Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18459
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Fallou Ndiaye
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Fallou Ndiaye, Senegal
RESPONDENT:
Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho, Finland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18459
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 20 December 2023, the Senegalese player, Fallou Ndiaye (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Finnish club, Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
15 January 2024 until 30 November 2024.
2.
Art. 1 of the Appendix to the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
‘’ I Financial terms and conditions:
Salary-related terms and conditions:
The total base compensation for the contract period is 15.750 € gross including all possible
payments
including but not limited to, holiday pay and plus any earned bonuses as stated below
Monthly salary / gross: 750€ January & February to November 1500€
Date of salary payment: on the last day of each month.
Other
Other possible benefits, bonuses, or compensation
Match pay/gross: **
Payment date end of the
following month
Point pay/gross:
Payment date
Team bonuses/gross: ***:
Payment date
31.12
** Appearance Bonuses
€150 start
€75 bench appearance
€50 in squad
(Club Veikkausliiga and European games only)
*** Team bonuses are in accordance to the team bonus structure negotiated separately
between
Team Representatives and the Club’s Upper Management.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18459
When the Player has made 10 official starts in Veikkausliiga, Europe or Suomen Cup games
for the Club, the monthly salary towards the total compensation increases to 2225€ per
month.
When the Player has made 20 official starts in Veikkausliiga, Europe or Suomen Cup games
for the Club, the monthly salary towards the total compensation increases to 3000€ per
month.
The Player will be paid a one-time relocation fee of 2000€. This relocation fee is paid as
gross salary on 31.01.2023.
Fringe benefits
The Club will charge the Player for lunch and breakfast according to the first team program
and in agreement between the Team Representatives and the Club’s Upper Management.
The Club will arrange the Player a return flight between Finland and Senegal during the
season.
The Club will arrange the Player a furnished, shared apartment. The Player will pay rent of
300-550C including utilities and internet per month for the shared apartment.
Other agreed terms and conditions (compensation for tax-free expenses shall only be paid
on presentation of expense reports in accordance with the provisions and instructions
provided by the tax administration”
3.
Art. 2 of the Appendix to the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“2 Other terms and conditions:
Trial period clause:
Length of trial period (max. 6 months) from the beginning of employment and after
completing any government required medical quarantining or Club medical testing upon
arrival in Finland.
Option clauses: Club only.
Option clauses also for Player
Yes/ X No
Length and period of option season 23 months I 12.2024-31.10.2026
The Player must be informed, in writing, of the implementation of the option clause 2
weeks before the end of the agreement at the risk of not being able to implement the
clause any longer
Salary terms for the option season The Player will receive 57.500€ total compensation for
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18459
the option period. This total compensation is paid monthly at 2500€ per month. All other
terms as agreed. In the event the monthly payments towards the total compensation has
risen according to the salary step on page 10 of this Agreement, the highest monthly total
compensation will apply.
Other terms for the option season: as previously agreed.”
4.
Art. 20 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“20 Dispute settlement
Any disputes concerning the Player's contractual relationship shall be settled in general
court at the Club's domicile. The Finnish law shall be applied to all disputes.”
5.
On 2 October 2024, the Player and the Club held a meeting in order to discuss the Player’s
performance, during which the Club informed him of its intention to activate the extension
clause contained in art. 2 of the Appendix to the Contract.
6.
On the same day, i.e. 2 October 2024, the Player, via his agent, sent a communication to
the Club stating that he would reject the unilateral extension of the Contract.
7.
On 14 November 2024, the Club sent the Player an email notifying him of its intention to
activate the unilateral extension of the Contract.
8.
On 15 November 2024, the Player, via his agent, sent a communication denouncing the
notice that the Club would unilaterally extend the Contract.
9.
On 3 December 2024, the Player, via his agent, sent a communication to the Club stating
that he considered his contractual relationship with the Club to be terminated and
denouncing the attempts of the Club to prolong the Contract without his consent.
10. On 4 December 2024, the Club answered the Player’s agent email, stating that the Contract
provided a unilateral extension clause, and that the Club was within its rights to trigger it.
11. On the same day, i.e. 4 December 2024, the Club sent an email directly to the Player stating
that it had triggered the unilateral extension clause of the Contract, that it had informed
him accordingly in a meeting on 14 November 2024, and via email on the same day. The
Club also mentioned to the Player that it expected him to return to work on 6 January 2025
in order to complete the requirements to extend his right to stay in Finland.
12. On 4 January 2025, the Player’s agent contacted the Club requesting the payment of his
bonus remuneration and stating that the Player was not under contract anymore with the
Club and that he was surprised to receive a payment of salary.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18459
13. On 7 January 2025, the Club answered and restated its position that the Player was under
contract and that it had to comply with its contractual obligations by paying his salary.
