Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19178
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ange Josue
Chibozo
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Vanessa PLAVJANIKOVA (Czech Republic), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ange Josue Chibozo, Benin
Represented by Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels (UNFP)
RESPONDENT:
Futebol Clube Paços de Ferreira, SDUQ, LDA, Portugal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19178
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
the Beninese player Ange Josue Chibozo (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
and
•
the Portuguese club Futebol Clube Paços de Ferreira, SDUQ, LDA (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent).
2.
In July 2023, the Player and the French club Amiens SC (hereinafter: Amiens) entered into
an employment relationship.
3.
On 26 August 2023, Amiens and the Club concluded a “Temporary Transfer Agreement”
(hereinafter: the Loan Agreement), pursuant to which the Player was temporarily transferred
from Amiens to the Club for the period between 26 August 2023 and 30 June 2024.
4.
Clause 2 of the Loan Agreement provided:
“2. LOAN FEE AND PLAYER’S SALARY
The Parties agree that the Player’s registration with [the Club] for the 2023/2024 season
shall be without financial consideration.
It is therefore agreed between the parties that the temporary transfer of the Player will
not give rise to the payment of any loan fee.
During the entire period of the temporary transfer, i.e., from 26 August 2023 to 30 June
2024, [the Club] will be the sole employer of the Player and will therefore have to pay the
Player’s full salary.
[The Club] will play to the Player for the remaining of the 2023/2024 season, the total
amount of 40.000,00 € (Forty Thousand Euros) net for the Player’s salaries, in 10 (Ten)
instalments of 4.000 € (Four Thousand Euros) each one.”
5.
Clause 5 of the Loan Agreement provided, inter alia, the following:
“5. WARRANTIES
[…]
g. [The Club] hereby represents and warrants to [Amiens] that for the duration of the
Loan Period:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19178
i. It shall do all acts or things necessary to register and maintain the registration of
the Player with [the Club].
[…]
iii. It shall not terminate the employment relationship and the registration with the
Player.”
6.
On the same date, i.e., 26 August 2023, the Club and the Player executed an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract), valid for the duration of the loan period,
namely from 26 August 2023 to 30 June 2024.
7.
Pursuant to clause two of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to remunerate
the Player with a total amount of EUR 40,000 net, payable in 10 monthly instalments of EUR
4,000 net each. The first instalment fell due on 5 October 2023, with the subsequent
instalments payable on the same day of each following month.
8.
On 10 January 2024, the Club sent an email to the Player informing him that he was excused
from attending the training sessions scheduled for the following day, “until [the Player]
receive new appointment of the Club’s professional football department”.
9.
On 31 January 2024, the Club and the Player executed a “Termination of Sports
Employment Contract” (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement), which provided, inter alia,
the following:
“1.[The Club] and the PLAYER entered into a Sports Employment Contract on August 26,
2023, by which the player undertook to carry out his professional activity in the service
of the aforementioned club until the end of the 2023/2024 sports season.
2. By this agreement, the CLUB and the PLAYER agree to revoke the same Contract in full
and by mutual agreement, with immediate effect.
3. The CLUB will pay the PLAYER on this date the net remuneration of € 4,000.00 (four
thousand EURO) for the month salary of December 2023.
4. The CLUB will also pay the PLAYER the net remuneration of € 4,000.00 (four thousand
EURO) for the month salary of January 2024, until February 15, 2024.
5. The PLAYER declares that upon receipt of these amounts, he has no further claim
against [the Club], for any reason whatsoever, and in particular for the termination of
his employment contract and any other possible amendment.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19178
10. On 31 January 2024, the Player and the Club signed a tripartite document relating to the
Loan Agreement, titled “Termination of a Loan Agreement” (hereinafter: the Termination of
a Loan Agreement).
11. Clause 3 of the Termination of a Loan Agreement provided the following:
“ARTICLE 3 – OBLIGATIONS
This agreement ends all obligations of the Parties, in particular financial obligations like
the Player’s salary for [the Club].
This early return of loan is free of charge, without any financial compensation.”
