Acórdão do FIFA, processo FPSD-17916 MOUSSITI OKO_2025-10-30

Data

30/10/2025

Fonte

inside.fifa.com

Labour Disputes

Texto da decisão

REF. FPSD-17916

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Belvic Selad
Moussiti Oko

COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member

CLAIMANT:
Belvic Selad Moussiti Oko, Congo
Represented by Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels (UNFP)

RESPONDENT:
Boluspor, Türkiye
Represented by Emirhan Ceviker

pg. 2

REF. FPSD-17916

I. Facts of the case
1.

On 9 August 2023, the French player, Belvic Selad Moussiti Oko (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant) and the Turkish club, Boluspor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 30 June 2024.

Pursuant to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 18,000.

On 5 December 2023, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of EUR
36,000 within 15 days, corresponding to October and November 2023 salaries.

On the same day, 5 December 2023, the Club sent the following letter to the Player:
“On 05.12.2023, an excessive amount of substances that are considered as drugs according to
the laws of the Republic of Turkey and banned in football were found in your room in our
facilities. You are required to provide your defense within 48 hours at the most, regarding the
substances prohibited for possession and use, and you are hereby notified that if you do not
provide a defense or do not have a valid explanation, your contract will be terminated and an
application will be made to the relevant committees of FIFA, including compensation.
On the other hand, in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Turkey, legal authorities will
be notified about the substances found in your room.”

On 6 December 2023, the Player replied to the Club, however a copy of this
correspondence was not provided.

On the same day, 6 December 2023, the Club replied to the Player the following:
“1-There is no violation about the player’s private life by going to search in his room without his
knowledge and filming the search. The room was not searched but cleaned by the club’s workers
as an ordinary process. The club officers entered the room after to be informed by the cleaner
about the suspicious illegal drugs which are also banned in football.
2-As you are aware, we have not mentioned the black soap as a drug.
3-As Boluspor Club, we have never acted in bad faith.
4-We have no objection about the player’s prescribed medications. The player has never
informed the Club about his prescribed medication. Indeed, in the attached document to your
letter as prescribe, it does not contain a protocol number, a barcode or any other official signs
even the doctor’s name. It is a simple paper which can be prepared easily by anyone so it is not
possible to consider it as a prescribe.
5-The Club wishes to continue the employment relationship with the player on the contrary of
your claims.
6-As explained above, the club does not violate any rights of the player.
b-Request:
1-As explained in our first letter, an excessive amount of substances that are considered as drugs
according to the laws of the country and banned in football were found in your room.

pg. 3

REF. FPSD-17916

2-We have not satisfied by your explanations in your letter dated 6 December 2023, and it is not
acceptable to provide us a simple paper as a “prescribe”.
3-Please provide us your defense with the supporting relevant documents in next 48 hours.
Please take note that, we will have our decision about our employment relationship, after the
legal offices inform us about your position before law.”
7.

On an unspecified date, the Club paid the requested salaries.

On 23 December 2023, the Player and the Club concluded a termination agreement of the
Contract. However, both parties differ as to the content of such agreement:
Player Agreement

Club Agreement

“Whereas:

2- The Parties signed a Professional
Football
Player
Contract
dated
09.08.2023 (Hereinafter referred to as
"Employment Contract") and registered
this Employment Contract before
Turkish Football Federation.

3- As date, the Club recognizes to have
an outstanding remuneration of
18.000,00 euros net which corresponds
to December 2023 salary.

3- As date, the Club recognizes to have an
outstanding remuneration of 18.000,00
euros net which corresponds to
December 2023 salary.

4- Until the end of the season, the Club
has also to pay to the Player 90.000,00
euros net which correspond to January,
February, March, April and May 2024
salaries (18.000,00 x 5).

5- In order to terminate mutually the
contract, parties have entered into
negotiations and agreed to amicably
settle the termination under the terms
and conditions herein.

6- The Club accepts to pay to the Player
the total sum of 36.000,00 euros net
(which corresponds to December 2023
outstanding remuneration of 18.000,00
euros net and January 2024 salary of
18.000,00 euros net).

