Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18908
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kwame
Adom Frimpong
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kwame Adom Frimpong, Ghana
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
Saint George Sports Club, Ethiopia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18908
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 26 July 2023, the Ghanian player Kwame Adom Frimpong (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Ethiopian club Saint George Sports Club (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
27 July 2023 until 26 July 2025.
2.
In accordance with article III of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the following remuneration/ benefits:
3.
a.
USD 36,000 for Year 1 (27 July 2023 to 26 July 2024) to be paid on a monthly basis
of USD 3,000;
b.
USD 42,000 for Year 2 (27 July 2024 to 26 July 2025) to be paid on a monthly basis
of USD 3,500, subject to fulfilling expected performance levels in Year 1;
c.
USD 20,000 as signing fee; and
d.
One round trip air ticket a year.
Further, article VII of the Contract provided the following:
“Article VII. Termination of the Contract
A/ In the event that the player violates any of the provisions of this agreement or performs any
act or does anything by which the club shall incur liability, or when a series fault is committed
by the player or violates the club code of conduct.
B/ Due to non-execution of the employer of this obligation as per article III, IV, V and VI”
4.
On 5 March 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 19,000
net corresponding to the monthly salaries of July 2024 to February 2025 and the signing
fee under the Contract, setting a time limit of fifteen (15) days in order to remedy the
default.
5.
On 24 March 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club unilaterally terminating the Contract
under art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) mentioning the Club’s continued failure to comply with its financial obligations
under the Contract.
6.
The Player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18908
7.
On 11 April 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
8.
In his claim, the Claimant requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
9.
The Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14bis and
art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations as the Club failed to pay the part of the monthly salaries
due for the months of July 2024 to February 2025 (USD 500 per month) and the signing fee
(USD 15,000) due under the Contract totalling USD 19,000 net, despite being sent a notice
of default providing a fifteen (15) day deadline to remedy the breach.
10. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
“The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that the Claimant has terminated the
employment contract with the Respondent with just cause pursuant to the article 14bis of the
FIFA RSTP.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that FIFA has jurisdiction to settle the present
dispute.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant as
outstanding remuneration:
i) the remaining monthly salary for July 2024 in the amount of 500 USD
ii) the remaining monthly salary for August 2024 in the amount of 500 USD
iii) the remaining monthly salary for September 2024 in the amount of 500 USD
iv) the remaining monthly salary for October 2024 in the amount of 500 USD
v) the remaining monthly salary for November 2024 in the amount of 500 USD
vi) the remaining monthly salary for December 2024 in the amount of 500 USD
vii) the remaining monthly salary for January 2025 in the amount of 500 USD
viii) the remaining monthly salary for February 2025 in the amount of 500 USD
ix) the remaining sign on fee in the amount of 15.000 USD
Sub- Total net 19.000 USD, plus 5% interest since the overdue dates until effective payment.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant as
compensation:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18908
• 3.500 USD regarding the monthly remuneration of March 2025
• 3.500 USD regarding the monthly remuneration of April 2025
• 3.500 USD regarding the monthly remuneration of May 2025
• 3.500 USD regarding the monthly remuneration of June 2025
• 3.500 USD regarding the monthly remuneration of July 2025
Sub- Total= 17.500 USD plus 5% interest since the overdue dates until effective payment.
TOTAL DUE - 36.500 USD plus 5% interest since the overdue date until effective payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. In its reply, the Respondent rejected all claims put forth by the Claimant. The Respondent
argued that as per the foreign exchange regulations and income tax laws of Ethiopia, the
Respondent has been paying to the Player his monthly salary of USD 3,000 for the period
from 27 July 2023 to 26 July 2024 and USD 3,500 for the period from 27 July 2024 to 31
January 2025 by converting it into ETB (Ethiopian Birr) based on the official exchange rate
on the date of the payment, less the applicable income tax, by transferring the same into
the local bank account of the Player.
12. The Respondent further argued that the claim of the Player that the Club underpaid him
by USD 500 for each of the months from July 2024 to February 2025 amounting to USD
4,000, is false. In support of this, the Respondent submitted a table stating that between
the months of July 2024 and February 2025, the Respondent overpaid the Player an amount
of USD 23,147.32, of which USD 3,500 is accounted for the monthly salary of February 2025,
USD 15,000 is accounted for the remaining amount of the signing fee and the remaining
amount of USD 4,647.32 covers the amount due and payable to the Player for the month
of March 2025.
13. The Respondent further stated that it has instructed its bank to facilitate the Player to remit
the ETB payment in US dollars to a bank account specified in the Player’s home country.
