Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17945
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Yao Leonard
Djaha
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Yao Leonard Djaha, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Padel Juste Mougnoba Siama
RESPONDENT:
Marumo Gallants FC, South Africa
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17945
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the present case are:
-
The Ivorian player, Yao Leonard Djaha (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
-
The South African club, Marumo Gallants Development (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent).
2.
On 1 March 2024, the Player and the South African club Moroka Swallows Football Club
(hereinafter: Moroka) entered an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
3.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a gross monthly salary of ZAR 40,000
from 1 March 2024 to 30 June 2024 and a gross monthly salary of ZAR 58,000 gross from 1
July 2024 to 30 June 2025.
4.
On 27 June 2024, the journal “supersport” announced that Moroka was bought by Marumo
Gallants Development (i.e., the Respondent).
5.
Reportedly, in June 2024, the Club informed the Player that his 16-month contract was in
fact only a 4-month contract, and that it would end in June 2024.
6.
Reportedly, on 30 June 2024 the management of the Club refused to reintegrate the Player
into the club’s squad and he has been reportedly denied access to the training center since
June 2024.
7.
On 9 January 2025, the Player sent the Club the following correspondence:
“[…] That said, my client has sent me a document from Football Club MOROKA Swallows showing
that my client's employment contract came into force on March 1, 2024 and will end on June 30,
2025.
However, after the club was bought out by Marumo Gallants Development, my client informed
me that the management of Marumo Gallants Development had terminated his contract on the
grounds that his contract with Football Club MOROKA Swallows was actually for four (4) months
and would have ended on June 1, 2024.
Unfortunately, my client does not recognize having signed such an agreement and considers
that Marumo Gallants Development has unilaterally terminated his contract.”
8.
According to the information in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Player and
Moroka concluded a contract from 1 March 2024 to 30 June 2025.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17945
9.
The Player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed following the alleged termination
of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 27 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
11. The Player lodged a claim with FIFA for breach of contract.
12. The Player argued that in June 2024, the Club had informed him that he had signed a
contract for four months instead of sixteen. Following this, the Club’s management refused
to reintegrate the Player into the squad and denied him access to the training facilities from
June 2024 onward. The Player attempted to contact the Club’s management by phone and
email; however, the Club failed to respond and did not provide the Player any evidence
supporting its contention that the contract was for four months.
13. The Player then mentioned that according to labor law, when a company is acquired,
employment contracts are automatically transferred from the former employer to the new
employer. In other words, the employment contracts continue with the new employer
under the previous conditions. As a result, employees retain their salary, seniority,
qualifications, and the duration of their employment contract.
14. In view of all the above, and considering his exclusion from training, the Player considered
that the Contract was terminated without just cause.
15. The Player requested the following amount:
-
Salaries from July 2024 to June 2025: SAR 696,000 gross “un total d’un montant de […]
696.000.00 gross” (i.e., the residual value).
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim.
c. Information provided by the South African Football Federation (SAFA)
17. SAFA informed FIFA that “Swallows FC (Premier Division team) had sold its club status to
Marumo Gallants (2nd Division team).” Moreover, SAFA shared with FIFA a confirmation
letter dated 27 June 2024, sent by the South African Premier Soccer League to Moroka and
the Respondent, from which the following could be retrieved:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17945
“[…] 1. The application to approve the transfer of the football club known as Moroka Swallows
FC (“the Club”) from Moroka Swallows (Pty) Ltd (“the Seller") to Marumo Gallants FC (Pty) Ltd
(“the Acquirer”) (and related name change application) served before the Executive Committee
today. […]
3. The applications (including in respect of the transfer of the Club; and the name change to
Marumo Gallants FC) were approved on the express undertaking and agreement that: a. the Club will be responsible for, and will deal with (and where necessary satisfy) all and any
claims that may exist, or which have been, or which are brought by, or against, the Club (whether
by or in respect of the League, players, or other participants in professional football) and
whether before the Disciplinary Committee, the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other
tribunal or court; […]”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17945
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 27 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 25 September 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.
19. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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
an Ivorian player and a South African club.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17945
23. The Chamber noted that the matter concerned a claim for breach of contract lodged by the
Player against the Respondent.
24. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Player argued, first, that Moroka had been
acquired by the Respondent and that all rights and obligations arising from the original
contract were transferred to the Respondent, and second, that the parties had agreed on
a contractual term of 16 months rather than 4 months, alleging that the Respondent
terminated the contract without just cause by preventing him from training on 30 June
2024.
25. The Club, on the other hand, did not respond to the claim, entailing that the Chamber’s
decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21 par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
26. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that it had to assess (i) the effects of the
change of ownership of Moroka, and (ii) whether the Contract had been terminated without
just cause.
27. Regarding point (i), the Chamber observed that:
-
The Player had concluded a contract with Moroka.
-
The Player provided evidence that Moroka had been sold to the Respondent.
-
SAFA informed FIFA that “Swallows FC (Premier Division team) has sold its club status
to Marumo Gallants (2nd Division team)”.
-
The South African Premier Soccer League approved the change, expressly stating
that the new entity would assume responsibility for all claims brought by or against
the Club, including those before judicial or arbitral bodies.
-
No additional information was provided by the Respondent.
28. Considering the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent was the entity
acquiring the rights and obligations of Moroka and therefore assumed responsibility for
any obligations arising from the Player’s contract.
29. Regarding point (ii), the Chamber observed that the Player claimed that the Contract had a
duration of 16 months and that the Respondent, by preventing him from training,
terminated the contract on 30 June 2024.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17945
30. Regarding the length of the Contract, the Chamber noted that the contract submitted by
the Player and the one registered in TMS both indicated an expiry date of 30 June 2025.
Moreover, the Chamber stated that no evidence was provided by the Respondent to
contest this information. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Contract was in
principle valid until 30 June 2025.
31. Having established the duration of the Contract, the Chamber turned to the alleged breach.
While the Player claimed he was denied access to training on 30 June 2024, the Chamber
observed that no timely written evidence, such as a letter or email, was submitted to
demonstrate that the Player sought clarification or reinstatement at that time. The only
document provided was a letter dated 9 January 2025, sent six months later.
32. On the basis of the file, the Chamber could not establish that the Respondent had formally
terminated the Contract or denied access to training, nor that the Player made timely
efforts to maintain the employment relationship. After June 2024, it appeared from the
evidence on file that the Player ceased providing services, and neither party took steps to
continue the contractual relationship.
33. Consequently, the Chamber considered that both parties, through their conduct, mutually
departed from the Contract by the end of June 2024, without a formal termination by either
party. By the same token, and once again relying on the evidence in the file, the Chamber
concluded that no unilateral termination occurred and no breach of contract could be
confirmed.
34. In light of the above, and considering that the Player requested compensation for breach
of contract, the Chamber decided to reject the claim.
d. Costs
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17945
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yao Leonard Djaha, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17945
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. 10