Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19005
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abdul Aziz
Yakubu
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Alexandra GOMEZ BRUINEWOUD (Uruguay & the Netherlands), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Abdul Aziz Yakubu, Ghana
Represented by Alfonso Leon Lleo
RESPONDENT:
Rio Ave Futebol Clube, Portugal
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19005
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 February 2024, the Ghanian player, Abdul Aziz Yakubu (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Portuguese club Rio Ave Futebol Clube (hereinafter: RAFC, the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
1 February 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with Clauses 4 and 5 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to
the Claimant inter alia the following bonuses, quoted verbatim (free translation to English):
“4. The PLAYER is entitled to receive a bonus for participating in official RAFC matches, in
accordance with the following:
official RAFC matches, as follows:
a) For each game in which the PLAYER participates in the RAFC's starting team, for at least
45 (forty-five) minutes per game, he shall be entitled to receive the net amount of EUR
1,000.00 (one thousand euros);
b) not exceeding the amount indicated in point a) above, the net amount of EUR 500.00
(five hundred euros) if the PLAYER starts the game in the starting eleven of the RAFC first
team;
c) If the PLAYER starts the game in the starting eleven of the RAFC main team but does
not play for the 45 minutes indicated in point a) above, he will be entitled to receive the
net amount of EUR 500.00 (five hundred euros).
§The bonuses will be paid at the end of the season and settled by RAFC on the first day
of September 2024.§
5. The PLAYER shall be entitled to receive a performance bonus in the amount of net
amount of €5,000.00 (five thousand euros) each time the PLAYER reaches number of 5
(five) assists for goals made and/or goals scored in official matches in the RAFC first team.
• The PLAYER is also entitled to receive a bonus for maintaining the RAFC first team in the
Betclic League for the 2024/2025 season, in the gross amount of EUR 33,647.00 (thirtythree thousand six hundred and forty-seven euros).
§The bonuses shall be assessed at the end of the sporting season and paid by RAFC by
September 1, 2024§.”
3.
Further, Clauses 17, 18, 21 and 22 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim
(free translation to English):
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19005
“17. Under the terms and for the purposes set forth in Article 25(1) of Law No. 54/20t7 of
July 14 and Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the SJPF and the
LI°FP, or any other rules that may replace them, the RAFC and the PLAYER agree to
stipulate, expressly and irrevocably, that at any time during the term of this contract, the
PLAYER may freely and at his discretion withdraw from the RAFC, unilaterally terminating
this contract without the need to invoke just cause, provided that the latter sends written
notice of such intention 15 days in advance of the date on which it takes effect and upon
payment to the Club of the amount of €1,250,000.00 (one million two hundred and fifty
thousand euros) as a termination clause/liberation clause.
18. The RAFC expressly acknowledges that the termination clause/release clause
stipulated above may be paid by the PLAYER, but also by any club or limited company
that acquires the player (in which case, the legal tax in force shall be added, if applicable),
provided that this is duly and expressly authorized by the PLAYER for this purpose. Such
payment shall be made by deposit into the RAFC's bank account or by a release deposit
with the Portuguese Professional Football League. Once the payment or release deposit
referred to above has been made, the RAFC undertakes to release the PLAYER from his
employment and expatriation obligations and, if necessary, to authorize the Portuguese
Football Federation to proceed with sending the respective International Transfer
Certificate to the foreign club indicated by the Player.
(…)
21. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the parties agree to
grant exclusive and definitive jurisdiction to settle any and all disputes arising from this
Agreement or related to it to the Judicial Court of the District of Porto. The parties
additionally agree, however, that if the PLAYER registers with a foreign club following
unilateral termination of this contract, the arbitration agreement provided for in the
previous sentence will expire and the exclusive and definitive competence to settle the
dispute will lie with the FIFA dispute resolution bodies, with recourse to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS), based in Lausanne, Switzerland. The language of the
proceedings will be English and the panel will consist of three arbitrators.
22. In all matters not covered by this contract, the provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement between the Professional Football Players Union and the Portuguese
Professional Football, published in the Labor and Employment Bulletin, 1st Series, No.
33, dated 08/09/1588, as updated, and in Law No. 54/2017, dated July 14.”
4.