The Respondent stated that the salary deposited by the Club to the Player can be
corroborated by requesting the local banks to provide the statements of the Claimant’s
account.
14. The Respondent additionally argued that the Player terminated the Contract without just
cause as the Club has consistently overpaid monthly salaries to the Player and the signing
fee of USD 15,000 has been accounted for by such excess payment by the Club to the Player
and there are no remaining unpaid salaries or signing fee that is due to the Player. The
Respondent finally argued that signing fees is not included as monthly salaries, and
therefore, non-payment of the signing fee does not constitute just cause for termination
of the Contract by the Player.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18908
15. Therefore, the Respondent argued that any claim for compensation for breach of contract
by the Player should be rejected as he terminated the Contract without just cause.
16. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
“1. The premature termination of the contract of employment by the Claimant shall be deemed
to be made for unjustified causes.
2. The request of the Claimant for the payment of his alleged short paid salaries, his claim for
payment of signing fee, his claim for payment of the remaining for 5 (five) months period as
compensation and his request for payment of 5 (five)% interest shall be fully rejected; and
3. Instead, the Claimant shall be ordered to pay to the Respondent a reasonable legal fee as he
has initiated unjustifiable claims against the Respondent, which entailed the latter unnecessary
legal expenses.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
17. In his replica, the Claimant firstly argued that the Exhibit 1 submitted by the Respondent is
merely a table stating the amounts paid to the Player without any proof thereof and
therefore, must be disregarded.
18. Secondly, the Player submitted a WhatsApp correspondence, which, according to the
Player took place between the Player and the Club management between 12 November
2024 and 24 February wherein the Player requested updates on the status of payments of
monthly salaries, and the Club management provided certain responses. The Claimant
highlighted that on 22 November 2024, the Club management informed the Player that
USD 2,500 has been transferred to the Player with another USD 2,500 to be transferred
shortly. The receipt of USD 2,500 was acknowledged by the Player through his messages
dated 26 November 2025.
19. Thirdly, the Player submitted bank statements providing evidence of payments totalling
ETB 2,309,439 (USD 23,237.9 according to the Player) for salary for the months of July 2024
to February 2025 received from the Club out of total of USD 43,000 owed under the
Contract.
20. Therefore, based on the evidence submitted by the Claimant, he reiterated his arguments
and requests for relief presented in the original claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
21. In its duplica, the Respondent firstly argued that the salary increment of USD 500 for Year
2 (27 July 2024 to 26 July 2025) under article III of the Contract was not approved by the
Club as the Player did not meet the expected standards of performance, as was required
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18908
under article III of the Contract. To corroborate this, the Respondent submitted a statistics
sheet stating that the Player only played a total of 1,281 minutes in 24 out of 30 matches.
Therefore, the Club argued that it owed only a monthly salary of USD 3,000 for Year 2 (27
July 2024 to 26 July 2025) under the Contract.
22. Secondly, the Respondent argued that the Player left out certain bank transfers made by
the Club. According to the Club, it transferred a total of ETB 4,094,799.29 (USD 52,061.38
according to the Club) between the period from 1 November 2023 to 27 February 2025,
which fell short of the total amount of USD 54,000 due under the Contract according to the
Club, only by approximately USD 2,000. In this respect, the Club provided bank statements
of the transfers made to the Player.
23. Therefore, the Respondent reiterated its arguments and requests for relief stated in its first
reply with one additional request for relief as follows:
“1. Requests the Tribunal to order Tsehay Bank Share Company (Beklobat Branch), Nib Bank
Share Company (Premium Branch), and Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (Temenja Yaj Branch) to
provide written responses regarding the transfers made and the official exchange rate of ETB to
USD at the time of these transfers.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 11 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
14 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.
25. 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), 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 Ghanian player and an Ethiopian club.
26. 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 (July 2025 edition), the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18908
b. Burden of proof
27. 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
28. 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
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
is a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract by the
Player against the Club.
30. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether the Player
terminated the Contract with just cause, and whether outstanding remuneration and
compensation must be awarded.
31. Preliminarily, before examining the validity of the termination of the Contract by the Player,
the Chamber acknowledged that it must establish the following:
A.
What is the total amount due to the Player under the Contract?
32. The Chamber noted that the Respondent submitted two separate arguments regarding the
total amount due to the Player under the Contract.
33. Firstly, the Chamber took note of the Club’s submissions in its reply, wherein it raised
arguments pertaining to lawful tax deductions:
a.
