Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18678
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Tamsir
Cisse
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Tamsir Cisse, Senegal
Represented by Mohammad Mamooun Mahrous
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Al Qasim, Iraq
Represented by Ammar Asfour
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18678
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 September 2024, the Senegalese player Tamsir Cisse (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Iraqi club Al Qasim (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent/Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from 15 September 2024 until 15 July 2025.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a total contract value of
USD 45,000, consisting of a monthly salary of USD 3,500 for the duration of the Contract
(for a total of USD 35,000) in addition to an “advance” of USD 10,000.
3.
On 1 November 2024, the Player sent a default notice via email to the Club whereby he
alleged that he waited for 50 days for a flight ticket to join the club, and demanded payment
of his advance payment and due salaries within 15 days, or the Contract would be
unilaterally terminated.
4.
On 19 November 2024, the Player sent another default notice via email to the Club
demanding payment “due salary for two consecutive months and not receiving it.” The Player
granted the Club 15 days to remit payment or he would consider his Contract to be
unilaterally terminated.
5.
Upon request from the FIFA general secretariat, the Player confirmed that he did not sign
a new employment contract until January 2026.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 19 March 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
7.
The Player submitted a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract, though it was expressed as a claim for the “full contract value ($45,000) USD until
the contract’s expiration date.”
8.
The Player’s line of reasoning centered on having met the formal requirements of art. 14bis
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as art. 9 par. 7(a) of
the Contract, both of which refer to non-payment of at least 2 salaries as constituting just
cause.
9.
The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18678
“1. Order the Respondent, Al-Qasim Sports Club to pay the full contract value of ($45,000) USD
until the contract’s expiration date.
2. The Claimant request compensation for damages resulting from contract termination and
delayed payments.
3. Impose fines and sanctions on the Respondent for breaching its contractual obligations.
4. Order the Respondent to bear the legal costs and fees of the claim.
5. Order the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant for the legal expenses incurred in filing this
claim.”
b. Reply and Counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant
10. In its reply, the Club’s principal contention was that the Player and the Club had signed a
mutual termination agreement on 7 January 2025, which stated as follows:
“Release of Liability
I, the Senegalese player Tamsir Cisse, hereby confirm that I have received all my dues from AlQasim Football Club in Iraq. I have no further financial claims against Al-Qasim Football Club.
This serves as a clearance document from me confirming the settlement with Al-Qasim Football
Club.
Name: Tamsi Cisse
Date: Jan/7/2025
Signature
[signature]
[fingerprint]
[Player’s name handwritten in print]”
11. The Club also provided a screenshot of the mutual termination agreement allegedly having
been shared by the Player with the coach of the team, Ayman Al-Hakim, dated 17 January
2025.
12. Thus, the Club considered the present claim to have been filed in bad faith.
13. Furthermore, the Club filed a counterclaim, requesting that the Player be ordered to pay a
“compensation penalty”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18678
14. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“First: To dismiss this case in its entirety, as the contractual relationship between the plaintiff
and the defendant was terminated amicably, pursuant to a mutually agreed termination
agreement signed by both parties, a copy of which is attached in English (Annex 1).
Second: To oblige the plaintiff to pay compensation and impose disciplinary sanctions for his
clear violation of several clauses of the contract, as detailed on the previous page.
Third: To request the plaintiff to clarify the nature and role of Mr. Samer Hourani in this case
and why his name is frequently mentioned in the case. The plaintiff is also required to provide
Mr. Samer Hourani's personal and employment information.
In conclusion: The club urges you to review the amicable agreement signed between the plaintiff
and the defendant. The club affirms its commitment to the contracts it has concluded, and at
the same time, it will uphold all its legal rights against any deceptive claims.”
15. Upon request of the FIFA general secretariat to complete its counterclaim, the Club
submitted that it counterclaimed for an amount of USD 21,000, equivalent to six months’
salaries and requested to compensate the Club for the Player’s breach of the contract and
defamation. Specifically, the Club highlighted various breaches pursuant to provisions in
the Contract regarding, inter alia, the omission of the presence of an agent or intermediary,
acts harmful to the sporting entity and defamation of reputation, as well as expenses
incurred as a result of this procedure.