12. The Termination of a Loan Agreement was never signed by Amiens and the Player
remained registered with the Club.
13. On 1 February 2024, the Club paid the amount of EUR 4,000 to the Player.
14. On 14 February 2024, the Club made an additional payment of EUR 4,000 to the Player.
15. On 28 March 2024, Amiens contacted the Club via email, acknowledging that the Player
had been sidelined and requesting confirmation as to whether he continued to be called
up for the Club’s training sessions.
16. On 24 April 2024, Amiens contacted the Club once again, noting that it had not received
any reply to its earlier correspondence. In this communication, Amiens expressed its
intention to terminate the Loan Agreement as soon as possible, even if the Player would
consequently be ineligible to participate in certain competitions in France. Amiens also
provided a draft early termination agreement dated 15 April 2024.
17. On 29 April 2024, the Club responded to Amiens and provided a fully executed version of
the contract titled “Early Termination of Loan” (hereinafter: the Early Termination of Loan),
thereby confirming the premature termination of the Loan Agreement.
18. Clause 3 of the Early Termination of Loan established, inter alia, the following:
“ARTICLE 3 – OBLIGATIONS
This agreement ends all obligations of the Parties, in particular financial obligations like
the Player’s salary for [the Club].
This early return of loan is free of charge, without any financial compensation.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19178
19. In parallel, the Player and Amiens entered into a new employment contract for the purpose
of reinstating their original employment relationship as of 15 April 2024.
20. On 10 April 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, requesting payment of
EUR 10,000, corresponding to the unpaid salaries for February and March 2024, as well as
50% of the salary for April 2024. In his correspondence, the Player granted the Club a period
of 10 days to remedy the alleged breach.
21. On the same date, the Club responded to the Player’s notice, denying the existence of any
outstanding remuneration. The Club relied on the Termination Agreement and asserted
that it had already discharged its obligations by paying the salaries for December 2023 and
January 2024. Accordingly, the Club maintained that no amounts remained due.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 9 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
23. The Player argued that he was contractually entitled to receive a monthly net salary of EUR
4,000, as expressly stipulated in both the Loan Agreement and the Employment Contract
executed with the Club. Despite these binding contractual obligations, the Player claimed
that the Club ceased paying his remuneration as of early February 2024 and remained in
default until the mutually agreed termination of the loan on 15 April 2024. During this
period, the Player argued that he received no payment whatsoever, although he remained
bound by the contractual relationship and available to fulfil his obligations.
24. As a result, the Player claimed entitlement to a total of EUR 10,000 net corresponding to
the salaries of February and March 2024 and the proportional amount for the first half of
April 2024.
25. The Player requested the following relief:
« 22. En conséquence des faits et arguments exposés ci-dessus, le Joueur invite
respectueusement la CRL de la FIFA à ordonner au Club de payer les montants suivants:
•
•
•
4 000 EUR net pour le salaire de février, plus 5% d’intérêts p.a. à compter du 1er
mars 2024 ;
4 000 EUR net pour le salaire de mars, plus 5% d’intérêts p.a. à compter du 1er
avril 2024 ;
2 000 EUR net pour le salaire d’avril, plus 5% d’intérêts p.a. à compter du 16 avril
2024 ;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19178
•
3.000,00 EUR de frais de justice.
23. Une sanction pour violation de l’article 12bis du RSTJ devrait également être
imposée. »
Freely translated to English:
“22. In consequence of the facts and arguments set out above, the Player respectfully
requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to order the Club to pay the following
amounts:
•
•
•
•
EUR 4,000 net for the salary of February, plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
March 2024;
EUR 4,000 net for the salary of March, plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 April
2024;
EUR 2,000 net for the salary of April, plus 5% interest per annum as from 16 April
2024;
EUR 3,000 in legal costs.