6- The Club accepts to pay to the Player
the total sum of 18.000,00 euros net.

pg. 4

REF. FPSD-17916

7- The Parties herein agree and
undertake to settle the total debt of the
Club towards to Player within conditions
determined in this Mutual Termination
Agreement.

7- The Parties herein agree and undertake
to settle the total debt of the Club towards
to Player within the conditions
determined in this Mutual Termination
Agreement.

8- As it is stated in the article 6 of this
Mutual Termination Agreement, the
Club shall pay irrevocably to the Player
the total amount of 36.000.00 euros net
in 2 (two) installments as shown below:
• 1st installment. 18.000,00-Euro (NET)
on 26th of December 2023;
• 2ndinstallment. 18.000,00-Euro (NET)
on 05th of February 2024
(collectively the “the Mutual Termination
Payment”)

8- As it is stated in the article 6 of this
Mutual Termination Agreement, the Club
shall pay irrevocably to the Player the
total amount of 18.000,00 euros net in as
shown below:
•18.000,00-Euro (NET) on 26th of
December 2023;
(collectively the “Mutual Termination
Payment”

[…]

12- The Parties agree that in case the Club
fails to pay any or all of the Mutual
Termination Payment within 3 (three)
days of their respective above-mentioned
due dates for some reason that it is and
without prior formal notice from the
Player, the Club is indebted without delay
of the total sum remaining due as
principal (90.000,00 euros net) increased:

12- The Parties agree that in case the
Club fails to pay any or all of the Mutual
Termination Payment within 3 (three)
days of their respective abovementioned due dates for some reason
that it is and without prior formal notice
from the Player, the Club is indebted
without delay of the total sum
remaining due as principal (90.000,00
euros net) increased:
(i) by an interest of 10% (ten percent) per
annum shall be applied for the due and
unpaid amount from the original due
date of the relevant amount stipulated
in the Employment Contract; and
(ii) with a supplementary fix penalty
amounting to 10.000,00-Euro net (ten
thousand euros); and
(iii) the Club shall indemnify and hold
the Player harmless from any legal costs

[…]

(i) by an interest of 10% (ten percent) per
annum shall be applied for the due and
unpaid amount from the original due
date of the relevant amount stipulated in
the Employment Contract; and
(ii) with a supplementary fix penalty
amounting to 10.000,00-Euro net (ten
thousand euros); and
(iii) the Club shall indemnify and hold the
Player harmless from any legal costs
incurred by the Player in recovery of any
or all of Mutual Termination Payment
and/or any tax that Player may be

pg. 5

REF. FPSD-17916

incurred by the Player in recovery of any
or all of Mutual Termination Payment
and/or any tax that Player may be
assessed as being required to pay in
relation
to
Mutual
Termination
Payment.”

assessed as being required to pay in
relation to Mutual Termination Payment.”

The document contained the Club’s
stamp.

The
document
contained
the
signatures of both parties on each of
the pages (including the page on which
the amounts were specified i.e., clause
8 of the agreement) and the Club’s
stamp.

On 23 December 2023, the Player and his legal representative held discussions by
WhatsApp, in which the Player shared with his legal representative the Player Agreement.

10. On 26 December 2023, the Club paid the Player EUR 18,000 under the concept “Boluspor
protocol payment dated 23.12.2023”.
11. On 18 January 2024, the Player concluded an employment contract with the French club,
U.S. Concarnoise Beuzecquoise valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2024, with
a monthly salary of EUR 10,000. The termination agreement stored in the Transfer
Matching System (TMS) for the Player’s transfer instruction to be transferred from the Club
to the French club was the Club’s Agreement.
12. On 12 February 2024, the Player put the Club in default of EUR 100,000 net, mentioning
that the Club failed to pay the 2nd instalment of the termination agreement and therefore,
clause 12 was triggered. He requested that payment be made within 10 days.
13. On 15 February 2024, the Club replied to the Player mentioning that it had already paid
EUR 18,000 in accordance with clause 8 of the Club Agreement. The correspondence stated
the following (quoted verbatim):
“We refer to the “Notification for No Respect of the Mutual Termination Agreement” dated
12.02.2024 (hereinafter “Notification”) sent on behalf of Mr. Bevic Selad Moussiti Oko
(hereinafter “Player”).
1- First of all, please find attached the Mutual Termination Agreement dated 23.12.2023 in
regards to the termination of the Professional Football Player Contract between the Player and
the Club (hereinafter “Mutual Termination”, attached as Annex-1).
2- In accordance with the article 6 of the Mutual Termination, our Club was obliged to pay only

