Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18378
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Moises Gbai
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Moises Gbai, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by FIFPRO Division Africa
RESPONDENT:
USMK, Algeria
Represented by Hamouda Bouazza
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18378
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 August 2024, the Ivoirian player, Moises Gbai (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant),
and the Algerian club, USMK (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 August 2024 until the end
of the sporting season 2026.
2.
Art. 4.1. of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“ARTICLE 4 ; REMUNERATION ET AVANTAGES
4.i. Salaires mensuels
Le club employeur versera au joueur un salaire mensuel payable à terme échu d’un
montant brut de 900.000 DA (en lettres) NEUF CENT MILLE DINARS ALGERIENS”.
(freely translated to English)
“ARTICLE 4; COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
4.i. Monthly salaries
The employing club will pay the player a monthly salary payable in arrears in the gross
amount of 900,000 DZD (in letters) NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND ALGERIAN DINARS".
3.
On 2 January 2025, the Player signed a new contract with the Ivoirian Club SOA Section
Football, valid until 30 June 2025, which entitled the Player to a signing bonus of XOF
400,000 and a monthly salary of XOF 180,000.
4.
On 3 January 2025, a termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement) was
issued by the Club to the Player. The Player disputed having signed that agreement. The
Agreement stated, quoted verbatim:
“ Article 01 : La résiliation à l'amiable du contrat enregistré à la ligue nationale de
football Employeur : SS PA MASCULA USMK KHENCHELA
Article 02: Le joueur reconnaît avoir perçu toutes ses indemnités et aucun contentieux
financier n'existe entre les deux partes à la date de La résiliation du contrat
Article 03. La présente résiliation à l’amiable est établie pour servir et valoir ce que de
droit
Et entre en vigueur dès sa signature par les deux parties et son enregistrement effectif
par la ligue nationale de football”
(freely translated to English)
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18378
“Article 01: Amicable termination of the contract registered with the national football
league Employer: SS PA MASCULA USMK KHENCHELA
Article 02: The player acknowledges that he has received all his compensation, and no
financial dispute exists between the two parties on the date of termination of the
contract.
Article 03. This amicable termination is established to serve and be valid as of right
And comes into force as soon as it is signed by both parties and its effective registration
by the National Football League”.
5.
On 20 January 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting DZD 1,800,000
as outstanding remuneration for the months of November and December 2024
(2 months x DZD 900,000) and claiming the residual value of the contract, namely
DZD 16,200,000. The Player set a 10-day time limit for the Club to proceed with the
payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 26 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
The Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him the salaries for the months of November
and December 2024.
8.
In addition, the Player mentioned that, on 3 January 2025, the Club sent him a termination
agreement via email, in which his signature was allegedly forged. The Player claimed that
he never signed such an agreement.
9.
In support of his position, the Player submitted an expert report stating, inter alia, that the
signature on the termination agreement was a “Very Poor Simulation of Mr Gbai Moise
original signature” and that the fingerprints on the termination letter were those of “another
person and not that of Mr Gbai Moise”.
10. The Player raised that despite his notice of default of 20 January 2025; the Club did not pay
the outstanding remuneration or the requested compensation.
11. The Player affirmed that the Club did not have just cause to terminate the Contract as the
Termination Agreement was effectively a unilateral act of the Club since it allegedly forged
the Player’s signature, as per the evidence he presented.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18378
12. The Player claimed that the termination of the Contract by the Club did not constitute an
ultima ratio measure since there were no prior discussions about terminating the Contract
and that he was never in breach of his contractual obligations.
13. Subsidiarily, in the instance that the Tribunal found that the Termination Agreement was
mutually agreed, the Player submitted that it was still null and void as it breached his
fundamental labour rights, namely because it was unbalanced.
14. Relying on art. 341 par. 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), and on jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal, the Player stated that a termination agreement must include
reciprocal concessions from both parties, and that a Player cannot waive his entitlement
to remuneration for performance that has already occurred.
15. The Player affirmed that he “did not receive anything significant in return, since he had already
performed his work and was in any case due his past remuneration” and that he “immediately
became unemployed, and he remains jobless to date”.