14. On the same day, i.e. 7 January 2025, the Club sent an email directly to the Player, stating
that he was not present for the Club’s first training on 6 January 2025, and requesting him
to return.
15. On 20 January 2025, the Club sent another email to the Player, stating that he was not back
to training despite its previous request and that it was expecting his return to Finland.
16. On 17 March 2025, the Club sent an email to the Player requesting his return.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 5 March 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
18. The Player submitted that the Club paid his January 2024 salary 35 days late, on 6 March
2025, and that that the relocation fee due on 31 January 2024 was paid 120 days late, on
31 May 2024.
19. In addition, the Player stated that the Club breached its contractual obligations as he did
not have a television in the apartment he was provided by the Club until October 2024, and
because the Club provided him a pair of boots seven months late, on 20 August 2024.
20. The Player affirmed that the breaches by the Club allowed him to terminate the Contract
under art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
21. The Player also argued that the Contract terminated naturally on 30 November 2024 and
that both the Club and the Suomen Palloliitto (the Finnish Member Association) blocked his
requests for an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) preventing him from signing with
other clubs, until 31 October 2026.
22. The Player raised that he informed the Club multiple times, i.e. on 2 October 2024 and 14
November 2024, that he did not accept the triggering of the unilateral extension clause of
the Contract, and that the Club engaged in coercive behaviour by continuing to apply this
clause.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18459
23. The Player asserted, citing jurisprudence from the Court of Arbitration for Sport, that
unilateral extension clauses must provide significant benefits to both parties to be
enforceable, and that since he rejected the extension of the Contract in October 2024, it
cannot be enforced as it would violate FIFA’s regulations and Finnish Law. (c.f. CAS
2008/A/1519 FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) v. Mr. Matuzalem Francelino da Silva (Brazil) & Real
Zaragoza SAD (Spain) & FIFA),
24. The Player submitted having terminated the Contract with just cause on 15 November
2024, and that the termination took effect on 30 November 2024.
25. The Player claimed a compensation of USD 60,000 as it is the “highest concrete offer” that
he received from another club, namely the Indian club, Kerala Blasters FC, and that he was
not able to pursue this offer due to the Club withholding his registration rights despite his
objection to the unilateral extension clause.
26. The Player concluded by making the following requests for relief, quoted verbatim:
“VIII. Relief Sought
Establish: SJK breached the contract, justifying termination effective November 30, 2024,
under RSTP Articles 14 and 14bis.
Award: $62,120 USD under RSTP Art. 17(1) for breach and ITC damages.
Authorize: Registration as a free agent under RSTP Annexe 3, Art. 11(6).
Expedite: Review under RSTP Art. 18(3) due to ongoing registration needs.
IX. Conclusion
SJK’s breaches (Exhibits E-G, Pages 20-22), coercion (Exhibits C, J, Pages 17, 25-26), and
ITC block (Exhibits I, J, Pages 24-26) violate RSTP, CAS precedents, Finnish ECA, EU TFEU,
and Swiss CO, entitling me to termination effective November 30, 2024, and USD
$62,120 in relief.”
b. Position of the Respondent
27. In its reply, the Club disputed the competence of the Football Tribunal to hear the present
dispute as art. 20 of the Contract contained “a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour
of the national courts of Finland, in Seinäjoki, at the Respondents domicile”.
28. The Club based its position on the CAS award CAS 2021/A/7794, GNK Dinamo Zagreb (Croatia)
v. Mr. Rene Poms (Austria) & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), which
states:
“parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court, and that such choice shall
always prevail. ln fact, the Chamber, recalling its jurisprudence as well as CAS
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18459
jurisprudence in this regard, and in particular CAS 2013/N3278, highlighted that even if
the choice of law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g. a generic reference is
made to a region/city), FIFA is not competent when the parties have exclusively agreed to
the jurisdiction of a civil court”
29. In that sense the Club’s position was that the clause is clear and exclusive and that it was
willingly agreed by both parties at the signature of the Contract.
30. The Club also referred to the Player Status Chamber decision of 9 July 2021, Sacramento,
in which it is mentioned “by means of the employment contract the parties have expressly and
clearly agreed that in case of only divergences derived from the employment contract, they
would submit the dispute to the consideration and decision of the competent court of Saudi
Arabia”, and in which the PSC declined jurisdiction in favour of the said court.
31. In that sense, the Club asked that the Disputes Resolution Chamber declines jurisdiction
and competence to hear the present case in favour of the Finnish court.
32. Regarding the merits of the dispute, the Club stated that the Player rejected the extension
of the Contract on the basis that it failed to fulfil its contractual obligations, namely late
payments or delays.
33. The Club affirmed having fully complied with its payment obligations to the Player under
the Contract, and that any late payments were due to the Player’s own circumstances in
providing his bank details and tax card number on time.
34. The Club argued that as per the provisions of the Contract, and by virtue of its notice to the
Player on 14 November 2024, it prolonged the Contract and that the prolongation took
effect on 1 December 2024.