pg. 6

REF. FPSD-17916

18.000,00-Euro to the Player. In this context, the Club undertook to pay the relevant amount on
26.12.2023 in accordance with the article 8 of the Mutual Termination and this amount has been
paid by the Club to the Player on 26.12.2023. You may find attached the relevant proof of
payment (attached as Annex-2) in this regard.
3- Furthermore, it is undisputed that the amount stated in the Notification is contrary to Mutual
Termination. In this context, since the Club has paid the relevant amount specified in the Mutual
Termination, the fact that the Club is responsible for the amounts specified in Article 12 of the
Mutual Termination cannot be accepted.
4- As a result, we would like to state that since the Club has fulfilled its obligation arising from
Mutual Termination on time, there is not any amount under any name whatsoever claimed
within the Notification and we reject your request in this regard.”.

II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 23 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
15. The Player lodged a claim for overdue payables in accordance with the Player Agreement.
16. The Player mentioned that following the failure of payment of his salaries, he lost his
confidence toward the Club, and that the Club was looking for any means to terminate the
Contract. He mentioned that during that period (October 2023), the Player sustained an
injury and was unable to access any of his medical reports. He also suffered from sleep
disorders, a condition he disclosed to the Club upon arrival. He presented the prescribed
medication and inquired about its use, but the Club advised against it and offered
alternative treatment. Ultimately, the Player did not use the original medication and left it
in his room.
17. Following the above, the Club entered to his room without authorisation and sent him the
letter of 6 December 2023. According to the Player, a climate of mistrust had developed
between the parties, and under these circumstances, the Player sought to reach an
agreement with the Club through his legal counsel in order to protect himself.
18. Consequently, the Player affirmed that the parties concluded the Player Agreement.
According to the Player, the Player Agreement contained all the essential elements agreed
upon by the parties, including clear evidence of mutual consent. It bears the Club’s stamp
in the designated signature area, and the Player verbally confirmed his agreement during
the meeting. While the Player’s signature does not appear on the document, this is,
according to the Player, common practice as typically only the company retains a fully

pg. 7

REF. FPSD-17916

signed version, while the other party receives a copy signed solely by the club. Furthermore,
the Player’s conduct confirmed his acceptance of the Player Agreement, as he not only gave
his consent during the meeting but also issued a formal notice to the Club following its
failure to pay the second instalment.
19. In the alternative that the Chamber concludes that it is the Club Agreement is the valid one;
the Player mentioned that he had no incentive to terminate his contract without securing
more than just December salary, as he was covered by his employment and entitled to five
additional monthly salaries. Based on this understanding, he signed a stamped document
provided by the Club, which reflected the verbal agreement reached between the parties.
Acting in good faith, the Player believed he was signing the negotiated version; however,
the Club later printed and circulated different versions to obtain signatures, misleading the
Player and saving EUR 90,000. Therefore, the Player stressed that FIFA should recognize
the Player Agreement as the valid termination agreement. In view of the foregoing, and as
the Club failed to meet the payment deadlines, the Player is entitled to EUR 100,000 comprising EUR 90,000 under the Contract and EUR 10,000 as late penalty.
20. The Player argued that, if FIFA does not recognise the Player Agreement, it should be
deemed null and void due to its clear imbalance and inconsistency with FIFA and the Court
of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) jurisprudence. The Club Agreement granted only EUR 18,000,
equivalent to one month’s salary, meaning the Player would have effectively terminated his
contract without severance despite having five months remaining, which contradicts the
parties’ negotiations and the factual circumstances. He would not have agreed to leave
without compensation after the difficulties he faced. The Club’s conduct - submitting
multiple versions of the agreement after the Player had approved the original - was
misleading and economically motivated. Therefore, FIFA should consider as the Contract
was terminated without just cause.
21. The Player requested the following relief:
«En conséquence des faits et arguments exposés ci-dessus, le Joueur invite respectueusement
la CRL de la FIFA à :
- Reconnaitre la pièce 10 comme accord de résiliation entre les parties et condamner le Club
à payer au Joueur la somme nette de 100 000,00 EUR, plus 10% d’intérêts p.a à compter du
5 février 2024 ;
- A titre subsidiaire, reconnaitre la nullité de la pièce 13 comme accord de résiliation entre les
parties et condamner le Club à payer au Joueur la somme nette de 90 000,00 EUR, plus 5%
d’intérêts p.a à compter du 23 décembre 2023 ;
- A titre subsidiaire, condamner le Club à payer au Joueur la somme nette de 18 000,00 EUR
au titre de son salaire de décembre, plus 5% d’intérêts p.a à compter du 1er janvier 2024 ;
- 5 000 EUR de frais de justice ».
Freely translated to English :