23. A sanction for violation of Article 12bis of the RSTP should also be imposed.”
b. Reply of the Club
26. On 4 June 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s claim.
27. The Club maintained that it had paid all salaries owed to him. It recalled that the Player had
joined the Club on loan from Amiens for the first part of the 2023/24 season and that the
parties had signed an Employment Contract effective from 26 August 2023 to 30 June 2024,
establishing a monthly salary of EUR 4,000, payable on the 5th of each month
28. According to the Club, the Player had only taken part in 7 matches, for a total of 188
minutes played. During the winter transfer window, the Player allegedly informed the Club
that he had not been able to adapt to the country or the Club, and that his representatives
were already negotiating with Amiens and other clubs to arrange a transfer. On the last
day of the winter transfer window, the Player reportedly informed the Club that Amiens
had taken care of the process and that the parties needed to sign all documentation to
terminate both the Loan Agreement and the Employment Contract before he travelled
back to France.
29. The Club explained that Amiens had confirmed the situation and had sent an Early Loan
Termination for signature. As a result, on 31 January 2024, the Club and the Player allegedly
signed the Termination of a Loan Agreement, which the Club then transmitted to officials
at Amiens. The Club emphasized clause 3 of that agreement, which, according to its
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19178
interpretation, stated that all obligations between the parties – including financial
obligations related to the Player’s salary – had ceased as of that date.
30. That same day, 31 January 2024, the Club and the Player also reportedly signed a
Termination Agreement, with both signatures notarized by a lawyer. The Club stated that
this termination had been registered with the Portuguese Professional Football League.
After signing the termination documents, the Player allegedly returned to France to
continue his career.
31. Regarding outstanding payments, the Club acknowledged that as of 31 January 2024, the
Player was still entitled to receive his December 2023 salary (EUR 4,000) and January 2024
salary (EUR 4,000), and that the parties had agreed these would be paid by 15 February
2024. The Club claimed it had paid the December 2023 salary on 1 February 2024 and the
January salary on 14 February 2024. It further stated that the Player had declared that upon
receiving these payments, he no longer had any claim of any nature against the Club,
including those related to the termination of the Employment Contract.
32. Based on these elements, the Club argued that all contractual obligations had been
extinguished as of 31 January 2024, and therefore the Player’s request for salaries related
to February, March, and April 2024 was unjustified. The Club accused the Player of acting
in bad faith by seeking payment for months after he had already terminated his
employment relationship with the Club. Finally, the Club noted that on 10 April 2025, it had
submitted a formal written response to the Player’s representatives, condemning the
Player’s behaviour, and asserted that the proceedings should be closed immediately.
c. Replica of the Player
33. On 3 July 2025, the Player submitted his replica on this matter.
34. The Player first emphasised that the Loan Agreement explicitly prohibited the Club from
terminating the employment relationship or the Player’s registration without the express
agreement of Amiens (cf., clause 5(g) of the Loan Agreement). As such, the Player claimed
that the Club’s attempt to present a purported termination dated 31 January 2024 directly
contravened this contractual prohibition, since the Club had provided no evidence that
Amiens consented to such termination. In fact, the opposite was true: Amiens itself made
clear to the Club that, in accordance with the Loan Agreement, the Player “must remain
registered with your club” until a new destination was secured.
35. The Player then pointed out that the document relied upon by the Club as “Termination of
a Loan Agreement” was never signed by Amiens and therefore never came into effect,
particularly since it expressly stated that it would only take effect upon signature by all
parties. As a result, any claim that the loan ended on 31 January 2024 was unfounded. The
Player’s legal and contractual relationship with the Club therefore remained intact.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19178
36. In parallel, the Player explained that the Club’s conduct in January 2024 demonstrated a
clear intention to force him out. According to the Player, on 11 January 2024, the Club
unilaterally excluded the Player from training, depriving him of the ability to perform his
work. This was followed by threatening and coercive communications from Club
representatives, indicating explicitly that the Player would have no opportunity to play and
would no longer be part of the squad. The Club communicated to the Player’s
representative that it intended to stop paying him, that new players had been recruited,
and that it wished to “make room” by pushing the Player out. At one point, the Club even
stated that it expected the Player to file a claim with FIFA so that the Club would be “forced”
to pay the salaries it owed. These exchanges, according to the Player, demonstrated that
the Club’s narrative (i.e., that the Player voluntarily sought to leave) did not resemble factual
reality, in which the Club created an untenable environment by ceasing to provide work
and salary, attempting to pressure the Player into departure despite the binding nature of
the loan.
