Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18358
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mahamat
Thiam
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mahamat Thiam, France
Represented by Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels
RESPONDENT:
Football Club Kolkheti Poti 1913, Georgia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18358
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 February 2024, the French player Mahamat Thiam (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Georgian club Football Club Kolkheti Poti 1913 (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract),
valid as from 16 January 2024 until 15 December 2024.
2.
Clause 2.2 of the Employment Contract established as follows:
“2. Obligations
Football player is liable:
[…]
2.2. To arrive for the training in due time and place scheduled by the club and to take part in
it.”
3.
Clause 4 of the Employment Contract established as follows (quoted verbatim):
“4 Football players’ salary
4.1 The player’s annual salary shall amount to €25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), payable
in GEL at the prevailing exchange rate for the entirety of one calendar year. Additionally, a
total sum of €75,000 (seventy-five thousand euros) shall be disbursed over a span of three
calendar years, also in GEL at the applicable exchange rate.”
4.
Clause 5.2. of the Employment Contract established as follows:
“5.2 If the player is late at the club event (meeting, training, play), he is fined with certain
amount of money determined by the coaching staff, and in case of absence (without proper
reason) contract is terminated automatically without payment.”
5.
On 30 April 2024, the Player issued a default notice (hereinafter: the First Notice), by means
of which he requested the Club to pay salaries for March and April 2024 “without further
delay”.
6.
On 21 June 2024, the Player issued a further notice (hereinafter: the Second Notice), granting
the Club a 15-day deadline to pay EUR 29,545, corresponding to outstanding salaries for
April and May 2024 (EUR 4,545), together with the “first instalment of the bonus” (EUR
25,000).
7.
On 29 November 2024, the Player issued a further notice (hereinafter: the Third Notice), in
which he reiterated the Club’s persistent non-payment of his contractual entitlements,
including unpaid “bonus” instalments, as well as the salaries for September and October
2024 (EUR 5,000). He asserted that the Club had been pressuring him to accept a mutual
termination, requiring him to waive outstanding amounts, while simultaneously preventing
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18358
him from training or playing and obliging him to cover his own travel costs. The Player also
rejected any mutual termination and recalled that the Employment Contract remained
valid until 15 December 2024. He demanded payment of all overdue amounts, including
the upcoming November salary, within ten days.
8.
On the same day, the Club provided the Player with a response (hereinafter: the First
Response), whereby it rejected the Player’s allegations of unpaid remuneration and abusive
conduct. It argued that any withheld amounts were justified by the Player’s contractual
breaches, including multiple unauthorized absences and late returns from travel in May,
July and September 2024. It further denied any improper pressure regarding a mutual
termination and emphasized that travel costs had been advanced as a goodwill gesture.
The Club also contended that the EUR 75,000 amount referenced by the Player formed part
of a three-year compensation package rather than a bonus payable in instalments. Finally,
the Club affirmed its willingness to present evidence of alleged breaches before the
relevant authorities and noted that it had already terminated the Employment Contract on
29 October 2024 for repeated violations of attendance obligations.
9.
Together with its First Response, the Club submitted two enclosures intended to
substantiate its position, as follows:
•
a document titled “Agreement”, dated 26 September 2024 and purportedly
bearing the signatures of both the Player and the Club (hereinafter: the Alleged
Agreement). The document records, inter alia, the following declaration:
“The player, Thiam Mahamat Mainrah (citizen of France passport P FRA
20DE03201), confirms and does not dispute the fact that he traveled to the
Republic of Chad on May 29 of this year, failed to return to the club at the
appointed time, and reported late. Instead of returning on June 15, he
reported back on July 29. A similar situation occurred in September of this
year, when he traveled to the Republic of Chad on September 2 and
returned late again, arriving on September 18 instead of the agreed date
of September 12.