pg. 8

REF. FPSD-17916

“As a consequence of the facts and arguments presented above, the Player respectfully
requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to:
- Recognize Exhibit 10 as the termination agreement between the parties and order the
Club to pay the Player the net amount of €100,000, plus 10% interest per annum starting
from 5 February 2024;
- Alternatively, declare Exhibit 13 null and void as a termination agreement and order the
Club to pay the Player the net amount of €90,000, plus 5% interest per annum starting
from 23 December 2023;
- Alternatively, order the Club to pay the Player the net amount of €18,000 as December
salary, plus 5% interest per annum starting from 1 January 2024;
- €5,000 in legal costs.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. The Club requested that the claim be rejected.
23. As a preliminary point, the Club referred to the issue of “substances” and mentioned that:
“Substances that were found in the Claimant’s room has no relevance to the present case.
However, since the Claimant has raised this issue, we think it is necessary to briefly address it.
When the Claimant’s room was being cleaned (as part of the ordinary process), an excessive
number of substances was found in the room, and therefore, the Respondent became concerned
about that these substances may be doping and, therefore, requested the Claimant's defense
on this matter. It is essential to emphasize that the Respondent was simply fulfilled their duties
and did not infringe the Claimant’s privacy. Furthermore, the Request for Defense dated
05.12.2023, issued by the Respondent, is entirely unrelated to the notice sent by the Claimant
and does not stem from it in any manner. The actions taken by the Respondent were strictly in
accordance with their responsibilities, and no intrusive behavior occurred. Furthermore, we
would like to emphasize that the newspaper article submitted by the Claimant is entirely
unsubstantiated and subjective. This article also has no relevance to the present case and has
been submitted solely to falsify the matter unnecessarily and we do not accept the content of
the article in any way.”.
24. The Respondent then contested the Claimant’s allegations regarding the validity of the
termination agreement signed on 23 December 2023. The Club asserted that the
agreement was signed freely by both parties and included a payment of EUR 18,000, which
was duly made on 26 December 2023. The Club denied the existence of the Player
Agreement arguing that such document does not exist and that the WhatsApp messages
submitted by the Claimant are irrelevant and lack evidentiary value.
25. The Club further refuted the Claimant’s reliance on its stamp as proof of consent, stating
that a stamp alone does not constitute a binding legal instrument or substitute for a
signature. The signed agreement clearly stipulates that it would only be valid with the
signatures of both parties. The Club also emphasized that the Claimant received all his
entitlements, including salaries for October, November, and December 2023, and that the

