Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18205
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Joseph Ndione
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Joseph Ndione, Senegal
Represented by Ammar Asfour
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Avenir Sportif De Soliman, Tunisia
Represented by Anis Ben Mime
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18205
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 September 2023, the Senegalese player Joseph Ndione (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent or the Player) and the Tunisian club Avenir Sportif De Soliman
(hereinafter: the Respondent / Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 28 September 2023 until 30 June 2027.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of
TND 800.
3.
In addition, the Contract stipulated that the Club undertook to provide the Player with
furnished accommodation and would cover food expenses for the duration of the
employment relationship.
4.
On 25 September 2023, the Player arrived in Tunisia from Morocco.
5.
On 11 March 2024, the Player left Tunisia for Dubai.
6.
On 31 May 2024, the club based in the United Arab Emirates, Al Wahda (hereinafter: Al
Wahda) issued the following correspondence addressed to the Respondent:
“[…] We are pleased to extend our greetings to you. With reference to the email sent to you on
05/20/2024, which contains the final transfer agreement for the player Joseph Ndiyoni, born on
07/15/2005, to our club, and with reference to the direct negotiations that took place with you
personally at the headquarters of Al Wahda Sports Club Football Company in Abu Dhabi, in
which you requested that the previously agreed-upon transfer fee be changed to (10,000) ten
thousand US dollars instead of (30,000) thirty thousand US dollars, with the amount of (20,000)
twenty thousand US dollars being added to the player's contract. You interpreted this as your
club's desire to settle the financial dues owed between your club and the player. Despite our
implementation of all your demands, we have not received the final transfer agreement signed
and sealed by all parties to date (for ten full days).
Given the above, and given that the conditions required have not been met, and given that our
letter sent to you on 04/02/2024 via email on 04/04/2024 stated the following: (This offer is not
binding on any of the parties and does not entail financial or other compensation unless the
conditions stipulated therein are met, and given that Clause No. 2 of the aforementioned letter
stipulates: "2 - Signing all terms of the final transfer agreement between the two parties is agreed
upon between them. 06 In the event that any of the above-mentioned conditions fail, this offer
or the exchanged letters are not binding on either party towards the other.
Therefore, and by virtue of this letter and as of its date, we inform you that we no longer wish to
transfer the player / Joseph Ndiyoni, born on 07/15/2005, to our club, given the above, and the
negotiations between us have been closed and terminated in a final manner as of its date. […]”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18205
7.
On 2 June 2024, the Player arrived in Tunisia from Dubai.
8.
On 21 June 2024, the Player had a WhatsApp conversation with the alleged president of the
Club, during which they discussed his several outstanding monthly salaries and his
impending transfer to another club.
9.
On 11 July 2024, the Player left Tunisia for Morocco.
10. On 29 August 2024, the Player travelled from Senegal to Dubai.
11. On 27 September 2024, the Player travelled from Dubai to Senegal.
12. On 12 February 2025, the Club allegedly contacted the club Al-Nassr El-Imarati to facilitate
the Player’s return to Tunisia.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 12 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
14. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club breached the Contract as he had 13 monthly
outstanding salaries, i.e. from September 2023 until his departure from Tunisia in
September 2024.
15. In addition, the Player argued that the Club has caused him significant financial and moral
damages.