37. Given these circumstances, the Player claimed that the Club’s inability to reach an
agreement with Amiens was essential. The two clubs exchanged emails confirming that no
early termination could take place unless Amiens found a replacement club for the Player
– something that did not occur. Thus, despite the Club’s attempt to compel the Player to
leave, he remained fully contractually bound to the Club and registered with it. The
situation only changed months later, when the parties ultimately executed a valid
termination of the Loan Agreement on 15 April 2024 (i.e., the Early Termination of Loan), a
document that the Club itself signed without reservation on 29 April 2024. This final
document contained three critical confirmations: (1) the new contract between the Player
and Amiens took effect only upon validation by the French League, which could not occur
before 15 April 2024; (2) the Player’s registration had remained with the Club throughout;
and (3) the Club remained financially obligated to the Player until that termination date.
The Club’s signature on this document constituted a clear acknowledgment of the true
contractual situation and confirmed the Player’s entitlement to salaries up to 15 April 2024.
38. Turning to the Termination Agreement invoked by the Club, the Player submitted that even
if FIFA were to review this document, it should be declared legally null and void. The Player
claimed that under Swiss Law a worker cannot waive rights arising from mandatory labour
protections during the employment relationship nor within one month after its
termination. He further cited recent jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) establishing that agreements in which a player waived fundamental employment
rights without adequate compensation, or which are signed under pressure, must be
considered invalid.
39. Applying these principles, the Player argued that the Termination Agreement did not satisfy
either requirement. The document contained no consideration for the Player, even though
he still had a guaranteed contract until 30 June 2024 and was entitled to a salary of EUR
4,000 per month. Meanwhile, the Club benefitted significantly by avoiding payment of
several months of salary and by immediately freeing a roster spot for new signings. No
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19178
reasonable reflection period was provided; the Player signed under conditions of sustained
pressure after being excluded from training, threatened, and deprived of salary. He had no
certainty of re‑registration elsewhere due to closed transfer windows and thus risked
unemployment, loss of income, and being unable to train. According to the Player, this
profound imbalance rendered the Termination Agreement invalid.
40. Moreover, the Player demonstrated that he only regained stable financial and sporting
conditions after 15 April 2024, when Amiens finally agreed to reintegrate him, but only with
a reduced salary and without the ability to participate in competition due to closed
registration periods. This underscored the prejudice caused by the Club’s conduct and the
gravity of the imbalance that characterized the Club‑drafted termination attempt. For
nearly three months, the Player had no employment income, no training access, and no
competitive participation, all while still being contractually bound to the Club. The Player
claimed that this situation alone confirmed that the Club had no legal basis to claim the
Player voluntarily terminated his employment in January 2024.
41. For these reasons, the Player concluded that the Club remained financially responsible for
payment of his salary until 15 April 2024, the effective date of the genuine loan termination.
In the alternative – should FIFA consider the Termination Agreement – the Player alleged
that it must be declared invalid, leading to the conclusion that the Club terminated the
Employment Contract without just cause on 31 January 2024.
42. If this is the case, the Player requested EUR 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract
(i.e., the salaries from February to June 2024), plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 February 2024.
d. Duplica of the Club
43. On 18 July 2025, the Club submitted its duplica.
44. The Club argued that the Player acted in bad faith and deliberately misrepresented events.
According to the Club, it was the Player himself who informed them that he had been
unable to adapt to the country and the Club and that his representatives were already
negotiating with Amiens and other clubs to secure him a new destination. The Club stated
that the Player personally asked for the early termination of the loan, claiming he was
miserable with his situation.