pg. 9

REF. FPSD-17916

termination was mutually agreed upon, allowing the Player to become a free agent and
sign with another club (i.e., the French club) shortly thereafter.
26. In response to the Claimant’s arguments regarding the waiver, the Club referred to art. 341
of the Swiss Code of Obligations, clarifying that the provision only prohibits the waiver of
mandatory rights and does not apply to future salaries. The Club cited FIFA and CAS
jurisprudence to support the position that while past salaries cannot be waived, future
salaries can be validly waived through mutual agreement. Since the Claimant had already
received all past entitlements, the termination agreement is legally valid
27. The Club also mentioned that mutual terminations are common practice in football and
that at the time of the Claimant’s departure, similar agreements were signed with five other
players.
28. The Respondent requested the following relief;
“’-To dismiss all the claims of the Claimant,
- To make a decision that the judicial costs and the attorneyship fees that the Claimant is
faced with shall paid by the Claimant.”.
c. Replica of the Claimant
29. The Claimant argued that the Club created a hostile and coercive environment throughout
the execution of the Contract, which led the Player to seek an amicable termination. The
Club abusive actions, included unauthorized searches of the Player’s room, disabling
surveillance cameras, baseless accusations of drug use, hiding his injury from him and
withholding access to full medical records. These incidents, which, according to the Player,
were witnessed by a Club’s employee, were intended to pressure the Player into ending his
contract prematurely.
30. Furthermore, the Claimant maintained that the Club violated art. 14 par. 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) by
manipulating the negotiation process. According to the Player, the Club misled him by
preparing multiple versions of the termination agreement, presenting one with a EUR
36,000 indemnity for signature, and later retaining a version more favorable to the Club.
The Player shared the signed document (i.e., the Player Agreement) with his legal counsel
via WhatsApp, confirming its authenticity and the agreed payment. Despite the Club’s
denial of this document’s existence, the Claimant insisted that it had the same format and
wording as the Club Agreement, and it was indeed submitted to the Player with the Club’s
stamp.

pg. 10

REF. FPSD-17916

31. In conclusion, the Claimant requested to recognize the Player Agreement as the valid
termination agreement and award the Player EUR 100,000 plus applicable interest.
32. The Claimant argued that even if FIFA considered the Club Agreement as the valid
termination agreement, its content still supports the Player’s claim to a EUR 36,000
indemnity. The Club Agreement preamble clearly distinguishes between the December
2023 salary, which was acknowledged as due and not part of the negotiation, and the five
remaining months of salary totaling EUR 90,000, which formed the basis of the termination
discussions. The Player stressed that they agreed to a mutual termination, resulting in a
payment of EUR 18,000 net as an indemnity, in addition to the December salary.
33. The Claimant emphasized that the Club’s interpretation, that the amount of EUR 18,000
represented the December salary, is contradicted by the agreement itself. Clause 6 and 8
of the Club Agreement explicitly refer to the EUR 18,000 as a “Mutual Termination
Payment,” while the December salary is separately addressed in clause 4. The Claimant
argued that the Club misrepresented the nature of the payment and that the Player was
misled during negotiations, especially given his vulnerable position (being injured, denied
access to medical records, and left unemployed after the termination). He later signed with
a new club at a significantly lower salary (less than 50% of his salary), further proving that
the termination was not advantageous.
34. The Player argued that no player would terminate a contract without any severance
compensation only to end up unemployed, uncertain about finding a new job.
35. Therefore, the Player would be entitled to EUR 18,000 plus interests.
36. Finally, the Claimant emphasized that FIFA and CAS jurisprudence consistently uphold the
principle that employees cannot validly waive their right to termination compensation.
Contrary to the Club’s assertions, legal precedents protect employees as the weaker party
in employment negotiations, especially in cases involving manipulation or deceit.
37. The Claimant argued that the termination agreement lacked the necessary conditions for
validity: no adequate reflection period was granted, and there were no reciprocal
concessions of equal value. The Club would have a saving of EUR 90,000 on a player that it
no longer wanted, while the Player was left unemployed and uncertain about continuing
the season. The Club’s selective use of documents, particularly withholding the true
agreement (the Player Agreement) and relying on a misleading one (Club Agreement),
further illustrates its manipulative conduct.
38. The Player’s request for relief remained unchanged.