16. The Player concluded by making the following requests for relief, quoted verbatim:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to
determine that the Club terminated the employment contract without just cause
on 3 January 2025, and to order the Club to pay him the following amounts:
I.
Provide the original copy of the alleged termination
II.
DA 1 800 000 NET as outstanding salaries, + 5% interest p.a. as of the
relevant due dates until the effective day of payment, as follows:
•DA 900 000 + 5% as of 1 December 2024
•DA 900 000 + 5% as of 1 January 2025
DA 16 200 000 NET as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest p.a. as
of 18 July2024 until the effective day of payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Club disputed the Player’s allegation regarding the validity of the
Termination Agreement.
18. The Club mentioned that the Player had contacted the Club at end of the month of October
2024 and stated that he could not continue his employment with the club and that he
requested the termination of his Contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18378
19. The Club submitted that it had initially refused to terminate the Contract, but that because
of the Player’s insistence, the Club accepted to negotiate, and that on 3 January 2025 they
both agreed to the Termination Agreement.
20. The Club contested the Player’s reliance on an expert’s report alleging that the Player’s
signature was forged. The Club affirmed that the expertise did not respect the formalities
imposed by the law, namely, that the Player did not invite the Club to attend the expertise.
The Club raised that such proceeding violated the principle of contradiction. Therefore, the
Club requested that the expert report be disregarded.
21. To the contrary, the Club filed in support of its position copies of an antidoping form, of the
Employment Contract and of the internal rules of the Club all displaying samples of the
Player’s signature, which allegedly demonstrated that the Player’s signature was not forged
on the Termination Agreement.
22. The Club therefore requested that the Termination Agreement be considered valid.
23. The Club submitted that the Player’s repeated request to depart Algeria began in late
October 2024 and that it culminated in the signature of the Termination Agreement
24. The Club stated that the Player had accepted all the conditions of the Termination
Agreement and that both parties received a copy of the Termination Agreement following
its signature on 3 January 2025.
25. The Club affirmed that it bought the Player’s flight ticket on the same day, in order for him
to return to his home country, as per its obligations under the Contract.
26. The Club also raised that the Player sent his default notice only after signing a new
employment contract with an Ivoirian club and that he had not provided evidence of duress
or misrepresentation that could have rendered his consent to the Termination Agreement
vitiated.
27. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“ D’après ce qui précède, nous demandons de La Chambre de Résolution des Litiges
du Tribunal de Football de la FIFA de rejeter les demandes du joueur, dans son
intégralité.”
(freely translated)
"Based on the above, we ask the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football
Tribunal to reject the player's claims, in their entirety."
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18378
c. Request for the original by the FIFA general secretariat
28. On 5 June 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat requested the original version of the
Termination Agreement.
29. On 11 June 2025, the Club submitted additional comments regarding the answer of the
Player.
30. On 9 July 2025, the alleged original version of the Termination Agreement was received by
the FIFA General Secretariat.
31. On 10 July 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Club that its comments
submitted on 11 June 2025 were disregarded as they constituted unsolicited
correspondence.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 21 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
33. 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 Ivoirian player and an Algerian club.
34. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18378
b. Burden of proof
35. 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
36. 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
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly disputed the validity of the Termination Agreement, and of the ensuing
obligations of the Club towards the Player following the termination of the Contract.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine which party
terminated the Contract, when did the termination occur and if applicable, assess the
consequences thereof.
39. After careful examination of the parties’ submissions and the evidence on file, the Chamber
determined that the events leading to the present dispute unfolded according to the
following timeline:
• On 1 August 2024, the Player and the Club signed the Employment Contract;
• On 2 January 2025, the Player signed a contract with Club SOA Section Football in
Ivory Coast;
• On 3 January 2025, the Termination Agreement was allegedly sent to the Player;
• On 20 January 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club; and
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18378
• On 26 February 2025, the Player filed the present claim.
40. The Chamber took note that the Player disputed the validity of the Termination Agreement
stating that it was a unilateral act of the Club, that they forged his signature to make it seem
like the termination of the Contract was amicable, when, according to his submissions, he
did not agree to it. In addition, the Player claimed that the Termination Agreement should
be considered null and void because it is unbalanced.
41. To the contrary, the Club submitted that the Termination Agreement was agreed by both
parties, as evidenced by both signatures, and stemmed from the Player’s repeated
requests to depart the Club to return to his home country.