On 24 April 2024, the Player and the Club signed an addendum to the Contract (hereinafter:
the Addendum) which provided inter alia the following, quoted verbatim (free translation to
English):
“The CLUB undertakes to pay the Player the gross annual remuneration of:
• (...)
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19005
• (...)
• 2023/2024 sports season: the amount of €238,000.00 (two hundred and thirty-eight
thousand euros), through 3 installments, which include the proportional amounts
corresponding to the holiday and Christmas subsidies, to be paid on April 30, 2024, May
30, 2024 and June 30, 2024;
• 2024/2025 sports season: €476,000.00 (four hundred and seventy-six thousand euros)
in 12 successive and equal monthly payments, which include the proportional amounts
corresponding to the holiday and Christmas bonuses and are due on the 5th of the
month following the month to which they refer, that is, the payment of the first salary,
corresponding to the month of July, will be made on August 5, 2024.
(…)
5. The PLAYER is entitled to receive a prize for participation in official RAFC matches, in
accordance with the following:
a) For each game in which the PLAYER participates in the RAFC main team, for a minimum
of 45 (forty-five) minutes per game, he will be entitled to receive the net amount of EUR
1,000.00 (one thousand euros);
b) The net value of EUR 500.00 (five hundred euros) is added to the amount indicated in
point a) above if the PLAYER starts the game in the starting eleven of the RAFC main team;
(…)
c) In the event that the PLAYER starts the game in the starting eleven of the RAFC main
team but does not complete the 45 minutes indicated in point a) above, he will be entitled
to receive the net amount of EUR 500.00 (five hundred euros).
§Prizes are assessed at the end of the sporting season and are settled by RAFC by 1
September 2024§
6. The PLAYER is entitled to receive a performance bonus in the net amount of EUR
5,000.00 (five thousand euros) for each time the PLAYER reaches the number of 5 (five)
assists for goals made and/or goals scored in official matches for the RAFC main team.
7 The PLAYER is also granted the right to receive a bonus for maintaining the RAFC main
team in the Betclic League for the 2024/2025 season, in the gross amount of EUR
33,647.00 (thirty-three thousand six hundred and forty-seven euros).
Prizes are assessed at the end of the sporting season and are settled by RAFC by 1
September 2024
(…)
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19005
In addition to the above, items 12 and 13 are added to the aforementioned contract, with
the following wording:
12º)
Under the terms and for the purposes set forth in articles 25.1 of Law no. 54/2017, of July
14, and 46 of the CCT granted between the SJPF and the LPFP, or other rules that may
succeed them, the RAFC and the PLAYER agree to stipulate, expressly and irrevocably,
that at any time during the term of this contract, the PLAYER may freely and at his/her
discretion disassociate himself/herself from the RAFC, unilaterally terminating this
contract, without the need to invoke just cause, provided that the PLAYER sends written
communication expressing this intention 15 days in advance of the date on which it is to
take effect and upon payment to the Club of the amount of €1,250,000.00 (one million,
one hundred and fifty thousand euros) as a release clause. termination/release clause.
RAFC expressly acknowledges that the termination clause release clause stipulated above
may be paid by the PLAYER, but also by any club or sports limited company (in which
case VAT at the legal rate in force will be added, if applicable), provided that it is duly and
expressly authorized by the PLAYER for this purpose. This payment must be made by
deposit into the RAFC bank account, or through a deposit with the Portuguese
Professional Football League.
Once payment or deposit of the amount stipulated above has been made, RAFC
undertakes to release the PLAYER from employment and sporting activities and, if
necessary, to authorize the Portuguese Football Federation to send the respective
International Transfer Certificate to the foreign club indicated by the Player.”
5.
On 28 March 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the following
bonuses under the Contract amounting to EUR 84,147, setting a time limit of 10 days
expiring on 7 April 2025 to remedy the default:
a. EUR 14,000 – EUR 1,000 per match due for 14 matches where the Player played for
over 45 minutes, under Clause 4 of the Contract;
b. EUR 6,000 – EUR 500 per match due for 13 matches where the Player was fielded
within the initial 11 squad, under Clause 4 of the Contract;
c. EUR 30,000 – EUR 5,000 per goal scored due for 6 goals scored by the Player, under
Clause 5 of the Contract; and
d. EUR 33,647 – due as the Club was not relegated, under Clause 5 of the Contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19005
6.