16. In this context, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“1- Ten thousand four hundred Tunisian dinars in salaries for 13 consecutive months until the
moment the plaintiff left Tunisia
800 monthly salary x13 months = 10,400 Tunisian dinars (paragraph 7) of the contract
2- Thirty-eight thousand and four hundred (38,400) Tunisian dinars, the value of the remainder
of the contract as compensation to the plaintiff, the Senegalese player, Joseph Ndione, because
the defendant, the Tunisian Tunisian Avenir Sportive de Soliman club, broke the terms of the
contract unilaterally and for an unfair reason
3- 1,300 US dollars, the price of the travel ticket that the plaintiff, the Senegalese player, Joseph
Ndione, traveled [sic] with outside Tunisia because the club refused to pay him its price
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18205
4- One hundred thousand Tunisian dinars, an amount of compensation equivalent to three
times the total value of the contract because it caused great material and moral damage to the
plaintiff, the Senegalese player, Joseph Ndione and his family
Second: Punishing the defendant, the Tunisian Tunisian Avenir Sportive de Soliman club, and
imposing a disciplinary penalty for his unfair behavior towards the plaintiff, Senegalese player
N'Dion Joseph, and his deprivation of three consecutive registration periods because his
behaviour could be repeated with other players.”
b. Reply of the Club and counterclaim
17. In its reply, the Club argued that the Player was paid 25 monthly salaries in advance in the
amount of TND 20,000 and that he was provided furnished accommodation and food for
the duration of the employment relationship.
18. In addition, the Club stated that it authorised the Player to travel temporary to the United
Arab Emirates for a trial with the club Al-Nassr El-Imarati and that he refused to come back
to Tunisia, which constituted a breach of the Contract. In this regard, the Club pointed out
that the Player wished to terminate their employment relationship in order to transfer to
another club and that it contacted the club Al-Nassr El-Imarati to facilitate his return to
Tunisia.
19. Considering the foregoing, the Club argued that the Player’s unjustified absence is an
abusive conduct which constitutes a termination of the Contract without just cause.
Therefore, the Club lodged the following counterclaim against the Player:
“1- We request that all of the Claimant’s allegations be dismissed and, consequently, that his
claim be rejected.
2- Accept the counterclaim and order the player to pay 40,000 DTN as compensation for breach
of contract.
3- Impose a sporting sanction on the player, namely a six-month suspension.”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
20. In his reply to the counterclaim lodged by the Club, the Player argued that his presence in
the United Arab Emirates does not constitute a breach of the Contract as their employment
relationship had already ended due to outstanding remuneration.
21. In addition, the Player pointed out that the correspondence dated 31 May 2024 issued by
the club Al Wahda, based in the United Arab Emirates, and addressed to the Club is strong
evidence that the latter was negotiating his transfer to another club and that he had
outstanding remuneration.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18205
22. Furthermore, the Player noted that he did not receive the alleged payment in the amount
of TND 20,000 from the Club corresponding to 25 monthly salaries in advance. In fact, the
Player stated that he only received TND 2,500 as match bonuses and that the idea of a club
paying a player’s salary in advance for a period of more than two years is unprecedented
and highly surprising.
23. Considering the foregoing, the Player reiterated his requests for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 12 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 8 August 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.
25. 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Senegalese player and a
Tunisian club.
26. 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
27. 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).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18205
c. Merits of the dispute
28. 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
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of their employment
relationship, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club
as per the Contract, namely 13 monthly salaries.
30. On one hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, the Club breached the
Contract as he had 13 monthly outstanding salaries, i.e. from September 2023 until his
departure from Tunisia in September 2024.
31. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Club lodged a counterclaim against the
Player, arguing that the latter was paid 25 monthly salaries in advance in the amount of
TND 20,000, and that his unjustified absence constituted abusive conduct which
terminated the Contract without just cause.
32. In this context, the Chamber first went on to analyse the allegation of the Club, which is
disputed by the Player, that his temporary absence to undergo a trial in the United Arab
Emirates consisted of a breach of the Contract on his part.
33. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it and went on to
analyze the documentation provided by the Club in support of its allegation.
34. With the above principle in mind, the Chamber noted that the Club, in its reply to the claim,
acknowledged having authorized the Player to undergo a trial in the United Arab Emirates
during the validity of the Contract. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s
absence from the Club had been authorized and therefore could not be considered an
unjustified breach of the Contract by the Player.