Thiam Mahamat Mainrah acknowledges that the club purchased travel
tickets for him. Although the club was not obligated to cover these costs, it
did so as a goodwill gesture following the player’s request. The club
advanced the cost of the ticket and later agreed with the player to deduct
the amount from his salary. Financial penalties were imposed by the club
as a result of his late return.
Both parties agree that if such an incident occurs again, the player, Thiam
Mahamat Mainrah, will be disqualified by the club, and he will not have any
claims against the club.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18358
•
a document titled “Order”, dated 29 October 2024 and signed by the Club
(hereinafter: the Termination Notice). Through this document, the Club
purportedly notified the Player of the termination of the Employment
Contract, invoking the Player’s alleged “repeated violation of Clause 2.2., which
requires the player to attend at the time and place determined by the club for
training and match preparation periods and to actively participate in them.”
10. On the same day, the Player issued an additional notice (hereinafter: the Fourth Notice),
expressing surprise at receiving documents that had allegedly never been communicated
to him before. With respect to the Alleged Agreement, the Player stated that he had never
signed such a document, asserting that the signature and content were forged. He further
maintained that he had “never received any disciplinary sanctions nor faced any disciplinary
procedure” and argued that he could not be considered in breach of contract when the Club
itself was failing to remunerate him. Regarding the Termination Notice, the Player affirmed
that he had never previously received such communication, that any termination was
without just cause, and that he had continued rendering services to the Club during the
relevant period. The Player reiterated his willingness to continue performing his duties until
the contractual expiry on 15 December 2024 and repeated the requests contained in his
previous notice.
11. Also on the same day, the Club issued its second reply (hereinafter: the Second Response),
in which it rejected the Player’s allegations regarding the authenticity of the Alleged
Agreement. The Club asserted that the Player’s signature was not forged, claiming that the
Player had signed the document “in the presence of club representatives” and that “recorded
footage from the club’s premises” demonstrated that the Player was “physically present and
signed the agreement voluntarily”. The Club further reiterated that the Employment Contract
had been validly terminated on 29 October 2024 on the basis of the Player’s “unauthorized
absences”. It added that all payments owed for periods during which the Player was
physically present and fulfilling his duties have been processed, emphasizing that “no
further payments are due for periods during which fines were applied as a result of your
documented absences”. The Club ultimately reserved its right to initiate legal action against
the Player.
12. On 15 August 2025, the Player and the Tunisian club Stade Tunisien concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Subsequent Employment Contract), valid as from 1
August 2025 until 30 June 2027.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 25 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18358
a. Claim of the Player
14. The Player submitted that he was surprised to receive the Club’s termination letter (dated
29 October 2024) on 29 November 2024, in which the Club alleged that he had breached
the Employment Contract due to unauthorized absences. He reiterated that he had never
been subjected to any disciplinary measure nor had he ever faced any disciplinary
procedure of any kind.
15. Regarding the Alleged Agreement purportedly signed on 26 October 2024, wherein he was
said to acknowledge two delayed returns, the Player contested the authenticity of his
signature in this document. In his view, even a layperson could observe that the signature
appearing on the document was entirely different from his own.
16. The Player further argued that, even assuming arguendo that he had signed such a
document, the sanctions would nevertheless be invalid as: (i) the Club failed to follow any
form of due process, as no disciplinary procedure was initiated, no prior warning was
issued, and the Player was afforded no opportunity to defend himself; (ii) the termination
occurred merely three days after the alleged agreement was signed with the Player; (iii) the
Club was itself in breach of the Contract, having failed to pay the Player since September
2024. Consequently, the Player stated that he was under no obligation to render services
under the principle of “no pay–no play”.
17. On this basis, the Player concluded that the Club terminated the Employment Contract
without just cause and must therefore bear the corresponding consequences.