pg. 11

REF. FPSD-17916

d. Duplica of the Respondent
39. In its final comments, the Respondent rejected the arguments brought forward by the
Claimant in his replica.
40. The Club denied the Claimant’s allegations of coercion and misconduct during the
termination process. It asserted that the discovery of substances in the Claimant’s room
occurred incidentally during routine cleaning and was not part of any targeted search. The
Club maintained that its actions were lawful, respectful of the Claimant’s privacy, and in
line with FIFA and Turkish regulations. It emphasized that requesting a defense statement
from a player is standard practice and does not amount to pressure or manipulation.
41. The Club argued that no rights were violated and that the Claimant’s version of events,
including the witness statement, lacks credibility and factual basis.
42. The Club contested the Claimant’s allegations of fraud and manipulation regarding the
termination agreement. The Club emphasized that the Claimant reviewed and signed the
agreement knowingly, and that no credible evidence, such as the alleged WhatsApp
messages, has been presented to support the Claimant’s version.
43. Furthermore, the Club mentioned that that the Claimant’s reference to EUR 90,000 in the
termination agreement is irrelevant, and that:
“the parties mutually agreed on the mutual termination upon Claimant's payment of his
December salary amounting of 18,000.00-Euro. This amount was not only the final salary due,
but also served as the agreed termination payment. As such, no rights or entitlements remained
outstanding. Given this clear understanding, any allegation made by the Claimant at this stage
appears to be in bad faith, particularly considering that no waiver was made in relation to past
salaries, and the agreement fully complies with FIFA and CAS jurisprudence.
In addition to the above, the Player himself did not wish to continue with the Respondent Club
and, requested to leave by receiving his outstanding remuneration. The Player, gained the
freedom to transfer to any club of his choice, effectively becoming a free player through this
mutual termination. Whether the Player receives a lower salary at Concemau is no relevance
to the Respondent. As repeatedly emphasized, there was no unilateral termination made by
the Club. On the contrary, the Player and the Club mutually agreed to terminate the
employment relationship. Additionally, although the Claimant has alleged that the Respondent
did not provide him with medical reports, these claims are false and no evidence has been
presented to support them, and should be dismissed accordingly.”
44. As to the witness statement of a former employee (Mr. Demirhan's), the Respondent
mentioned that he had no involvement in contractual negotiations or decision-making
process and that he had no access to details of such agreement. Mr. Demirhan's statement
appears to be motivated by personal grievances following his problematic departure from

pg. 12

REF. FPSD-17916

the Respondent, and therefore, it is clear that it lacks credibility and reliability. The Club
further mentioned that Mr. Demirhan is currently involved in an ongoing legal dispute with
the Respondent. Based on this, the Club deemed that his statement is biased and does not
present a fair view of the events. The Club concluded that witness statements cannot be
taken into account.
45. The Club further concluded the following:
“i. The Claimant alleged that the Mutual Termination Agreement signed between the parties should
not be recognized, as it was allegedly signed by the Player under the Club's fraudulent actions.
Additionally, the Claimant has argued for the recognition of an agreement that was never signed
and does not exist. However, such claim is legally unacceptable, as a non-existent agreement
cannot, under any circumstances, be considered. The actual Agreement was negotiated, signed,
and executed in accordance with the parties' mutual intent. There is no legal ground to disregard
the Agreement.
ii. The Claimant alternatively requested to recognize the nullity of the Mutual Termination
Agreement and to condemn the Respondent to pay 90.000,00-Euro plus interest However, as
confirmed by FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, a player cannot waive past salaries but can validly waive
future entitlements through a mutual termination agreement In the present case, the Claimant was
duly paid all outstanding salaries, including his final entitlement, the December 2023 salary. Since
there were no unpaid wages or entitlements remaining, the Mutual Termination Agreement is valid,
and the Claimant has no grounds to claim additional amounts.
iii. The Claimant alternatively requested to condemn the Respondent to pay him 18.000,00- Euro as
December 2023 salary plus interest However, as explained, his December 2023 salary was duly
paid. The Claimant has no outstanding entitlements. His attempt to create a non-existent debt is
entirely baseless and should be dismissed outright.“.
46. The Respondent’s request for relief remained unchanged.

pg. 13

REF. FPSD-17916

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
47. 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 30 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
48. 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 Congolese player and a Turkish club.
49. 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
50. 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.
c. Merits of the dispute
51. 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.