16. The Club’s amended request for relief was therefore as follows:
“Finally, Al-Qasim Sports Club of Iraq requests the International Federation of Association
Football (FIFA) to approve the following:
First: Accept the counterclaim filed by Al-Qasim Sports Club of Iraq against Senegalese player
Tamsir Cisse.
Second: Oblige the player to pay compensation in the amount of $21,000 (twenty-one thousand
US dollars) to Al-Qasim Sports Club of Iraq, for the reasons explained above.
Third: Reject the lawsuit filed by Senegalese player Tamsir Cisse on March 19, 2025, under
number 18678, as it is baseless and due to the existence of a final legal agreement between the
club and the player.
Fourth: We confirm what we previously sent to you in our letter addressed to you on June 29,
2025, with all its contents and attachments.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18678
c. Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s Reply to the Counterclaim
17. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player denied the Club’s allegations.
18. More specifically, the Player denied entering into any financial settlement with the Club,
adding that the Player did not possess any command of the English language and could
not be expected to sign a financial settlement written entirely in that language.
19. Furthermore, the Player questioned whether it was reasonable to believe the Player
entered into the agreement in question in a language he does not understand and
renouncing to such a significant amount.
20. As such, the Player reaffirmed his stance as set forth in his claim, and requested the
following:
“1. reject the counterclaim filed by Al-Qasim Sports Club both procedurally and substantively, as
it lacks legal and factual basis, and because the Club is the party that breached its contractual
obligations.
2. Confirm the Player’s entitlement to the financial claims in the main claim (amounting to USD
45,000), in addition to compensation for the material and moral damages suffered by the Player
due to the Club’s breaches of the contract and applicable regulations
3. Order Al-Qasim Sports Club to pay comprehensive compensation for the material and moral
damages incurred by the Player, in addition to legal interest on the claimed amount, calculated
from the date of contract signing until the date of filing this claim.
4. Order Al-Qasim Sports Club to bear all legal costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the Player
as a result of having to resort to the competent judicial authorities to defend his rights.
5. Impose fines and sanctions on the Respondent for breaching its contractual obligations.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18678
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 19 March 2025 and submitted for
decision on 5 March 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.
22. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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
a Senegalese player and an Iraqi club.
23. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
24. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
25. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18678
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
26. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the dispute at hand concerned, on one hand, a claim for outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract, and, on the other hand, a counterclaim for
compensation.
27. As a preliminary observation, the Single judge noted that the parties strongly disputed the
manner of termination. Whereas the Player contended that the termination occurred with
just cause after he sent a default notice claiming outstanding salaries and granted a 15-day
period for the Club to remedy such breach, the Club sustained that the parties had
terminated their employment relationship via the signature of a mutual termination
agreement in which the Player acknowledged that he had received all dues and had no
further financial claims against the Club. At the same time, the Club sought compensation
due to alleged contractual breaches by the Player.
28. Therefore, the Single Judge began by considering the mutual termination document put
forth by the Club in its reply and counterclaim. Indeed, it was noted that the document
declared the Player had received all his dues from the Club and that he had no further
financial claims against the Club, thus confirming settlement with the Club. The Single Judge
further noted that this document was not in club letterhead, nor did it bear the Club’s
signature or seal, being limited to only the Player’s signature and thumbprint.
29. The Single Judge also recalled that, in his reply to the counterclaim, the Player did not
outright allege that his signature had been forged, although he denied having entered into
any financial settlement with the Club. In doing so, he averred that he did not understand
English and questioned whether it would have been reasonable for him to sign such a
document, in addition to generally denouncing all of the claims presented by the Club as
false.
30. Indeed, in the Single Judge’s view, the document itself raised a number of questions, which
unfortunately were not answered by the limited evidence in the case file. Thus, in the
absence of concrete allegations to clearly and formally call in to question the document’s
authenticity, the Single Judge was not in a position to analyse that matter further and
moved on to analyse the document’s contents.