18. As to the outstanding remuneration, the Player stated that, under the Employment
Contract, he was entitled to EUR 7,500 as unpaid salaries for August, September, and
October 2024, as well as EUR 75,000 corresponding to ten months of additional
remuneration, totaling EUR 82,500. He stated that, to that date, he had only received EUR
15,573 during the entire contractual period, of which EUR 573 corresponded to the August
2024 salary. Accordingly, he calculated that the remaining balance of EUR 66,927 was still
owed as outstanding remuneration, comprised of the outstanding portion of the August
2024 salary, the full September and October 2024 salaries, together with the proportional
amount of the “additional remuneration” until the termination.
19. With respect to the amount referred to as “additional remuneration”, the Player submitted
that he “always consistently claimed this amount from the Club in his various notices” and
acknowledged that “whereas it is true that he was himself confused with the exact nature of
this amount, this shall not be held against him given the lack of clarity in the drafting by the club
of the wording of this clause”. He argued that “this amount is described as remuneration in the
Contract, and not as a bonus subject to any condition, and it therefore makes more sense to
deal with it as such, i.e. a remuneration to be paid monthly over the course of the contract”. The
Player added that, “in the alternative, the entire amount could be granted as of the end of the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18358
Contract”, while maintaining that “in any case, such amount must be paid entirely without the
need to wait for 2 additional years”.
20. As to the compensation, considering the termination without just cause on 29 October
2024, the Player claimed entitlement to the residual value of the Employment Contract,
comprising EUR 2,500 for the November 2024 salary and EUR 7,500 as the remaining part
of the “additional remuneration”.
21. In light of the above, the Player requested FIFA the following relief:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC:
a. To order the Club to pay the Player the following amounts:
Outstanding remuneration:
• EUR 1 927 as outstanding remuneration for the salary of August + 5% interest as from
1 September 2024.
• EUR 2 500 as outstanding remuneration for the salary of September + 5% interest as
from 1 October 2024.
• EUR 2 500 as outstanding remuneration for the salary of October + 5% interest as
from 1 November 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of February 2024 + 5% interest
as from 1 March 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of March 2024 + 5% interest as
from 1 April 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of April 2024 + 5% interest as
from 1 May 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of May 2024 + 5% interest as
from 1 June 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of June 2024 + 5% interest as
from 1 July 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of July 2024 + 5% interest as
from 1 August 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of August 2024 + 5% interest as
from 1 September 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of September 2024 + 5% interest
as from 1 October 2024.
• EUR 7 500 as additional remuneration for the month of October 2024 + 5% interest
as from 1 November 2024.
Compensation:
• EUR 10 000 as compensation + 5% interest as from 30 October 2024.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18358
b. In the alternative, to grant all above amounts as overdue payables and apply article 12bis
of the FIFA RSTP to impose a sanction on the Club.”
b. Reply of the Club
22. On 7 March 2025, the Club filed its reply to the Player’s claim.
23. The Club asserted that the Player was bound under a contract valid until 15 December
2026, under which he was entitled to an annual salary of EUR 25,000, totaling a total
remuneration package of EUR 75,000 over three years. In order to support its position, the
Club presented an alternative version of the Employment Contract in which the wording
indicated that it was valid until 15 December 2026, alleging that it was “the only true contract,
submitted to both GFF and FIFA”.
24. The Club further asserted that it compensated the Player “for the periods during which he
honored his contractual obligations. However, his repeated breaches of contract—including
unauthorized absences and failure to report on time—resulted in disciplinary actions, including
financial penalties, all in strict accordance with the terms of his agreement”. According to the
Club, the Player incurred the following breaches (quoted verbatim):
“On May 29, 2024, he left the club with an agreed return date of June 15, but he failed to
return until July 29.
On September 2, 2024, he again left the club, with an expected return on September 12, but
he did not come back until September 18.
On at least one occasion, he departed without informing the head coach or club
management, requiring intervention to secure his return.”
25. The Club argued that, following said breaches, the parties concluded the Alleged
Agreement on 26 October 2024, establishing that “should such an incident occur again,
Mahamat Thiam Mainrah would be disqualified by the club and would forfeit any claims against
it”.