pg. 14

REF. FPSD-17916

i. Main legal discussion and considerations
52. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute which termination agreement was valid (Player or Club
Agreement), as well as its terms and consequences.
53. The Chamber noted that the Player sustained that the Player Agreement constituted the
valid termination agreement and that the Club failed to comply with the payment
obligations set out therein. Conversely, the Club argued that the Club Agreement was the
only valid and binding document, that all obligations under said agreement were duly
fulfilled, and that the Player’s claim should therefore be dismissed.
54. In this context, the Chamber noted that it is undisputed that the parties terminated the
employment relationship by mutual agreement. The Chamber further noted that the Player
Agreement is not signed by the Player and merely contains the Club’s stamp, whereas the
Club Agreement bears the signatures of both parties, in addition to the Club’s stamp.
55. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that it was first necessary to assess
which of the two documents shall be considered as the valid mutual termination
agreement between the parties.
56. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Player alleged that the Club engaged in
abusive conduct in an attempt to compel him to terminate the Contract, referring to alleged
unauthorized searches of his room, disabling of surveillance cameras, unfounded
accusations of drug use, hiding information of his injury, and withholding access to medical
records. The Club rejected all such allegations.
57. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber noted that no evidence was submitted to
demonstrate that the Player ever requested access to his medical records, nor was any
correspondence or formal complaint lodged with the Club or its medical staff concerning
the alleged injury.
58. With respect to the alleged unauthorized searches, the majority of the Chamber recalled
the Club’s position that no targeted search had been conducted and that the actions in
question occurred solely in the context of routine cleaning. The Chamber further noted
that the Player did not dispute that such cleaning activities were authorized. Although the
Club’s letter was sent shortly after the Player’s notice of default, it expressly requested the
Player to clarify the circumstances of the incident. In the absence of any further information
or evidence, the majority of the Chamber cannot conclude that the Club engaged in any
unauthorized searches.
59. The majority of the Chamber also noted an inconsistency in the Player’s submissions: while
claiming that he signed the termination agreement (either the Player or the Club’s version)

pg. 15

REF. FPSD-17916

under alleged abusive circumstances, the Player simultaneously sought to enforce the
termination agreement.
60. The majority of the Chamber further examined the Player’s evidence, including a
newspaper interview and the witness statement. In this respect, the majority of the
Chamber held that an interview given by the Player himself does not constitute
independent supporting evidence of the facts alleged. Similarly, while a witness statement
was submitted from a former Club employee, the majority of the Chamber could not
identify his position nor understand his involvement in the contractual process, thereby
rendering the probative value of this testimony limited.
61. The Chamber also noted that the Player submitted communications with his lawyer dated
23 December 2023, allegedly demonstrating that the Player shared a version of the
termination agreement corresponding to the Player Agreement. The Club contested such
communications. The majority of the Chamber observed that the document provided did
not include all pages of the agreement and some of which were in Turkish language. In this
respect, the majority of the Chamber stressed that it cannot be established that, even
assuming the document was indeed shared with his lawyer, the timing of signing was the
same, nor at what moment such signing actually occurred or what discussions, if any, took
place between the Player and the Club following the sharing of this documentation.
Moreover, the majority noted that such discussions were allegedly conducted exclusively
between the Player and his legal representative, and there is no any previous discussions
between the Player and the Club regarding the termination agreement.
62. Additionally, the majority of the Chamber observed that the Player Agreement contained
only a Club stamp and no signature from either party. In contrast, the Club Agreement bore
the signature of both parties on each page, including the page setting out the financial
terms, as well as the Club’s stamp. Importantly, the Player did not contest the authenticity
of his signature on the Club Agreement; instead, he claimed that the Club mislead him at
the moment of signing such agreements.
63. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber held that, even assuming the Player considered
that the Club had presented multiple versions of the termination agreement, the Player
had the responsibility to carefully read and confirm the terms of any document he signed.
Any alleged failure to do so does not exempt him from the legal consequences of such lack
of diligence (cf., inter alia, DRC decision of 11 July 2023 Darwish).
64. The majority of the Chamber further noted that following his default notice of 12 February
2024, to which the Club timely replied to it, on 15 February 2024, the Player waited more
than one year before challenging the content of the termination agreement. Such delay
was considered inconsistent with the diligence expected from a party disputing the validity
of a signed agreement.