31. In doing so, the Single Judge observed that, while the literal wording of the document stated
that the Player received all amounts due to him and did not a priori seem to have been
phrased as an explicit waiver of salaries for work performed (but rather was phrased as an
acknowledgement of no debt outstanding), the Player nonetheless averred that he did not
in fact receive any amounts under the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18678
32. In this sense, the Single Judge further recalled that the mere signing of a contract is not
sufficient to ensure the enforceability of its contents. Rather, the Football Tribunal’s wellestablished jurisprudence on the subject of an employee’s waiver of remuneration
establishes that, (i) generally speaking, a player cannot waive remuneration for
work already performed; and (ii) in any case, in order to assess whether a transaction
is permissible, the court or deciding body is required to conduct a balancing of
interests, checking whether the reciprocal claims waived by each party are of comparable
value, i.e., whether there is an appropriate equivalence between the parties’ reciprocal
concessions.
33. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the Single Judge proceeded to analyse if there were
reciprocal concessions made by and between the parties, in order to examine if, in fact it
was considered that the document contained a waiver, such a waiver could be valid (cf.
inter alia FPSD-10921, FPSD-15543, FPSD-20112).
34. Here, the Single Judge noted there was no evidence adduced by either side that could even
suggest there were reciprocal concessions. The only somewhat contemporaneous
evidence on file indicated the Player sent a first default notice claiming unpaid salaries and
advance payment on 1 November 2024, and that there was a further default notice on 19
November 2024. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that both default notices were
acknowledged by the Club in its own evidence. The Single Judge also considered that,
unfortunately, there was no evidence of communications between the parties either before
or after 7 January 2025, nor did either party submit any allegations as to the origin of the
document in question.
35. Hence, the Single Judge concluded there was no alternative under the circumstances and
evidence provided but to consider that the document, and the apparent waiver contained
therein, was invalid, insofar as it did not confer any reciprocal benefit to the Player.
Therefore, the document shall be set aside.
36. Furthermore, in the absence of any further evidence or allegations from the Club as to
whether it ever complied with its financial obligations under the Contract, the Single Judge
was satisfied that the Club had breached its obligations, entitling the Player to outstanding
remuneration.
37. Taking into account the fact that there was no termination notice on file, the Single Judge
had to consider the remainder of the evidence in order to ascertain the date and manner
of termination. In doing so, the Single Judge noted that there were 2 default notices on file
dated 1 and 19 November 2024, with the second default notice stating that in the event of
failing to pay the amounts due within 15 days, the Player would consider the Contract
terminated. Moreover, the claim at hand was filed on 19 March 2025.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18678
38. In keeping with the usual practice of the Football Tribunal, and in the absence of further
clarity from the file with respect to the act of termination of the Contract, the Single Judge
considered the date of filing the claim, i.e., 19 March 2025, to be the date of termination.
39. As such, at the date of termination, the Single Judge was satisfied that the Player had more
than 2 salaries outstanding, had provided a default notice in writing and given 15 days’
opportunity to cure. Therefore, the Single Judge considered the Player terminated the
Contract with just cause and the Club shall be held liable for the consequences deriving
therefrom.
ii. Consequences
40. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
41. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, was equivalent to 6 salaries under
the Contract of USD 3,500 each plus a USD 10,000 advance payment, amounting to USD
31,000.
42. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club was liable to pay to the Player the amounts which
were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 31,000.
43. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
44. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
45. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18678
contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the
Regulations).
46. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
concluded that the amount of USD 14,000 (i.e., USD 3,500 x 4 months) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down
as follows:
47. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
48. However, the Single Judge recalled that, upon request from the FIFA general secretariat,
the Player confirmed that he was not able to find new employment and, thus, mitigate his
damages.
49. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 14,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
50. As to the Player’s further requests for material and moral damages, the Single Judge
decided to reject such requests due to a lack of quantification and substantiation.
51. Lastly, the Single Judge held that the Club’s counterclaim shall be rejected in its entirety
due to a lack of legal and factual substantiation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
52. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
53. In this regard, the Single Judge 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18678
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
54. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the
Respondent/Counterclaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable
interest) to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days of notification of the decision,
failing which, at the request of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, 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/Counterclaimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
55. The Respondent/Counterclaimant 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.
56. The Single Judge 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
57. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
58. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
59. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18678
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Tamsir Cisse, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Al Qasim, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- USD 31,000 as outstanding remuneration;
- USD 14,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18678
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