Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18373
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Samson
Olanrewaju Akinyoola
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Samson Olanrewaju Akinyoola, Benin
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
El Zamalek, Egypt
Represented by Sport Makers
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18373
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 November 2024, the Beninois player Samson Olarenwaju Akinyoola (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Egyptian club El Zamalek (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) concluded a “Mutual Settlement & Termination Agreement” (hereinafter: the
Agreement) by means of which they terminated and settled the financial consequences of
a previously existing employment relationship maintained between them.
2.
According to Clause 2 of the Agreement, the Club undertook to pay the Player USD 185,000
upon the signature of the Agreement.
3.
Furthermore, pursuant to Clause 3 of the Agreement, the Respondent undertook as follows:
A. To pay the Player the salary difference between the residual value of the
prematurely terminated employment contract (hereinafter: the Original Contract),
amounting to USD 690,000 and the value of any new employment contract during
the overlapping period (i.e., until 30 June 2026), up to a maximum value of USD
590,000; or
B. If no new contract was concluded, to pay the Player the amount of USD 590,000 net
as follows:
-
USD 240,000 net in 8 equal monthly instalments between 30 November 2024
and 30 June 2025; and
-
USD 350,000 net in 10 equal monthly instalments between 30 September
2025 and 30 June 2026.
4.
In accordance with the same provision, the parties agreed that failure of the Club to pay
any of the amounts on time would result in the Player being able to claim the residual value
of the Original Contract, i.e., USD 690,000, as compensation for breach of contract plus
interest, mitigated only by any amounts already remitted under the scope of Clause 3A.
above, or which he is entitled to under any new contract.
5.
Clause 3 of the Agreement is reproduced in its entirety below for the sake of completeness:
“Article 3
A)
In addition to the aforementioned payment of USD 185,000, the Club hereby
confirms its obligation to pay the Player any difference in salary (the "Salary
Difference") between his salary under any new contract(s) with other clubs starting
from the 2024/2025 season and extending until the end of the 2025/2026 season
i.e. until 30 June 2026, and the salary he would have been entitled to during the
same period under his prior contract with [the Club], which totals a net amount of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18373
USD 690,000.
B)
The parties agreed if the Player didn’t sign any new employment contract for the
remaining period of his Contract with [Club], from November 2024 until 30 June
2026, he should receive compensation equal to remaining salaries in cap of
590,000 USD as follows:
1.
Season 2024/2025: 240,000 US Dollars net will be paid as follows: in 8
instalments, as a monthly salary from 30 of November 2024,l till the 30
of June 2025, ( 30,000$ per month);
2.
Season 2025/2026: 350,000 US Dollars net will be paid as follows: in 10
instalments, as a monthly salary starting from 30 of September 2025, till
the 30 of June 2026. (35,000$ per month).
B) In case the Player concludes and signs a new employment contract with a
third Club, [Club], shall pay to the Player any difference in salary (the "Salary
Difference") between his salary under any new contract(s) with other clubs
starting from the 2024/2025 season and extending until the end of the
2025/2026 season i.e. until 30 June 2026, and the salary he would have been
entitled to during the same period under his prior contract with [the Club],
which totals a net amount of USD 690,000.
C)
The Parties further agreed that the Maximum agreed compensation for this
Mutual Termination payable by the Club to the Player under this Agreement for
the Salary Difference shall not exceed USD 590,000.00 in light also of the Player’s
mutual obligation to mitigate his damages by actively seeking and joining a new
club for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 seasons.
D)
The Parties further agreed that the failure of the Club to pay to the Player any of
the abovementioned amounts in the due dates, shall entitle the Player to file claim
for the compensation according to FIFA RSTP as agreed in the Addendum signed
between the parties dated 15 June 2024. To avoid any doubt the Player will be
entitled to claim compensation up to remaining salaries here in this contract
which at the time of the mutual termination is equal to remaining salaries amount
of 690,000 USD plus applicable interests according to FIFA regulations, the
aforementioned compensation shall be mitigated only with any additional
amounts paid to the Player as per article 3.A above as part of compensation after
this mutual termination, in addition to any new salaries he receive from new
contracts as per article 3ii above according to FIFA RSTP shall also be deducted
from any compensation that be decided in Favour of the Player.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18373
6.
On 18 December 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with the Kuwaiti club
Kazma Sport Club, valid for “one and a half sport season 2024/2025 & season 2025/2026”
(hereinafter: the New Contract). Under the New Contract, the Player was entitled to receive
USD 100,000 between January 2025 and May 2025 in equal instalments, and USD 250,000
for the 2025/2026 season.
7.
On 22 January 2025, the Player sent the Club a letter, informing the latter that he had signed
the New Contract, and outlining that the Club was liable to pay the difference between the
residual value of the Original Contract and the New Contract, in the amount of USD
340,000. Subject thereto, the Player requested payment of USD 23,046.33 as a pro-rated
instalment corresponding to the 2024/2025 season.
8.
On 5 February 2025, the Player sent the Club a default notice, requesting payment of USD
340,000 – i.e., the total difference between the Original Contract and the New Contract,
within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 26 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
10. According to the Player, the Agreement foresaw that the Club had to – in addition to the
principal amount under the Agreement (i.e., USD 185,000) – cover the difference between
the residual value of the Original Contract with the Club and the New Contract (i.e., USD
690,000 minus USD 350,000 = USD 340,000) in instalments.
11. In this context, he further argued that the Club failed to comply with the first instalment
under the Agreement (referring to January 2025), thereby accelerating the entire debt.