35. The Club confirmed that, on 31 January 2025, it paid the Player for the first 6 days of January
2025, as well as his bonuses for the previous year. The Club alleged doing so to comply with
the provisions of the Contract, which it deemed prolonged and raised that despite the
Player’s denouncing the prolongation of the Contract, he did not return the salary that was
paid to him on 31 January 2025. The Club also confirmed having withheld the remaining of
the Player’s salaries until he returned.
36. Following this, the Club claimed that it complied with the Contract’s provision and validly
triggered its extension contained in art. 2 of its Appendix.
37. The Club relied on the principle of pacta sunt servanda to support its position that the Player
should have complied with the terms of the Contract which he agreed to and signed in full
knowledge of its extension clause.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18459
38. The Club affirmed that, as per CAS jurisprudence, the parties are bound by the contracts
they sign and must abide by them.
39. The Club further noted that the Player was represented during the negotiations of the
Contract, as stipulated in the preamble of the Appendix to the Contract, which further
reinforces that the Player consented to the entirety of the Contract, including its unilateral
extension clause, despite his assertions.
40. As to the enforceability of the unilateral extension clause of the Contract, the Club
mentioned that the employment relationship with the Player was extended for an
additional 23 months and that the monthly salary was increased by 60% from EUR 1,500 to
EUR 2,500.
41. The Club further stated that, although the extension clause was unilateral and would
extend the Contract for 23 months, the significant salary increase provided a fair balance.
It also emphasized that the clause was exercised within the contractually agreed deadlines
and that the Player was fully aware of its terms at the time of signing the Contract.
42. Also, the Club raised that the fact that the Player retained his salary for December 2024
and 6 days in January 2025 despite denouncing the validity of the extension of the Contract,
confirmed its validity and enforceability.
43. To the contrary, the Club argued that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause
under art. 14 of the Regulations by not returning to the Club despite multiple notice to
return sent to him. The Club refrained from filing a counterclaim.
44. Subsidiarily, the Club stated that should the Football Tribunal deem the unilateral
extension clause of the Contract invalid, the Contract expired naturally on 30 November
2024, and no outstanding amounts or damages would be due to the Player, as the Club
had performed its obligations entirely.
45. The Club concluded by making the following requests for relief, quoted verbatim:
“On account of all the foregoing, SJK respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to issue a decision, establishing that:
l. Primarily, FIFA DRC is not competent to hear the claim filed by Player Fallou Ndiaye.
II. Subsidiarily, should the FIFA DRC consider itself competent, quod non, the claim by
Player Fallou Ndiaye should be rejected”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18459
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
2 October 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.
47. 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 (July 2025 edition), it is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Senegalese player and a Finnish club.
48. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that on one hand the Player claimed that FIFA had
jurisdiction as the present dispute opposed a Senegalese player to a Finnish club, and thus
it had the necessary international dimension under art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations. While
on the other, the Club objected to the jurisdiction of FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the
“general court at the Club's domicile”, alleging that the latter is competent to deal with
contractual disputes between the parties as per art. 20 of the Contract.
49. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that, pursuant to art. 22 caput of the Regulations,
FIFA has jurisdiction over employment-related disputes between a player and a club with
an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player […] or club to seek
redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
50. In this context, the Chamber noted that it should first analyse whether the Contract at the
basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of
the “general court at the club’s domicile”. The Chamber recalled the wording of art. 20 of the
Contract which read as follows, quoted verbatim:
“20 Dispute settlement
Any disputes concerning the Player's contractual relationship shall be settled in general
court at the Club's domicile. The Finnish law shall be applied to all disputes.”
51. After a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber duly noted that the
Claimant and the Respondent had unambiguously and expressly decided that any dispute
that would arise from the Contract would be submitted exclusively to the “general court at
the club’s domicile”.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18459
52. The Chamber recalled that parties may freely and explicitly agree to recognize the
jurisdiction of a civil court, to the exclusion of all other forums, and that such choice shall
prevail. The Chamber also emphasized that art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations provides for a
clear hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
53. The Chamber noted that the Player leaned on the provision of art. 22 par. 1 of the
Regulations to establish the competence of this Chamber to hear the present dispute,
notably because of its international dimension. However, he failed to address art. 20 of the
Contract and rather provided as part of his submissions the full address of the Club. In the
Chamber’s view, this further reinforced that he was aware of the Club’s domicile and
therefore had the capacity to determine where to file his claim within the scope of art. 20
of the Contract.
54. Consequently, in view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that art. 20 of the Contract
was a clear and exclusive clause in favour of the “general court at the Club's domicile”, and
that therefore it was not competent to hear the present dispute between the Claimant and
the Respondent.
b. Costs
55. 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.
56. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18459
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Fallou
Ndiaye.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18459
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