pg. 16

REF. FPSD-17916

65. Finally, the majority of the Chamber emphasised that while the signature of both parties is
a key element in confirming that both parties have agreed to its terms, the absence of one
party’s signature does not necessarily invalidate an agreement if other elements
demonstrate mutual consent. In this respect, in the present case, the burden of proof
rested with the Player to demonstrate that the unsigned Player Agreement constituted the
binding version. However, the majority of the Chamber stressed that the Player failed to
provide sufficient evidence establishing that the unsigned document, rather than the Club
Agreement, represented the parties’ true agreement.
66. In light of all the above, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Club Agreement
must be considered the termination agreement signed by the parties, considering that: (i)
it was duly signed by both parties on each page, including the page detailing the financial
obligations; (ii) the Player’s overall behaviour was consistent with acceptance of this
version; and (iii) the Player failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim
that a different version was agreed.
67. Having stated the above, the majority of the Chamber passed to analyse whether the
content of the Club Agreement was valid and binding to the parties and its consequences,
if any.
68. In doing so, the majority of the Chamber recalled that the merely signature of a contract
does not ensure the enforceability of its contents. Accordingly, the majority of the Chamber
referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS on waivers,
which provides that (i) in general terms, an employee (e.g., a player or a coach) cannot
waive remuneration for work already performed; and (ii) in order to assess whether a
transaction is permissible, the court / deciding-making body is required to conduct a
balancing of interests by considering whether the reciprocal claims waived by each party
are of comparable value. Put differently, whether there is an appropriate equivalence
between the parties’ reciprocal concessions.
69. In continuation, the majority of the Chamber referred to the wording of the Club
Agreement, in particular as to the payments which stipulated the following:
“3- As date, the Club recognizes to have an outstanding remuneration of 18.000,00 euros
net which corresponds to December 2023 salary.
4- Until the end of the season, the Club has also to pay to the Player 90.000,00 euros net
which correspond to January, February, March, April and May 2024 salaries (18.000,00 x 5).
5- In order to terminate mutually the contract, parties have entered into negotiations and
agreed to amicably settle the termination under the terms and conditions herein.
6- The Club accepts to pay to the Player the total sum of 18.000,00 euros net.
7- The Parties herein agree and undertake to settle the total debt of the Club towards to Player
within the conditions determined in this Mutual Termination Agreement.” (emphasis added
by the majority of the Chamber).

pg. 17

REF. FPSD-17916

70. The majority of the Chamber noted that, according to the wording of the Club Agreement,
the parties acknowledged the existence of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR
18,000, corresponding to the Player’s salary for December 2023. The majority of the
Chamber further observed that the agreement provided for the Club to pay EUR 18,000 to
the Player, with both parties confirming that, following this payment, no further amounts
would be due by the Club.
71. The majority of the Chamber then noted that clause 6 of the Club agreement does not
expressly qualify the nature of the EUR 18,000 payment. Nevertheless, taking into account
the overall content of the clause and the context of the parties’ negotiations, the majority
of the Chamber considered it clear that the amount corresponded to the Player’s
December 2023 salary. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber found that the Club
committed to pay the salary for December 2023 and that, upon such payment, the parties
mutually agreed to terminate the employment contract.
72. The majority of the Chamber further concluded that the Player did not waive any
outstanding salary entitlements. In particular, the majority of the Chamber emphasized
that the Player had the possibility to finalise the Contract before the end of December
while still receiving full remuneration for the month. Therefore, the majority of the
Chamber determined that the Player did not waive any past salary rights.
73. With respect to future remuneration, the majority of the Chamber considered that, by
mutually agreeing to an early termination of the employment contract, by paying the
totality of December 2023 salary while the Contract terminated before the end of the
month, the parties accepted that no additional compensation would be payable. The
majority of the Chamber noted that the Player was subsequently free to sign with a new
club, which he did, and would no longer render services to the Respondent. Likewise, the
Club would not benefit from the Player’s services after the termination and therefore had
no further obligation to pay salaries.
74. Based on the foregoing considerations, the majority of the Chamber held that the Club
Agreement validly reflected the parties’ mutual intentions and was binding upon them.
Accordingly, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
75. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
76. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.

pg. 18

REF. FPSD-17916

77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.

pg. 19

REF. FPSD-17916

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.

The claim of the Claimant, Belvic Selad Moussiti Oko, is rejected.

This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal:

Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

pg. 20

REF. FPSD-17916

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. 21