12. The Player based his claim on the principle of pacta sunt servanda and, as a result, he
requested to be awarded the following amounts:
•
•
•
USD 23,406.33 as “outstanding payables related to January 2025 instalment”;
EUR 340,000 (sic) as compensation under the Agreement;
Interest as from the respective due dates.
13. The Player’s request for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“The Claim shall be accepted.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18373
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the
following amounts of:
•
Outstanding payables related to January 2025 instalment in the amount of
23.046,33 USD plus 5% interests since the due date until effective payment.
•
Compensation related to Article 3D of the Mutual Settlement & Termination
Agreement in the total amount of 340 000,00 €, plus 5% interests since the due
date until effective payment.
•
TOTAL = 363.046,00 USD plus 5% Interests since the due dates until effective
payment.
All according to the FIFA Statutes and regulations, the agreement between the parties as
well as the specificity of sport, under penalty of imposition of disciplinary measures to
the Respondent if the above obligation is not observed.
Value of the dispute: 363 046,33 €.”
b. Position of the Club
14. On 6 April 2025, the Club submitted its response to the Player’s claim.
15. The Club argued that, as the Player had only lodged the claim in February 2025, he
effectively waived the entitlement to any difference between the Original Contract and the
New Contract during the months of December 2024 and January 2025.
16. As a result, in reality, the Club argued that the Player would only be entitled to a maximum
fee of USD 280,000.
17. Additionally, the Club pointed out that the Player had erroneously included the instalment
of USD 23,406.33 in his request for relief twice, as he subsequently requested the total
amount of USD 340,000 in addition thereto.
18. Lastly, the Club argued that, since the amount in the Agreement was allegedly payable in
instalments, and not altogether as a lump sum, the Player should only be entitled to
request USD 13,333 as the instalment of February 2025.
19. In light of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In view of all the above, we request this honorable chamber:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18373
1. To rule that the Player is entitled to the payment of one month salary, January 2025,
amounts to USD 13,333. And that remaining amount shall be due on its due date for
each monthly salary.
2. In light of good faith, we request to refer the matter to mediation proceedings between
both parties.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 26 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 7 November 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.
21. 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 Beninois player and an Egyptian club.
22. 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
23. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-18373
c. Merits of the dispute
24. 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
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for overdue payables subject to a premature mutual termination
agreement.
26. The Chamber noted that according to the Player, the Club failed to remit the first instalment
of the difference between the Original Contract and the New Contract, giving rise to an
acceleration that made the entire sum payable at once.
27. The Club, on the other hand, argued that, since the Player filed his request only in February
2025, his entitlement to the instalments of December 2024 and January 2025 were waived.
Furthermore, the Club argued that the Agreement contained no acceleration clause and
that the agreed upon amount would be paid in instalments. The Club did not challenge the
non-payment, nor did it provide a justification for such default.
28. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player was entitled to any outstanding remuneration and, if so, to establish the extent of
such entitlement.
29. While considering the above, the Chamber first recalled the contents of Clause 3 of the
Agreement. In particular, the Chamber emphasized that par. A of this provision stipulated
the following:
“In addition to the aforementioned payment of USD 185,000, the Club hereby confirms
its obligation to pay the Player any difference in salary (the "Salary Difference") between
his salary under any new contract(s) with other clubs starting from the 2024/2025
season and extending until the end of the 2025/2026 season i.e. until 30 June 2026, and
the salary he would have been entitled to during the same period under his prior
contract with [the Club], which totals a net amount of USD 690,000.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18373
30. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber found it evident that, since the Player signed the New
Contract subsequent to the execution of the Agreement, Clause 3.A of the Agreement was
applicable.
31. Having established this, the Chamber noted that the provision contains no reference to
any periodic payments nor does it specify a payment date. In the absence of such
stipulation – and particularly applying the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem – the
Chamber considered that the full amount became due upon the Player’s signature of the
New Contract, i.e., at the moment when the amount payable by the Club could be
determined, akin to compensation for breach of contract bases on the Original Contract.
32. Although the Player asserted that the amount was allegedly payable in instalments and
subsequently became due in full by virtue of an acceleration clause, the Chamber
considered this interpretation to be erroneous. Accordingly, the Chamber acknowledged
that, although the wording of the Agreement was not particularly concise, it was
nevertheless clear that the clause does not contemplate periodic payments in the event
the Player secured a new contract – such payments being foreseen only where the Player
does not obtain a new contract, in which case the amount due is capped at USD 590,000.
33. Furthermore, and as a result, the Chamber concluded that Clause 3.D of the Agreement
could not act as an acceleration clause considering that the entire amount was already due
as a lump sum.
34. As a result, the Chamber summarised its findings as follows:
•
The Player signed the New Contract following the signature of the Agreement;
•
As a result, Clause 3.A of the Agreement was triggered, giving rise to a lump sum
payment of USD 340,000; and
•
The Club has not contested the non-payment of said amount.
35. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided to award the Player USD (not EUR) 340,000 as overdue payables, plus 5% interest
p.a. from 19 December 2024 (i.e., the date after the New Contract was concluded). The
Chamber also decided not to specify whether net or gross, as the Player has not indicated
this in his request for relief and the Chamber could not go ultra petita.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
36. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18373
37. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the
Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
38. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations were met in the case at hand.
39. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Club within the last two years, the
Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit.
a) of the Regulations.
40. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18373
45. 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
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18373
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Samson Olanrewaju Akinyoola, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, El Zamalek, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 340,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 December
2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-18373
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. 13