The Club asserted that it paid the Player his monthly salary of USD 3,000 for the
period from 27 July 2023 to 26 July 2024, and USD 3,500 for the period from 27
July 2024 to 31 January 2025. These payments were allegedly made by converting
the respective amounts into ETB at the official exchange rate applicable on the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18908
date of payment, deducting the relevant income tax, and transferring the
resulting amount into the Player’s local bank account, in accordance with the
foreign exchange regulations and income tax laws of Ethiopia; and
b.
The Club submitted a table indicating that, between July 2024 and February 2025,
it allegedly overpaid the Player by a total of USD 23,147.32. Of this amount, USD
3,500 corresponds to the monthly salary for February 2025, USD 15,000 pertains
to the remaining portion of the signing fee, and USD 4,647.32 represents the
amount due and payable to the Player for the month of March 2025.
34. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Contract is silent on whether the salary
payments under article III of the Contract are to be made on a net or gross basis. The
Chamber further emphasised that, in the case at hand, the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the
Parties. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent failed to submit any
supporting documentation—such as relevant legislation, tax deduction certificates, or
other evidence—to substantiate its claim that the alleged shortfall in salary payments
resulted from mandatory tax deductions. In accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, the Chamber concluded that the Club did not discharge its burden of
proof and, consequently, rejected the Respondent’s arguments in this respect.
35. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse the second argument put forth by the Club
regarding the non-applicability of the salary increment of USD 500 for Year 2 (27 July 2024
to 26 July 2025) under article III of the Contract. In this context, the Chamber noted that in
the duplica of the Respondent, it contradicted certain concessions already made by it in its
first submission and provided new arguments. Specifically, the Chamber referred to the
Respondent’s arguments in its duplica wherein it contended that the salary increment of
USD 500 for Year 2 (27 July 2024 to 26 July 2025) under article III of the Contract was not
approved by the Club as the Player did not meet the expected standards of performance,
as was required under article III of the Contract. In support of this claim, the Club referred
to a statistics sheet indicating that the Player had played a total of 1,281 minutes across 24
out of 30 matches. Conversely, the Chamber noted that, in its original reply, the
Respondent had asserted that it had made all due payments of USD 3,500 (the increased
amount) for Year 2 (27 July 2024 to 26 July 2025) under article III of the Contract.
36. The Chamber further analysed the evidence provided by the Club in the form of a statistics
sheet providing that the Player only played a total of 1,281 minutes in 24 out of 30 matches.
This document was presented as evidence by the Respondent in support of its submission
that the Player did not meet the required standards of performance under article III of the
Contract. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of
proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules as it did not clarify how the statistics
sheet proves that the Player did not meet the standard of performance as there were no
objective criteria provided in article III of the Contract or other rules of the Club.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18908
37. Therefore, the Chamber rejected the second argument of the Club and concluded that the
Club was obligated to pay the Player a monthly salary of USD 3,500 for Year 2 (27 July 2024
to 26 July 2025) under article III of the Contract, in light of the concessions made by the
Club in its first submission and the lack of evidence provided by the Club in relation to the
lack of performance by the Player or any communication provided in this regard by the
Club to the Player.
38. Accordingly, the Chamber noted that the total amount owed by the Club to the Player
under article III and IV of the Contract is USD 98,000 (USD 36,000 (Year 1) + USD 42,000 (Year
2) + USD 20,000 (signing fee)).
B. What is the total amount established as already paid by the Club to the Player?
39. The Chamber observed that while the Contract stipulates the monthly salary and signing
fee in USD, all payments made by the Club to the Player were effected in ETB, as evidenced
by the bank statements submitted by both parties. Consequently, the Chamber considered
it necessary to determine the appropriate conversion method applicable to the present
matter.
40. In this context, the Chamber noted that on one hand, the Player in his claim included
conversion rates according to Banco de Portugal and on the other hand, the Club has not
provided a metric for conversion. The Chamber further noted that the conversion rates
provided by the Player according to Banco de Portugal has been disputed by the
Respondent stating that Banco de Portugal does not have any nexus to the Player or the
Club.
41. The Chamber acknowledged that both parties have failed to provide an acceptable
mechanism for conversion of the amounts between USD and ETB. Therefore, the Chamber
decided that the available public platform for currency exchanges, would be applicable for
the conversion of amounts between USD and ETB in the present case, in order to reach a
fair and equitable resolution.
42. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that conversion to USD of amounts submitted
by the Player and the Club pursuant to the bank statements provided by both parties
totalling ETB 2,309,439 corresponding to salary for the months of July 2024 to February
2025, are as follows:
Date
31 August 2024
8 October 2024
2 November 2024
Amount
Transferred
in ETB
303,000
337,187.10
337,187.10*
314,700
Conversion to USD as per
public platform
2,698.74
2,763.96
2,763.96
2,586.25
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18908
25 November 2024
3 December 2024
7 December 2024
24 January 2025
27 February 2025
Total
36,636.25**
35,129.00***
202,442.50
109,007.50
17,750
303,000
313,400
2,309,439.45
295.346
278.044
1,607.21
854.722
139.177
2,380.42
2,462.12
18,829.95
* The bank statements provide the amount as 337,187.09 which has been rounded up to 337,187.1 by the Player.
**While this amount is not reflected in the bank statements provided by the Respondent, it has been accepted as
received by the Claimant.
*** While this amount is not reflected in the bank statements provided by the Respondent, it has been accepted
as received by the Claimant.
43. Similarly, the Chamber noted that conversion to USD of amounts submitted by the Club
pursuant to its bank statements providing evidence of payments paid to the Player totalling
ETB 1,857,125.11 between the period from 1 November 2023 to 18 July 2024 (i.e., in Year
1), are as follows:
Date
1 November 2023
18 November 2023
8 December 2023
3 January 2024
20 February 2024
15 March 2024
4 April 2024
3 July 2024
13 July 2024
18 July 2024
Total
Amount Transferred in
ETB
Year 1
310,590.11
185,595.00
174,545.00
172,595.00
160,495.00
173,570.00
175,845.00
167,205.00
168,505.00
168,180.00
1,857,125.11
Conversion to USD as per
public platforms
5,563.57
3,314.82
3,094.02
3,045.7
2,832.7
3,044.38
3,081.7
2,886.21
2,908.53
2,902.1
32,673.73
44. The Chamber noted that the Club submitted bank statements evidencing payments made
to the Player between 1 November 2023 and 18 July 2024, amounting to USD 32,673.73, as
reflected in the table above. The Club argued that this amount demonstrated an
overpayment to the Player during Year 1 (27 July 2023 to 26 July 2024) under article III of
the Contract. However, the Chamber observed that the amount of USD 32,673.73 falls
short of the total USD 36,000 owed by the Club for Year 1 under article III of the Contract.
Given that the Club did not provide any evidence of payments made prior to 1 November
2023, the Chamber concluded that there is insufficient proof to satisfy the burden of proof
under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules that the Club overpaid the Player in Year 1.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18908
45. Therefore, based on the calculations presented in the above tables, the Chamber
concluded that it remained undisputed that between 31 August 2024 and 27 February
2025, the Club paid the Player a total amount of ETB 2,309,439.45 (USD 18,829.95) towards
monthly salary payments, which is short of the amount due under article III of the Contract.
46. Having established the preliminary matters, the Chamber then moved on to consider
whether the Player had terminated the Contract with just cause.
C. Assessment of Termination of the Contract by the Player
47. The Chamber noted that the Player has argued that he terminated the Contract with just
cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations as the Club failed to:
a.
pay part of the monthly salaries for July 2024 to February 2025 and the signing
fee due under the Contract totalling USD 19,000 net, and
b.
remedy its breach despite being sent a notice of default on 5 March 2025 and
being granted a fifteen (15) day deadline to comply with its financial obligations.
48. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contended that the Player
terminated the Contract without just cause due to the following reasons:
a.
According to the Club, the Player had no just cause for terminating the Contract
as there were no remaining unpaid salaries or signing fee due to the Player. In
support of this argument, the Club claimed that it allegedly consistently overpaid
monthly salaries to the Player and the signing fee amount of USD 15,000 was
accounted for by such excess payment by the Club to the Player. The Chamber
further noted that the Respondent subsidiarily argued that signing fees is not
included as monthly salaries, and therefore, non-payment of the signing fee, in
any case, does not constitute just cause for termination of the Contract by the
Player.
49. The Chamber observed that while the total amount paid by the Club (in USD) and therefore
the outstanding amount due under the Contract is disputed by the parties, the following
facts are undisputed by the Club:
a.
the Player sent a notice of default dated 5 March 2025 and the termination notice
dated 24 March 2025; and
b.
the Club made payments amounting to ETB 2,309,439.45 between the period
from 31 August 2024 to 27 February 2025.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18908
50. The Chamber also recalled as per its analyses above, that the amount of ETB 2,309,439.45
corresponds to USD 18,829.95. Such amount did not cover the total amount due by the
Club at the date of the notice of default and the termination, therefore, the Chamber
concluded that Player’s requested amount until the date of termination (i.e., USD 19,000)
remained unpaid.
51. Having stated the above, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the
Regulations, in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two
(2) monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to
terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and
has granted a deadline of at least fifteen (15) days for the debtor club to fully comply with
its financial obligation(s).