On 15 April 2025, the Player sent an email to the Club stating that Mr. Diogo (allegedly a
Club representative) and the Player had negotiated certain settlements terms and
requested the Club to clarify which party would draft the said settlement agreement.
7.
On 16 April 2025, the Club responded to the above default notice and correspondence and
stated that the Club was not aware of the Contract executed between the Player and Rio
Ave FC SAD (the new legal entity of the Club). Nevertheless, the Club stated that the Player
was entitled to a total bonus of EUR 59,647 only (as opposed to EUR 84,147 requested by
the Player), calculated as follows:
a. EUR 14,000 – EUR 1,000 per match due for 14 matches where the Player played for
over 45 minutes;
b. EUR 7,000 - EUR 500 per match due for 13 matches where the Player was fielded
within the initial 11 squad;
c. EUR 5,000 – due for six (6) goals scored by the Player (EUR 5,000 per each block of 5
goals or assists); and
d. EUR 33,647 – due as the Club was not relegated.
8.
On 16 April 2025, the Player responded to the email by the Club, and stated that the
difference in calculation may be due to the interest owed. However, the Player accepted
the proposal of EUR 59,647 as a settlement amount against the bonuses due by the Club.
It was agreed between the parties that the Club would send a draft of the settlement
agreement.
9.
On 21 April 2025, the Club sent an email to the Player reiterating that it was not aware of
any previous agreement between the Player and Rio Ave SAD (the new legal entity of the
Club) and rejected the payment of any penalty of 20% over the principal amount, as
allegedly proposed by the Player. Therefore, the Club proposed a payment plan for the
principal amount of EUR 59,647.
10. On 22 April 2025, the Player rejected this proposal, stating that he was due the penalty
amount over the principal, as was previously agreed with a representative of the Club.
11. Upon further correspondence between the parties on 22 April 2025, the settlement
agreement proposed by the Club was rejected by the Player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19005
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 23 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
13. The Player argued that he was due the following bonuses under the Contract from the Club
which remain outstanding:
a. EUR 14,000 – EUR 1,000 per match due for 14 matches where the Player played for
over 45 minutes, under Clause 4 of the Contract;
b. EUR 6,000 – EUR 500 per match due for 13 matches where the Player was fielded
within the initial 11 squad, under Clause 4 of the Contract;
c. EUR 30,000 – EUR 5,000 per goal scored due for 6 goals scored by the Player, under
Clause 5 of the Contract; and
d. EUR 33,647 – due as the Club was not relegated, under Clause 5 of the Contract.
14. The Player argued that the Club failed to pay the outstanding bonuses despite being sent
a notice of default dated 28 March 2025 granting 10 days to comply with its financial
obligations.
15. Therefore, the Player argued that the Club breached the principle of pacta sunt servanda
and is liable for consequences under art.12bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), as the bonuses have been outstanding for
more than 30 days and a notice of 10 days was granted to the Club.
16. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“As per all the above, the Claimant requests the Panel:
1. To accept this Claim against the Respondent.
2. To condemn the Respondent to pay the Player the outstanding payments for a total amount
of EUR 84,147.00 (eighty-four thousand one hundred forty-seven Euro).
3. To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of 5 (five) per cent per annum over
entire amount requested from the due date, i.e. 30th of June 2024 of the payment until the date
of the effective payment.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19005
4. Impose the Club whatever sporting sanctions this Honourable Court deems fit in accordance
with article 12 bis of the FIFA RSTP.
5. As consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs of
the present proceedings, if any.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Respondent rejected all the claims put forth by the Claimant and made the
following arguments:
A. Jurisdiction
18. Preliminarily, the Respondent argued that the FIFA Football Tribunal lacks competence to
decide the present case, as under Clause 21 of the Contract, the parties established the
exclusive jurisdiction to the Judicial Court of the District of Porto.
19. Consequently, the Respondent argued that since the Player did not provide any evidence
of the Player’s real and effective registration with a foreign club after the unilateral
termination of the Contract with the Club, the Judicial Court of the District of Porto would
have exclusive jurisdiction in this case.
