be taken into account as valid proof of payment.
91. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Club submitted a bank statement
showing a transfer of OMR 100 to the Player on 28 December 2024, allegedly as part of the
salary for October 2024. Considering that the Player specifically contested all cash
payments but did not provide evidence of not having received this amount, the Chamber
considered that the Club paid him OMR 100 for October, which was equivalent to USD
259.02 on that date.
92. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Club paid the Player a total of USD 10,291.27
and owed him USD 13,740.98 at the time he sent his notice of default. The Chamber
stressed that even if the USD 5,000 signing fee was disregarded, the Club still owed the
Player the full salaries for November and December 2024, as well as the balance for
October 2024 - i.e., more than two monthly salaries.
93. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player sent a notice of default to the Club on 30
December 2024, requesting payment of the salaries for October, November, and
December 2024, part of the USD 10,000 payment, and bonuses. He granted the Club 15
days to comply. Although the debt was not USD 14,600, the Chamber recalled that the Club
owed him USD 13,740.98 and the Club’s debt was higher than two salaries.
94. The Chamber also noted that, on 15 January 2025 - i.e., 16 days after sending the notice the Player terminated the Contract. The majority of the Chamber also found that this
termination was unilateral and justified.
95. In light of the above, the majority of the Chamber considered that the Player had just cause
to terminate the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, as (i) the Club failed to
pay him more than two monthly salaries, (ii) he sent a notice of default granting 15 days
and (iii) the Club failed to remedy its breach.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17914
C. What are the ensuing consequences?
96. The Chamber recalled that the Club claimed USD 100,000 as compensation for breach of
contract based on clause 13.6 of the Contract, as well as USD 20,000 for replacement costs
and USD 15,000 for the residual value. Having established that the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract, the Chamber decided that all the Club’s claims for compensation
for breach of contract be rejected.
97. Additionally, the Chamber recalled that the Club requested that the Player be ordered to
pay penalties for absences and missed matches, or alternatively, to reimburse excess
salary payments. The Club also requested payment for the cost of repairing the car.
However, having determined that the alleged deductions are not applicable and that the
car repair costs are unsubstantiated, the Chamber decided to reject these claims.
98. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
99. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is equivalent to USD 13,740.98.
100. Regarding the USD 5,000 payment that was due on 1 September 2024, the Chamber
decided to award interest as from the following day. Regarding the salaries, since the Club
acknowledged that the salary for December 2024 was already demandable on 30
December 2024, the Chamber interpreted that the salaries were to be paid (at least) before
the 30th of each month, thus it decided to award interest on the salaries as from the 30 th
day of each respective month.
101. Having stated the above, the same majority of the Chamber that agreed on the just cause
for the Player’s termination turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable by the Club in the case at stake. Their findings – all taken by majority – were the
following.
102. 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.
103. 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 recalled
that clauses 13.5 and 13.6 of the Contract established the following:
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17914
“5. If the Club elects to terminate this contract before its due date, for reasons other than
the ones mentioned in clause 13.1,2,3,4 of the contract, the club must pay the Player on
going month and plus three Months Salary only as compensation.
6. if the player elects to terminate this contract before its due date, or has received an
offer from any other club, he must pay to the AI Nasr Club a sum of ($ 100000) One
Hundred Thousand Us Dollars only.”
104. The Chamber stressed that, while clause 13.5 establishes in advance the amount the Club
must pay the Player in case of termination, this clause only applies when the Club
terminates the Contract. Therefore, the Chamber found that the Contract does not include
any provision establishing in advance the amount the Club must pay to the Player in case
of termination with just cause by the Player.
105. 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).
106. 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. The Chamber remarked that
the Contract was valid until the end of the 2024/2025 sporting season, estimated to be 22
May 2025. However, based on information retrieved from TMS, the season ended on 31
May 2025. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 15,000 (i.e., USD
3,000 times 5) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
107. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to 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.
108. 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).
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17914
109. Although the Club argued that the Player joined a Bahraini club, the Chamber noted that
there is no compelling evidence supporting this. According to TMS, the Player played for
the Bahraini club prior to joining the Club and not after. The Chamber also noted that the
Player, after the termination, moved to an Afghan club in June 2025, as he stated.
Therefore, the Chamber considered he did not mitigate his damages during the
overlapping period.
110. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the
amount of USD 15,000 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
111. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the majority of the Chamber decided to award the Player
interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
115. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17914
116. 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
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17914
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Adewale James Olufade, is partially
accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Alnasr, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- USD 13,740.98 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 2 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,740.98 as from 30 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 as from 30 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 as from 30 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- USD 15,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15
January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17914
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17914
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. 27