52. With the above in mind, the Chamber moved to the analysis of the quantum due by the
Club at the time of the termination and noted that, the Player claimed USD 19,000 net from
the Club, comprising of USD 4,000 in salary and USD 15,000 in signing fees. At this point,
the DRC once again recalled the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations and highlighted
that said provision refers strictly to the concept of “salaries” therefore does not include the
contingent payments, such as the sign-on fee. In doing so, the Chamber pointed out that
the threshold set out in the cited provision was not reached in the case at stake, insofar as
two monthly salaries of the Player amounted to USD 7,000 out of which only USD 4,000
were overdue.
53. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that its jurisprudence, as detailed by the
Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 Edition)
(hereinafter: the Commentary), pp. 150, 151, establishes the following:
“Article 14bis makes clear that if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player two monthly salary
payments, the player will be deemed to have just cause to terminate their contract provided
certain formal conditions are met.
Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this does not imply that
delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration cannot constitute
a just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A player invoking other
outstanding remuneration as just cause to terminate their contract may still have just cause.
The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the general definition of what
constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of article 14, along with the relevant
general criteria set out in jurisprudence and described above. Particular attention should be
paid factors such as whether the outstanding amount is significant (i.e. that it is neither
negligible nor totally subordinated), the extent of the delay, the general attitude of the parties
in the specific case, and other relevant factors” (emphasis added).
54. In casu, the Chamber gave particular weight to the fact that the signing fees of USD 15,000
amounted to almost four months' salary, thus forming a significant part of the player's
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18908
remuneration. The Chamber further acknowledged that it is undisputed that the Club failed
to respond to the default notice dated 5 March 2025 providing the Club fifteen (15) days to
comply with its financial obligations and that the Club has not provided adequate evidence
that it has made complete payments of all amounts due under the Contract for the months
of July 2024 to February 2025 and the signing fee, as analysed in paragraphs 34, 37, 44 and
45 above.
55. Therefore, in light of the elements on file, the Chamber observed that there were sufficient
elements to establish that it was clear that the Club has consistently failed to make
payments of part of monthly salaries of July 2024 to February 2025 and the signing fee and
the Player could not reasonably expect the employment relationship to continue. Further,
for the sake of completeness, The Chamber noted that the Player had specifically contacted
the Club to raise the matter of non-payment of salaries and signing fee and did not receive
an answer.
56. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s unilateral termination vide letter
dated 24 March 2025 was an ultima ratio measure. Therefore, the Chamber held that the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract under art. 14 of the Regulations and the
Club is liable for the ensuing consequences.
ii. Consequences
57. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
58. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to part of the
monthly salaries corresponding to August 2024 to March 2025 and the signing fees under
the Contract, amounting to USD 22,000, as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
USD 15,000 as the outstanding signing fee;
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 July 2024 to 26 August
2024;
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 August 2024 to 26
September 2024;
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 September 2024 to 26
October 2024;
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 October 2024 to 26
November 2024;
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 November 2024 to 26
December 2024;
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 December 2024 to 26
January 2025;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18908
h.
i.
USD 500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 January 2025 to 26
February 2025; and
USD 3,500 as the outstanding salary for the period from 27 February 2025 to 26
March 2025.
59. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
aforementioned amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of
the termination.
60. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 11 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
61. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted the following:
a. The Contract does not specify a due date for the monthly salaries, or the sign-on fee
and the Claimant has not provided specific due dates. Further, the parties’
calculations would also not align with the calendar months (i.e., the salary was
apparently due on the 26th instead of the end of the month). Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that interest be awarded on the outstanding remuneration
(i.e., USD 22,000) from the date of the claim (i.e., 11 April 2025).
b. While the Claimant has requested USD 500 for the month of July 2024, the Claimant
has not provided a clear breakdown of the payment cycle as under article III of the
Contract, the Claimant is entitled to USD 3,500 only from 27 July 2024. Therefore,
the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s request for this amount.
62. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
63. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18908
64. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
Player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
65. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 14,000 (i.e., USD 3,500 time 4, corresponding to the
period between 27 March 2025 and 26 July 2025) serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
66. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 DRC 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 player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
67. Indeed, the Claimant remained unemployed following the contractual termination. As a
result, neither mitigation nor additional compensation were applicable in the case at hand.
68. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 14,000 to the Claimant (i.e., USD 3,500 time 4, corresponding to the period between
27 March 2025 and 26 July 2025), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
69. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 11 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18908
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18908
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kwame Adom Frimpong, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Saint George Sports Club, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 22,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 April 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 14,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11
April 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. 18
REF. FPSD-18908
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. 19