20. Additionally, the Respondent argued that any reference in the Contract to specific national
legislation, in the present case Portuguese national law under Clause 22 of the Contract,
establishing the competence of national employment tribunals can also be deemed to
imply that employment-related cases would be heard outside of football’s decision-making
structures.
21. Therefore, the Club argued that FIFA Football Tribunal is not competent to hear the present
case.
B. Standing to be sued
22. Alternatively, the Club argued that on 31 May 2024, it underwent an organizational and
management change from a Single-Member Limited Liability Company - RIO AVE FUTEBOL
CLUBE-Futebol SDUQ, Lda. - to a Public Limited Company - RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE SAD.
After 31 May 2024, RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE -FUTEBOL SAD entered into the rights and
obligations that fell to RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE -Futebol SDUQ, Lda.
23. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Contract and Addendum were not signed with
the new entity, i.e., RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE SAD, and instead with the older entity, i.e.,
RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE-Futebol SDUQ, Lda, which ceased to exist on 31 May 2024, and
therefore, the Respondent does not have any standing to be sued.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19005
C. Effect of termination of the Contract
24. As to the merits, the Respondent argued that the employment relationship with the Player
terminated on 8 July 2024, with the payment of the termination clause by the Japanese club
Shimizu S-Pulse.
25. Therefore, the Respondent argued that since the Player was released from the Club on 8
July 2024, and according to the Contract and Addendum, the bonuses due are to be settled
by 1 September 2024, the bonuses requested are not due to the Player, since there was no
existing employment relationship at that time.
26. Further, the Club argued that pursuant to Clause 18 of the Contract, with the payment of
the release clause, the Club was released of all labour and employment-related obligations
and duties towards the Player.
D. Amount of bonuses
27. Alternatively, the Respondent argued with regard to the merits that as the Club had
undergone several changes, it responded to the default notice sent by the Player on 16
April 2025 wherein the Club stated that the Player is entitled to a total bonus of EUR 59,647
only (as opposed to EUR 84,147 requested by the Player), calculated as follows:
a. EUR 14,000 – EUR 1,000 per match due for 14 matches where the Player played for
over 45 minutes (Clause 4 a) of the Contract and Clause 5 a) of the Addendum);
b. EUR 7,000 - EUR 500 per match due for 13 matches where the Player was fielded
within the initial 11 squad (Clause 4 b) of the Contract and Clause 5 b) of the
Addendum);
c. EUR 5,000 – due for six (6) goals scored by the Player (EUR 5,000 per each block of 5
goals or assists) (Clause 5 of the Contract and Clause 6 of the Addendum); and
d. EUR 33,647 – due as the Club was not relegated (Clause 6 of the Contract and Clause
7 of the Addendum).
28. Therefore, the Club argued that there is a misunderstanding by the Claimant regarding
Clause 5 of the Contract / Clause 6 of the Addendum, and the Player is entitled to EUR 5,000
for each set / block of five (5) goals or assists achieved by the Player, and not for each goal
or assist scored by the Player, as claimed by the Claimant. As the Player scored six (6) goals
in total, he is entitled to EUR 5,000 only.
29. Therefore, the Respondent argued that in total, the Player is due EUR 59,647 as bonuses,
as per the calculations provided above. In this regard, the Club argued that the Clause in
the Contract and Addendum are clear in their literal interpretation and therefore, the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19005
principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem, interpretation against the party that drafted the
clause, is not applicable in the present case.
E. Applicability of art. 12bis of the Regulations
30. Finally, the Respondent argued that art. 12bis of the Regulations is not applicable in the
present case as the default notice dated 28 March 2025 sent by the Claimant was not
addressed towards the new entity, i.e., RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE SAD, and instead to the
older entity, i.e., RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE-Futebol SDUQ, Lda, which ceased to exist on 31
May 2024.
31. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the default notice was invalid and the requirements
under art. 12bis of the Regulations have not been met in the present case.
32. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
“A) The claim shall be rejected
B) The FIFA Football Tribunal shall consider himself incompetent to settle the present
dispute
C) The amounts claimed are not due to by the Respondent
Subsidiary,
D) The Claimant is only entitled to receive:
• 14.000,00€ due for 14 matches where the Player intervened in over 45 minutes
(1.000,00€ per match)
• 7.000,00€ regarding the player being in the 11 squad over 14 matches (500,00€ per
match)
• 5.000,00€ regarding 6 goals (5.000,00€ per each block of 5 goals or assists)
• 33.647,00€ as bonus for non-relegation of the club Total = 59.647€ E)
Costs and expenses shall be borne by the Claimant.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
33. In its replica, the Claimant rejected all the facts and arguments put forth by the Respondent
and made the following arguments:
A. Jurisdiction
34. The Claimant argued that FIFA Football Tribunal has jurisdiction in the present matter due
to the following reasons:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19005
a. The Claimant is a Ghanian national, and the Respondent is a Portuguese club,
establishing international dimension of the dispute within art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations;
b. While the parties included a national jurisdiction clause (Judicial Court of Porto) in
the Contract, Clause 21 of said agreement also expressly provides that if the Player
registers with a foreign club following unilateral termination, the arbitration clause
referring to the national courts shall be deemed to expire, and exclusive
competence shall lie with the FIFA dispute resolution bodies. In the present case,
this condition was fulfilled as the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract by
triggering the release clause (Clause 17) and subsequently signed with a foreign club
after paying EUR 1,250,000 to the Respondent; and
c. As per the FIFA Commentary on the Regulations, the existence of a jurisdiction
clause in the contract does not preclude the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber from
accepting a case if the international dimension is present and the parties - either
expressly or tacitly - accept FIFA’s jurisdiction. In this regard, the Claimant argued
that the Respondent’s procedural conduct confirms its tacit acceptance of FIFA’s
jurisdiction. On 22 April 2025, during the course of extra-judicial negotiations, the
Respondent submitted a draft settlement agreement in which it expressly
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the FIFA Football Tribunal to adjudicate any
dispute arising out of that agreement, thereby invoking the principle of venire contra
factum proprium.
B. Standing to be sued and applicability of art. 12bis
35. The Claimant argued that the Club has standing to be sued in the present matter due to
the following reasons:
a. The Club had allegedly always recognized the Player’s financial entitlement and that
it had fully complied with all formal requirements, as shown by means of the
exchanges between the Club and the Player wherein an alleged representative of
the Club acknowledges the bonuses due and there is further correspondence
regarding a possible settlement agreement.
b. The corporate restructuring of the Respondent, from an SDUQ (Sociedade
Desportiva Unipessoal por Quotas) to a SAD (Sociedade Anónima Desportiva), does
not extinguish or alter the substantive legal obligations undertaken by the club
under the Contract. The Player argued that such a transformation constitutes a
change in legal form, not in legal identity and that the club remains the same entity,
operating under the same trade name, playing in the same league, and employing
the same staff and players.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19005
c. The notice of default was served prior to the alleged legal transformation as the
Respondent itself acknowledged in its own submission that the change to the SAD
structure was formalised only on 31 May 2025, whereas the notice was properly
served on 28 March 2025 – a full two months earlier.
d. The Respondent received the notice through the same official club email address it
continued to use in these proceedings – namely, [email protected].
36. Therefore, the Claimant argued that the notice of default dated 28 March 2025 fully
satisfies the formal and substantive requirements of art. 12bis of the Regulations, and the
Respondent’s objection in this regard must be dismissed in its entirety.
C. Effect of termination of contract
37. The Claimant argued that the bonuses under the Contract and the Addendum were due to
the Player by the Club regardless of the release of the Player and termination of the
Contract and Addendum in July 2024 due to the following reasons:
a. The bonuses at issue were earned in consideration of the Claimant’s sporting
performance throughout the 2023/2024 season, including his active participation,
goals scored, and contributions to team achievements. These rights vested during
the subsistence of the contractual relationship and are not dependent on the
player’s presence at the club at the time of payment and the due date of 1
September 2024 was merely a contractually agreed post-season payment date; and
b. The Respondent’s procedural conduct prior to the proceedings is wholly
inconsistent with the position it now seeks to advance in its submissions. During
pre-litigation discussions, the Club actively engaged in negotiations aimed at
resolving the very same financial entitlements that it currently denies, evidenced by
a series of written communications and draft settlement agreement exchanged
between the parties. Therefore, the Player argued that the Club tacitly recognised
its debt in relation to the bonuses.