26. The Club further argued that, in spite of the Alleged Agreement, “on October 29, in complete
disregard of his obligations, he once again abandoned the training facility without notice and
left the country, only returning at the end of November”, which would have been a direct and
final breach of the Alleged Agreement.
27. The Club concluded by rejecting the Player’s claims, saying that “all relevant
documentation—including his contract, disciplinary records, and the signed agreement
explicitly stating that he had no claims against the club—are securely stored in our archives
and with the GFF” and that “if required, we are prepared to submit these documents for
expert verification to confirm their authenticity”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18358
28. Lastly, the Club requested that its “integrity and rights be fully recognized”.
c. Additional comments from the Player
29. On 23 January 2026, upon request of the FIFA General Secretariat for comments on the
alternative version of the Employment Contract presented by the Club, the Player
challenged the authenticity of said document by pointing out the following remarks:
« - La page n‘6 du contrat n’a pas la même police d’écriture que le reste du document.
- La numérotation des articles du contrat contient une anomalie entre les pages 5 et 6 (article
14 en bas de la page 5 et reprise de l’article 13 en haut de la page 6). »
Free translation to English:
“- Page 6 of the contract does not have the same font as the rest of the document.
- The numbering of the contract articles contains an anomaly between pages 5 and 6 (Article
14 at the bottom of page 5 and Article 13 appearing again at the top of page 6).”
30. The Player concluded by stating that these inconsistencies demonstrate that the Club
altered the original version of the contract and acted in bad faith by submitting a false
version, which the Player had never seen before the proceedings.
d. Additional comments from the Club
31. On 30 January 2026, the Club was invited by the FIFA General Secretariat to provide its
comments exclusively on the latest submissions from the Player (i.e., regarding the
conflicting versions of the Employment Contract).
32. The Club alleged that “while the initial English draft contained a clerical numbering error, the
Georgian master version – which was registered with the Gerorgian Football Federation (GFF)
(along with the correct English draft of the contract) and bears its official stamp – clearly displays
the expiration year ‘2026’ in universal Arabic numerals”. It also added that the Player “signed
the contract (both Georgian and English translation) in person at the Club’s offices. As soon as
the mistake was identified in the initial version, the player signed the correct version of the
English translation, it is to be noted that he had no complains or objections. If he had any doubts
or if the numbers "2026" did not match his expectations, he had the immediate opportunity and
duty to report this on the spot. His silence and voluntary signature constitute clear acceptance”.
In addition, it concluded that it “proactively engaged the FIFA TMS Helpdesk to rectify clerical
errors in the system before this litigation began” which “demonstrates the Club’s commitment
to administrative accuracy and transparency with FIFA’s regulations”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18358
33. The Player also filed comments and documents beyond the scope of the invitation, which
were disregarded by the FIFA General Secretariat.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. 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 25 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 12 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January
2026 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.
35. 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 French player and a Georgian club.
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18358
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
39. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim from a player against a club for breach of contract.
40. The Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the Player argued that the Club unilaterally
terminated the Employment Contract without just cause by means of the Termination
Notice dated 29 October 2024, which was only provided to him on 29 November 2024.
Therefore, the Player sought compensation for breach of contract, in addition to overdue
payables under the Employment Contract.
41. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club asserted that the termination of the
Employment Agreement was made with just cause due to the Players’ episodes of
unjustified absences, and in line with clause 2.2. of the Employment Agreement and the
Alleged Agreement purportedly signed between the parties on 26 September 2024,
through which the Player would have agreed to the termination and to waive any financial
compensation should a further absence episode occur. Additionally, the Club stated that it
paid for the Player all the corresponding remuneration concerning the periods the Player
was actively at the Club up until the termination (considering deductions for the periods
the Player was allegedly absent).
42. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the Club
terminated the Employment Contract with or without just cause, and to assess the
consequences arising therefrom.
a) The Employment Contract
43. Before entering the merits in-depth, the Chamber observed that the parties disputed which
version of the Employment Contract governed their relationship. In essence, they
submitted conflicting versions as to the original term of employment (from 16 January 2024
to 15 December 2024 according to the Player, and from 16 February 2024 to 15 December
2026 according to the Club).
44. While the contractual term does not, in itself, determine whether the termination was for
just cause, the Chamber considered it was imperative to establish which version of the
Employment Contract was valid for the present case, particularly because this
determination bears directly on any assessment of overdue payables and eventual
mitigated compensation.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18358
45. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the version submitted by the Player contained the
following key elements:
• The document comprises 7 pages.
• The entire document was typed in a single, consistent serif font, with no variation.
• The clause numbering is continuous and coherent from 1 to 15, including sub‑clauses,
with no signs of misnumbering or broken sequences.
• Although the contract is dated 16 February 2024, clause 14.1 states: “This agreement is
concluded on January 16, 2024 (employment date) and is valid for one year (to 15.12.2024).”
• All pages except page 7 (the last) bear what appears to be the Player’s signature and
the Club’s signature with a Club stamp.
• Page 6 contains sub‑clause 14.1, the entire clause 15 and its sub‑clauses, as well as a
designated signature block for the parties’ final signatures (with labeled spaces for the
Club and the “Football Player”, with his nationality and passport number).
• Page 7 consists solely of the Player’s full name, seemingly carried over from the
previous page signature block due to formatting, and bears no signatures.
46. By contrast, the Chamber highlighted that the version submitted by the Club also consists
of 7 pages and is textually identical from pages 1 to 5 to the Player’s version (same wording,
date references, formatting, clause numbering, serif font, and signatures), save that each
page bears an untranslated Georgian stamp. Crucially, however, page 6 in the Club’s
version: (i) is typed in a different, non‑serif font; (ii) reproduces in full “clause 13” and “clause
14” (with clause 14.1 modified to read: “This agreement is concluded on February 16, 2024
(employment date) and is valid till December 15, 2026”); (iii) contains the entirety of clause 15;
and (iv) omits the final signature block.
47. The Chamber noted that this anomalous page disrupts the internal pagination and
numbering logic of the document, because page 5 already contained the entirety of clause
13 (“Deadlines”) and introduces the heading of clause 14 (“Duration”), whereas this version’s
page 6 restarts with a repetition of “clause 13” and introduces a different clause 14 with a
new wording for the sub-clause 14.1. Finally, page 7 of the Club’s version matches the
Player’s version in content (the Player’s name only, with a serif font), yet appears signed by
both parties, which is incongruent given that, on the Club’s version, page 6 would ostensibly
function as the final page of the contract, as there was no designated section for the parties’
signature.
48. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s version contains multiple
indicia of post‑execution alteration, concentrated on page 6: (i) a change from serif to
non‑serif font; (ii) duplication and regression of clause numbering (reintroduction and
repetition of clause 13, together with a newly phrased clause 14.1); (iii) removal of the final
signature block; and (iv) a material modification to the contract duration (from 2024 to
2026) and employment date (from January to February). According to the Chamber, these
anomalies are inconsistent with a contemporaneously executed document and, in light of
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18358
the otherwise identical pages 1–5 and similar page 7, are best explained by page
substitution, rather than a proper different contract.
49. Moreover, the Chamber outlined that the additional presence of untranslated stamps, or
the alleged unilateral transmission of this version to the competent governing bodies, does
not remedy these internal inconsistencies and, absent authentication and chain‑of‑custody
evidence, cannot outweigh the structural defects from the Club’s version of the document.
50. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that later in the proceedings the Club
sought to explain the differing versions of the Employment Contract. In summary, it
contended that the version presented by the Player contained a “clerical error” regarding
the duration and that it was signed alongside a “master version” in Georgian, which allegedly
indicated that the contract was set to terminate in 2026 rather than 2024. According to the
Club, although this “master” version was in Georgian, the Player could have noticed that it
stated “2026” in “universal numbers” and should have objected to this. The Club further
argued that, if the figures “2026” did not match the Player’s expectations, “he had the
immediate opportunity and duty to report this on the spot” and that “his silence and voluntary
signature constitute clear acceptance”. In addition, the Club explained that once it identified
the alleged clerical error in the primary English version, it engaged with the TMS helpdesk
to correct it.
51. In the Chamber’s view, however, this narrative further supports the conclusion that the
English version presented by the Club in its initial reply to the Claim was unilaterally
modified ex post.
52. First, the purported “master” agreement in Georgian was submitted without a proper
translation into one of the Football Tribunal official languages and must therefore be
disregarded in accordance with art. 13.1 of the Procedural Rules. In any event, the Chamber
stressed that when a player is presented with English and Georgian versions that are
contradictory, it cannot reasonably be expected that he would identify and object to an
inconsistency in a document drafted in the Club’s own language; the expectation is that the
versions are equivalent. Moreover, to the extent any discrepancy exists, the doctrine of
contra proferentem weighs in favor of the Player, particularly because any “clerical error” on
the Club’s side cannot be transferred as a burden to the Player.
53. Second, the Chamber outlined that the Club’s narrative exposes an internal contradiction
in its own allegations. In its response to the claim, it argued that its own English version
was “the only true contract”. Yet it later acknowledged that the contract presented by the
Player existed but was subsequently superseded by a “corrected” version transmitted to
the authorities. Likewise, the Club failed to provide unequivocal evidence of the Player’s
alleged consent to the transmission of this alleged “corrected” version. Taken together with
the anomalies identified above, the Chamber concluded that the evidence on the case file
supports the impression that the “correction” was undertaken unilaterally by the Club.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18358
54. Accordingly, in light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s English version
of the Employment Contract should be deemed the authentic executed contract for
purposes of this proceeding.
b) Termination of the Employment Contract
55. Having established the above, the Chamber deemed it imperative to analyze whether the
Employment Contract was terminated by the Club with just cause.
56. In this regard, according to the Termination Notice dated 29 October 2024, the Club based
the termination on an alleged repeated violation of clause 2.2, which required the Player
“to arrive for the training in due time and place scheduled by the club and to take part in it”. In
parallel, within its reply to the claim, the Club further alleged that the termination was
made in the context of the Alleged Agreement, according to which, following purported
prior absences, the parties allegedly agreed that any new absence would entail that the
Player “would be disqualified by the club and would forfeit any claims against it”. More
specifically, the Club claimed that, after the signature of this agreement on 26 October
2024, the Player allegedly abandoned the training facility without notice and left the
country on 29 October 2024, which would constitute a breach of the said purported
agreement, allegedly releasing the Club from any financial duties arising from the
termination.
57. First, the Chamber noted that clause 2.2 of the Employment Contract, which is the provision
invoked within the Termination Notice, does not per se confer upon the Club the
prerogative to unilaterally terminate the Employment Contract. In addition, although the
Club alleged a pattern of repeated absences and disciplinary issues regarding the Player, it
failed to provide any documented evidence substantiating this alleged pattern. The
Chamber remarked that no specific communications, warnings, notices, photographs,
internal disciplinary records, attendance reports, sanction record or documentation
showing that the Player was granted the right to be heard were submitted.
58. In fact, the Chamber noticed that the only document submitted by the Club to support this
alleged history of repeated absences is the Alleged Agreement itself, in which the Player
purportedly acknowledged having “traveled to the Republic of Chad on May 29 of this year,
failed to return to the club at the appointed time, and reported late. Instead of returning on June
15, he reported back on July 29. A similar situation occurred in September of this year, when he
traveled to the Republic of Chad on September 2 and returned late again, arriving on September
18 instead of the agreed date of September 12” and that the Parties allegedly agreed that, in
the event of a further absence, the Player “would be disqualified by the club and would forfeit
any claims against it”.