42. While the Chamber carefully considered all the evidence submitted, it particularly observed
that the date of the signature of the Player’s new employment contract with, the Ivoirian
club, SOA Section Football was 2 January 2025. It also remarked that in his answer to the
FIFA general secretariat’s request for an update on his contractual situation which he
submitted via his legal representative on 10 June 2025, it is stated, quoted verbatim:
“Following your correspondence of 5 June 2025 in the captioned case above, by means
of which FIFA requested information regarding the Player’s employment situation,
please note that on 2 January 2025 the Player signed a new employment
contract with the club SOA Football Club, valid as of the day of signing until 30
June 2025 with a monthly salary of CFA 180,000. Please find a copy of the relevant
contract attached to this letter.” (emphasized). “
43. In that sense, considering the Player’s declaration and the content of his new employment
contract, the Chamber determined that the Player had signed an employment contract
with, the Ivoirian club, SOA Section Football, while he was still under contract with the Club,
in Algeria, as the Termination Agreement was only issued on 3 January 2025, while the new
employment contract was signed on the 2 January 2025.
44. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber also observed that both parties had not
submitted any evidence of their exchanges leading to the signature of the Termination
Agreement, and that the Club had not provided evidence that it was the Player that
requested the termination of the Contract despite alleging it.
45. In keeping in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the
Chamber concluded that it is the Player that terminated the Contract by signing a new
employment contract with SOA Football Club on 2 January 2025, as per his own admission.
46. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the request for compensation filed by the Player,
since he terminated the Contract unilaterally without just cause, as per art. 18 par. 5 of the
Regulations by virtue of his signature of an employment contract with SOA Section Football,
while still under contract with the Club.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18378
ii. Claim for outstanding remuneration filed by the Player
47. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the request for outstanding
remuneration filed by the Player.
48. The Chamber noted that art. 2 of the Termination Agreement stated, quoted verbatim:
“The player acknowledges that he has received all his compensation, and no financial
dispute exists between the two parties on the date of termination of the contract”.
49. However, the Chamber recalled that the Player challenged the validity of the Termination
Agreement and alleged that his signature was forged, and brought an expert report to
support his claim, whereas the Club refuted this position and submitted that the Player
genuinely signed the Termination Agreement supporting its position with prior documents
signed by the Player.
50. Despite the wording of art. 2 of the Termination Agreement, the Player claimed that he was
not paid his salary of November and December 2024.
51. The Chamber recalled that the general principle pacta sunt servanda is also applicable to
this contractual relationship.
52. The Chamber further noted that in accordance with the Football Tribunal’s longstanding
jurisprudence, once a player has alleged that salaries are unpaid and that he has
demonstrated that he had a contractual entitlement, the burden of proof is reversed, and
it is up to the club to demonstrate that it had indeed paid the salaries according to its
contractual obligations.
53. In the present case, art. 4. par. i) of the Contract provided that the Club would pay a monthly
salary of DZD 900,000 to the Player without specifying payment schedule.
54. The Chamber noted that the Player’s allegation that the Club failed to pay him the salaries
of November and December 2024, despite his notice of default on 20 January 2025.
55. Once this allegation was made, the Chamber considered that it was up to the Club to
demonstrate that it had paid the wages claimed by the Player. As the Club did not provide
evidence that the salaries were paid, the Chamber considered that it did not discharge its
burden of demonstrating that it fulfilled its obligation to pay.
56. Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Player DZD 1,800,000 as outstanding
remuneration.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18378
57. As per the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal in absence of a clear
payment schedule, and after careful examination of the evidence on file coupled with the
Player’s request for relief, the Chamber determined that the salaries were due on the last
day of the month and awarded the interest at a rate of 5% per annum as from the first day
of the following month.
58. Ultimately, the Chamber recalled that since the Club did not file a counterclaim, it cannot
be awarded compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations for the termination of the
contract without just cause by the Player.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
62. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
63. 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
64. 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,
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18378
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18378
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Moises Gbai, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, USMK, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- DZD 1,800,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of DZD 900,000 as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of DZD 900,000 as from 1 January 2025 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. 13
REF. FPSD-18378
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. 14