D. Amount of bonuses
38. Finally, the Claimant argued that the language of the relevant contractual clauses is clear
and self-executing. The Player claimed that the Clause both in the Contract and the
Addendum expressly states that the Player is entitled to receive a bonus of EUR 5,000 for
each goal scored in official matches and that there is no requirement, whether express or
implied, that the Player must reach a minimum threshold of five goals in order to trigger
payment.
39. Further, the Claimant argued that in line with the well-established legal principle of in dubio
contra stipulatorem, in cases where any ambiguity may exist, the interpretation most
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19005
favourable to the party who did not draft the clause (i.e., the Claimant) should prevail. The
Player stressed that this principle is especially pertinent in employment relationships,
where the employer is typically the stronger party and the drafter of the standard
contractual terms.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
40. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated all arguments and requests made by it in the
original reply. Additionally, the Club stated that the representative Mr. Diogo Ribeiro
referred to by the Player in the correspondence submitted by him was fired by the Club
and is undergoing disciplinary proceedings and therefore, any correspondence between
them be disregarded.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
41. 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 23 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
10 September 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.
42. 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 a Portuguese club.
43. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the jurisdiction of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the Judicial Court of the District of Porto, alleging that the latter
is exclusively competent to deal with any employment dispute between the Club and the
Player, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Contract, since the Player did not provide any
evidence of the Player’s real and effective registration with a foreign club after the unilateral
termination of the Contract with the Club. The Respondent also argued that the choice of
law as Portuguese national law points towards the jurisdiction of the local courts.
44. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant insisted on the jurisdiction of FIFA to adjudicate
the present claim, sustaining that Clause 21 of the Contract also expressly provides that if
the Player registers with a foreign club following unilateral termination, the arbitration
clause referring to the national courts shall be deemed to expire, and exclusive
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19005
competence shall lie with the FIFA dispute resolution bodies. In the present case, the
Claimant argued that this condition was fulfilled as the Claimant unilaterally terminated
the Contract by triggering the release clause under the Contract (Clause 17) and
subsequently signed with the Japanese club Shimizu S-Pulse, after paying EUR 1,250,000 to
the Respondent.
45. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employmentrelated dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension “without
prejudice to the right of any player (…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment
related disputes”.
46. In the present matter, the Chamber recalled the following wording of Clause 21 of the
Contract (free translation in English):
“21. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the parties agree to
grant exclusive and definitive jurisdiction to settle any and all disputes arising from this
Agreement or related to it to the Judicial Court of the District of Porto. The parties
additionally agree, however, that if the PLAYER registers with a foreign club following
unilateral termination of this contract, the arbitration agreement provided for in the
previous sentence will expire and the exclusive and definitive competence to settle the
dispute will lie with the FIFA dispute resolution bodies, with recourse to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS), based in Lausanne, Switzerland. The language of the
proceedings will be English and the panel will consist of three arbitrators.” [Emphasis
added by the DRC]
47. The Chamber noted that the Claimant argued and as was admitted by the Respondent in
its own submission, the employment relationship between the Club and the Player
terminated on 8 July 2024, with the payment of the termination clause by the Japanese club
Shimizu S-Pulse. The Chamber further noted that as per the information available on the
Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 10 August 2024, the Japanese club Shimizu S-Pulse
entered a transfer instruction to permanently engage the Player (Transfer ID: 852117) and
as per the Player’s Electronic Player Passport (EPP) on TMS, he is currently registered with
the Japanese club Shimizu S-Pulse.
48. In this context, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber
concluded that the condition under Clause 21 of the Contract has been fulfilled in the
present case with the Player being registered with the Japanese club Shimizu S-Pulse after
unilateral termination of the Contract with the Club, and the exclusive and definitive
competence to settle the present dispute lies with the FIFA dispute resolution bodies in
accordance with Clause 21 of the Contract.
49. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent’s objection to the
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the DRC is
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19005
competent to consider the present matter as to the substance on the basis of art. 22 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
50. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
51. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
52. 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
53. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerns a claim for outstanding remuneration and legal costs by the Player against the
Club.
54. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Respondent has the standing to be sued, the contractual basis for the bonuses due and
whether outstanding remuneration and costs must be awarded.