59. However, the Chamber weighed that the legitimacy of this document has been expressly
disputed by the Player even before the start of these proceedings.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18358
60. Indeed, in the Fourth Notice, the Player had already contested his signature on this
document, stating that he had never received it and that such signature was forged. In
response, within the Club’s Second Response, it claimed to have video and testimonial
evidence of the Player signing said document. Nonetheless, the Chamber stressed that
despite having had the opportunity to do so, the Club failed to submit any of this alleged
evidence to the case file, limiting itself to stating that the document was signed by the
Player, and stating that “all relevant documentation—including […] the signed agreement
explicitly stating that he had no claims against the club—are securely stored in our archives
and with the GFF”.
61. In addition, the Chamber noted certain differences between the pattern of the Player’s
signatures submitted throughout these proceedings and the signature appearing on the
Alleged Agreement. In light of the natural fluctuation typically found in handwritten
signatures, the Chamber deemed not to be in a position to reach a definitive conclusion as
to whether the signature on the Alleged Agreement corresponds to the other signatures
provided.
62. Considering the foregoing, based on the information available on file, the Chamber
concluded that it was not possible to reliably ascertain whether the Player actually agreed
with the Alleged Agreement. The Chamber recalled that the authenticity of the signature
has been expressly contested, and, even upon the above-mentioned elements, the Club
failed to submit any additional evidence supporting its position (cf. art. 13, par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules). Likewise, the Club did not provide any alternative documentation that
could substantiate its allegation that the Player engaged in repeated absences or was
subjected to proper disciplinary proceedings.
63. Therefore, based on the foregoing considerations and in the information available on the
case file, the Chamber concluded that the Employment Contract was terminated by the
Club without just cause.
ii. Consequences
64. 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.
65. However, before assessing the consequences of the termination itself, the Chamber
observed that the Parties also disagreed regarding the financial terms of the Player’s
remuneration under the Employment Contract. The Player maintained that he was entitled
to a yearly salary of EUR 25,000, in addition to a further “additional remuneration” of EUR
75,000. Conversely, the Club argued that the Player was entitled only to an annual salary
of EUR 25,000, and that the EUR 75,000 referenced in the Employment Contract
represented the total remuneration package across three seasons, rather than an
additional entitlement.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18358
66. In this regard, the Chamber reverted to the wording of clause 4 of the Employment
Contract, which provides the following (quoted verbatim):
“4.1 The player’s annual salary shall amount to €25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), payable
in GEL at the prevailing exchange rate for the entirety of one calendar year. Additionally, a
total sum of €75,000 (seventy-five thousand euros) shall be disbursed over a span of three
calendar years, also in GEL at the applicable exchange rate.”
67. From the outset, the Chamber observed that the wording of the clause (particularly the use
of the term “additionally”) is sufficient to indicate that the amount of EUR 75,000 was
agreed to be payable in addition to the annual salary of EUR 25,000.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that the Club failed to provide any evidence that
would justify a different interpretation, such as negotiation records, offer letters or
contemporaneous explanations.
69. Nevertheless, the Chamber highlighted that the provision is indeed ambiguous with
respect to the timing and allocation of the payments, as it does not specify the payment
frequency of the EUR 25,000 annual salary, nor does it establish a reasonable schedule for
the payment of the EUR 75,000 sum. Notably, the clause provides that the EUR 75,000
additional remuneration is payable over “three calendar years”, whereas the contract was
originally concluded for a period shorter than one year.
70. Considering this ambiguity, and applying both the doctrine of contra proferentem (i.e.,
contra stipulatorem) and the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the
Chamber considered that the EUR 25,000 annual salary must be interpreted as payable in
monthly instalments, at the end of each month. As for the additional sum of EUR 75,000,
the absence of a reasonable payment schedule within the contractual term requires that it
be considered due in full at the end of the contractual term.
71. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the Chamber deemed that the Player was entitled to the
following prorated amounts under the Employment Contract (considering a daily prorated
salary of EUR 68.49):
Description
January 2024 salary
February 2024 salary
March 2024 salary
April 2024 salary
May 2024 salary
June 2024 salary
July 2024 salary
Original due
date
31 Jan 2024
29 Feb 2024
31 Mar 2024
30 Apr 2024
31 May 2024
30 Jun 2024
31 Jul 2024
Days in
period
16 days
29 days
31 days
30 days
31 days
30 days
31 days
Salary amount (EUR)
1,095.84
1,986.21
2,123.19
2,054.70
2,123.19
2,054.70
2,123.19
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18358
August 2024 salary
September 2024 salary
October 2024 salary
November 2024 salary
December 2024 salary
Additional remuneration
31 Aug 2024
30 Sep 2024
31 Oct 2024
30 Nov 2024
15 Dec 2024
15 Dec 2024
31 days
30 days
31 days
30 days
15 days
-
2,123.19
2,054.70
2,123.19
2,054.70
1,027.35
75,000
a) Outstanding remuneration
72. In his claim, the Player argued that, up to the date of filing, he had received a total of EUR
15,573 in salary payments. Based on the abovementioned prorated amounts, however, the
Chamber interpreted that the Player should have had received EUR 19,862.10,
corresponding to the salaries for January 2024 until October 2024.
73. By contrast, the Club alleged that it had applied partial deductions to the Player’s salary on
the grounds of absences and associated sanctions and fines. Yet, the Club failed to
substantiate any such deductions: it provided neither a breakdown of the amounts
withheld, nor evidence of the underlying disciplinary incidents or proceedings, nor any
contractual or regulatory basis authorizing the imposition of such deductions.
Furthermore, although clause 5.2 of the Employment Contract provides for the possibility
of fines, the contract contained no provision permitting the Club to make unilateral
deductions or set-offs directly from the Player’s remuneration. Accordingly, the Chamber
emphasized that when assessing the outstanding remuneration owed to the Player, no
deductions should be considered.
74. Consequently, in line with the pacta sunt servanda principle, the Chamber concluded that
the Player is entitled to receive EUR 4,289 in overdue payables, this amount reflecting the
outstanding balance of the prorated August 2024 salary (EUR 111,11), and the full prorated
amount of September 2024 salary (EUR 2,054.70) and October 2024 salary (EUR 2,123.19).
In line with established practice of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber outlined that an
interest at a rate of 5% per annum shall accrue on each instalment from the day following
its respective due date.
b) Compensation
75. 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18358
76. 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.
77. 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).
78. 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 EUR 78,082.05 serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
Description
November 2024 Salary
(prorated)
December 2024 Salary
(prorated)
Additional remuneration
TOTAL
Original due date
30 November 2025
Amount (EUR)
2,054.70
15 December 2025
1,027.35
15 December 2025
75,000
78,082.05
79. Given that the Player only entered into the Subsequent Employment Contract after the
original term of the Employment Contract would have expired, the Chamber pointed out
that no mitigation applies. Therefore, the compensation owed corresponds to the full
residual value of the contract.
80. Finally, the Chamber recalled that, in line with longstanding practice of the Football
Tribunal, interest at a rate of 5% per annum would accrue as from the date of termination.
Nonetheless, in the case at hand, considering the Player’s request and the ne ultra petita
principle, the Chamber concluded that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall accrue as
from the day following the termination date (i.e., 30 October 2024).
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
81. 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
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18358
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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-18358
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mahamat Thiam, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Football Club Kolkheti Poti 1913, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 111.11 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,054.70 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,123.19 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November
2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 78,092.05 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30
October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-18358
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