35. In any event, the Chamber pointed out that, based on the evidence on file, the Club
appeared to have been no longer interested in the Player’s services and that it was
negotiating with other clubs for his transfer.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18205
36. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Club failed to
provide substantial evidence to establish abusive conduct from the Player which
constituted a termination of the Contract without just cause.
37. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Player claims not having received his
remuneration corresponding to his monthly salaries from September 2023 until his
departure from Tunisia in September 2024.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
39. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails 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).
40. In the present matter, the Chamber noted the absence of evidence on file that the Player
sent a default notice to the Club for his outstanding remuneration and that he terminated
the Contract. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the requirements of art. 14bis of
the Regulations were not met in the present matter. However, the Chamber highlighted
that this does not mean per se that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract.
41. In this scenario, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which
do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship
between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s
fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an
employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an
ultima ratio.
42. Within this framework, the Chamber pointed out that, in the case at hand, the Club bore
the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract
concluded between the parties.
43. After a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber concluded that the
evidence provided by the Club does not, in fact, prove the payment of the amount claimed
as outstanding by the Player. In particular, the Chamber pointed out that the cheque
provided by the Club, allegedly corresponding to the payment in advance of 25 monthly
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18205
salaries to the Player, lacked any payment reference and did not in any way confirm that
the amount had, in fact, been remitted to the Player. In this regard, the Chamber observed
that there was no evidence on file to demonstrate that the said cheque had been given to
the Player. Additionally, the Chamber emphasized that the bank statement presented by
the Club merely indicates a withdrawal of TND 20,000 from its bank account, without
establishing that the funds were transferred to the Player.
44. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the excerpt below from Al Wahda’s
correspondence sent to the Club on 31 May 2024, which, in the Chamber’s view, suggests
that the Player had outstanding remuneration from the Club.
“[…] you requested that the previously agreed-upon transfer fee be changed to (10,000) ten
thousand US dollars instead of (30,000) thirty thousand US dollars, with the amount of (20,000)
twenty thousand US dollars being added to the player's contract. You interpreted this as your
club's desire to settle the financial dues owed between your club and the player. […]“
45. With the above considerations in mind, in particular that the Club had repeatedly and for
a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Player,
the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract. In fact, the Chamber was of the opinion that the outstanding remuneration of the
Player was significant enough to justify an ultima ratio measure. In this respect, the
Chamber noted that no notice of termination of the Contract was on file and therefore
determined that the Player terminated the Contract on 12 February 2025, the day he
lodged his claim before FIFA.
46. As a result, the Chamber decided that the Club is to be held liable for the early termination
of the Contract with just cause by the Player.
47. Lastly, the Chamber held that the foregoing finding, i.e. that the Player had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, necessarily leads to the conclusion that the
counterclaim of the Club is rejected.
ii. Consequences
48. 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.
49. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination of
the Contract, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to
TND 80 as the pro rata monthly salary for September 2023 and TND 12,800 as the monthly
salaries from October 2023 to January 2025.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18205
50. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of its termination, i.e. TND 12,880.
51. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
52. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
53. As a consequence, the members of 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 the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
54. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of TND 23,200 (i.e. the monthly salaries from February 2025 to
June 2027) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
55. 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 player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
56. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18205
57. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of TND
23,200 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
58. With respect to the Player’s request for reimbursement of his flight ticket, the Chamber
decided to reject it due to a lack of contractual basis. In any event, the Chamber noted that
the Player did not provide evidence of incurred costs in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules.
59. Lastly, the Chamber decided, based on the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, to reject
the Player’s request for moral damages due to a lack of legal basis. Furthermore, the
Chamber highlighted that the Claimant did not provide any/sufficient evidence or
justification regarding the alleged moral damages suffered, or their quantification.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18205
d. Costs
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18205
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joseph Ndione, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent, Avenir Sportif De Soliman, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- TND 12,880 as outstanding remuneration; and
- TND 23,200 as compensation for breach of contract.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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 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.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13