A. Standing to be sued
55. The Chamber acknowledged that it must first determine whether the Respondent has the
standing to be sued in the present matter.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19005
56. The Chamber noted that on 31 May 2024, the Club underwent an organisational and
management change from a Single-Member Limited Liability Company - RIO AVE FUTEBOL
CLUBE-Futebol SDUQ, Lda. - to a Public Limited Company - RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE SAD.
57. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent argued that it does not have any standing
to be sued as the Contract and Addendum were executed between the old legal entity i.e.,
RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE-Futebol SDUQ, Lda and the Player, which ceased to exist on 31
May 2024, and not the new legal entity i.e., RIO AVE FUTEBOL.
58. On the contrary, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, by its own submission conceded
that after 31 May 2024, the new legal entity i.e., RIO AVE FUTEBOL CLUBE -FUTEBOL SAD
entered into the rights and obligations that fell to the old legal entity i.e., RIO AVE FUTEBOL
CLUBE -Futebol SDUQ, Lda. Further, the Chamber noted, as argued by the Player, that:
a. the corporate restructuring of the Respondent, from an SDUQ (Sociedade Desportiva
Unipessoal por Quotas) to a SAD (Sociedade Anónima Desportiva), does not
extinguish or alter the substantive legal obligations undertaken by the Club under
the Contract and Addendum as the Club remains the same entity, operating under
the same trade name, playing in the same league, and employing the same staff and
players; and
b. the default notice dated 28 March 2025 was sent by the Player to the following
address: [email protected], which is continued to be used by the new legal entity of
the Club and which is listed on TMS and as per art. 10 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
the email listed on TMS is binding on clubs.
59. In light of the above evidence on file and it being undisputed by the Club, the Chamber
conclude that the Respondent has the standing to be sued in the present matter.
B. Contractual basis for bonuses
60. The Chamber then moved to examine the contractual basis for the amounts of bonuses
that the Player is entitled to under the terms of the Contract and the Addendum.
61. The Chamber noted that the Player has established and is undisputed by the Club that he
entered into a valid and binding employment relationship with the Club under the terms
of the Contract and Addendum.
62. The Chamber acknowledged that it is undisputed by the parties that the bonuses that the
Player is entitled to are identical under the Contract and the Addendum. The Chamber
further noted that it is undisputed by the parties that the following bonuses are
contractually applicable to the Player under the Contract and Addendum:
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19005
a. EUR 14,000 due for 14 matches where the Player intervened in over 45 minutes
(Clause 4 a) of the Contract and Clause 5 a) of the Addendum);
b. EUR 7,000 regarding the Player being in the 11 squad over 14 matches (EUR 500 per
match) (Clause 4 b) of the Contract and Clause 5 b) of the Addendum); and
c. EUR 33,647 as bonus for non-relegation of the Club (Clause 6 of the Contract and
Clause 7 of the Addendum).
63. The Chamber noted that the main point of contention between the parties is regarding the
interpretation of Clause 5 of the Contract / Clause 6 of the Addendum regarding the
bonuses for goals / assists achieved. In this context, the Chamber recalled the following
wording of Clause 5 of the Contract / Clause 6 of the Addendum (free translation to English):
“The PLAYER is entitled to receive a performance bonus in the net amount of EUR 5,000.00
(five thousand euros) for each time the PLAYER reaches the number of 5 (five) assists for
goals made and/or goals scored in official matches for the RAFC main team.”
64. The Chamber noted that the Player argued that he is entitled to EUR 5,000 for every goal
or assist achieved by the Player in official matches and that the clause is phrased in singular
terms providing payment per goal/ assist. The Chamber further noted that the Player
argued that in line with the well-established legal principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem,
in cases where any ambiguity may exist, the interpretation most favourable to the party
who did not draft the clause (i.e., the employee, the Claimant in the present case) should
prevail.
65. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that Club argued that there is a misunderstanding
by the Claimant regarding the interpretation of Clause 5 of the Contract / Clause 6 of the
Addendum, and the Player is entitled to EUR 5,000 for each set / block of five (5) goals or
assists achieved by the Player, and not for each goal or assist scored by the Player. In this
regard, the Club argued that the Clause in the Contract and Addendum are clear in their
literal interpretation and therefore, the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem,
interpretation against the party that drafted the clause, is not applicable in the present
case.
66. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber noted upon the plain reading of the clause, the literal
interpretation of Clause 5 of the Contract / Clause 6 of the Addendum clearly provides that
the Player is entitled to EUR 5,000 each time the Player reached five (5) goals or assists, and
not for every goal / assist achieved by the Player. The Chamber concluded that there exists
a clear threshold of five (5) goals or assists specified in the said clause.
67. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that the literal interpretation of Clause 5 of
the Contract / Clause 6 of the Addendum is sufficiently clear and therefore, the legal
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19005
principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem is not applicable in the present case, and the Player
is entitled to EUR 5,000 for every block of five (5) goals / assists.
68. Having established the contractual basis for the bonuses, the Chamber then moved to
examine whether the bonuses were actually due by the Club to the Player.
69. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent in its submission argued that
even though the Player is entitled to bonuses under the Contract and Addendum, the
bonuses requested are not due to the Player, since there was no existing employment
relationship on 1 September 2024, when the bonuses were due to be settled as the
Contract and Addendum terminated on 8 July 2024, with the payment of the termination
clause by the Japanese club Shimizu S-Pulse.
70. On the contrary, the Chamber noted and as argued by the Player that the bonuses at issue
were earned in consideration of the Claimant’s sporting performance throughout the
2023/2024 season, including his active participation, goals scored, and contributions to
team achievements. The Chamber acknowledged that these rights vested during the
subsistence of the contractual relationship and are not dependent on the Player’s presence
at the Club at the time of payment as per the terms of the Contract, which is merely a
contractually agreed settlement date post season. The Chamber further noted that it is
clear from the conduct of the Club and the correspondence submitted by the Club itself in
its submissions, that it acknowledged that bonuses were due to the Player and only
disputed the amount therein.
71. In this regard, upon examination of the evidence on file, the Chamber emphasized that the
Club did not dispute the fact that the bonuses under the Contract and Addendum vested
based on the specific sporting performance of the Player. The Chamber therefore noted
that it is undisputed that the Player participated in 14 matches where the Player intervened
in over 45 minutes, the Player was in the 11 squad over 14 matches, the Player scored 6
goals, and the Club was not relegated in the 2023/2024 season.
72. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the bonuses were earned by the Player during
the subsistence of the contractual relationship and the Club is liable to pay to the Player
the bonuses accrued under Clause 5 of the Contract / Clause 6 of the Addendum based on
the interpretation of the Contract and Addendum elaborated in paragraphs 66 and 67
above.
73. Having stated the above, the Chamber observed that the outstanding bonuses due under
the Contract and Addendum, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are
equivalent to EUR 59,647, divided as follows:
a. EUR 14,000 due for 14 matches where the Player intervened in over 45 minutes
(Clause 4 a) of the Contract and Clause 5 a) of the Addendum);
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-19005
b. EUR 7,000 regarding the Player being in the 11 squad over 14 matches (EUR 500 per
match) (Clause 4 b) of the Contract and Clause 5 b) of the Addendum);
c. EUR 5,000 regarding 6 goals scored by the Player (EUR 5,000 per each block of 5 goals
or assists) (Clause 5 of the Contract and Clause 6 of the Addendum); and
d. EUR 33,647 as bonus for non-relegation of the Club (Clause 6 of the Contract and
Clause 7 of the Addendum).
74. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that though the Player requested for
EUR 6,000 under Clause 4 b) of the Contract and Clause 5 b) of the Addendum with respect
to the Player being in the 11 squad 13 for matches, as the Respondent has conceded in its
submission that EUR 7,000 is due for 14 matches, the Chamber has awarded EUR 7,000, as
the total amount of bonuses awarded is less than the amounts requested by the Player.
75. 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 total amount
of EUR 59,647.
76. 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 2 September 2024 (i.e., the day
after the due date for the bonuses under the Contract and Addendum) until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
77. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
78. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
79. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
80. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-19005
81. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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
87. 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.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-19005
88. 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.
89. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-19005
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Abdul Aziz Yakubu.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Abdul Aziz Yakubu, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Rio Ave Futebol Clube, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 59,647 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 September
2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-19005
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. 24