45. The Club reiterated that on the last day of the winter transfer window, the Player told them
that Amiens and his representatives had taken care of the necessary arrangements and
that it was necessary to sign all documents to invalidate both the loan and the employment
contract before he travelled back to France. The Club claimed that this version was
confirmed by Amiens, which allegedly sent the “Termination of a Loan Agreement” for
signature. The Club argued that both the Termination of a Loan Agreement and the
Termination Agreement were signed on 31 January 2024, with signatures formally certified
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19178
by a lawyer. According to the Club, the Player signed these documents because doing so
was “in his best interest.”
46. The Club added that the Termination Agreement was registered with the Portuguese
League and Portuguese Football Federation (FPF), reinforcing its validity. The Club further
insisted that the Player and his representative asked the Club and Amiens to revoke the
Loan Agreement because the Player had reached an agreement with another club. The
Club thus maintained that the Player was acting in bad faith by demanding salaries for
February, March, and April 2024 even though, according to their version, he revoked his
contract on 31 January 2024.
47. In addressing the Player’s subsidiary claim for EUR 20,000 in compensation, the Club
argued that the Player originally filed a claim on 9 May 2025 for EUR 10,000 in alleged
outstanding remuneration and was now seeking a higher amount without providing any
new factual or legal arguments. Therefore, the Club considered the Player’s amendment to
his claim inadmissible and requested that it be rejected for procedural reasons.
48. The Club concluded by restating that, in light of the above, the Player’s entire claim should
be dismissed, and the proceedings should be closed immediately.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
49. 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 9 May 2025 and submitted for decision on 19
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.
50. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Beninese player and a Portuguese club.
51. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19178
b. Burden of proof
52. 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
53. 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
54. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for outstanding remuneration lodged by the Player against the Club.
55. As a starting point, the Chamber observed that the following facts remained undisputed
between the parties and were pertinent to the resolution of the present dispute:
• On 26 August 2023, the Player was loaned from Amiens to the Club until 30 June 2024;
• On 10 January 2024, the Club informed the Player that he was exempted from
attending training sessions until further notice;
• On 31 January 2024, the Player and the Club executed a Termination Agreement,
pursuant to which the parties agreed that the Player would be entitled to receive his
salaries for December 2023 and January 2024 only, with no further compensation;
• Also on 31 January 2024, the Player and the Club submitted to Amiens a draft
termination of the Loan Agreement (i.e., the Termination of a Loan Agreement), which,
however, was never countersigned by Amiens;
• Between 31 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, the Player remained registered with
the Club, and no communication was exchanged between the parties during this
period;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19178
• On 28 March 2024, Amiens contacted the Club for the first time to request
information regarding the status of the Player’s employment, to which the Club did
not respond;
• On 24 April 2024, Amiens proposed the termination of the Loan Agreement with
effect as of 15 April 2024, which was subsequently formalized through the document
entitled Early Termination of Loan.
56. In light of the above, the DRC identified three main issues in contention to be decided upon
within the present matter:
A. Whether the employment/loan relationship was validly terminated on 31
January 2024 or on 15 April 2024.
B. Whether the January 2024 termination documents – particularly the
Termination Agreement – were valid under FIFA regulations and general DRC
jurisprudence.
C. Whether outstanding remuneration was due to the Player for February, March,
and April 2024.
57. The Chamber therefore proceeded to examine each of these issues in turn.
A. DATE OF TERMINATION OF THE LOAN AND THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE PLAYER AND THE CLUB
58. First and foremost, the Chamber recalled that the Player submitted that the loan could not
have been terminated on 31 January 2024 because Amiens – whose consent was
contractually required – never signed the alleged termination. He argued that the Club
remained his employer until 15 April 2024, when the Early Loan Termination was duly
signed by Amiens and later acknowledged by the Club.
59. Conversely, the Club maintained that all parties, including the Player, signed termination
documents on 31 January 2024, and that Amiens had confirmed the Player’s desire to leave.
The Club argued that the Player himself initiated the early termination and could not depart
from it at a later stage.
60. In this context, the DRC noted that while the Loan Agreement and the Employment
Contract were concluded concurrently and were intended to operate during overlapping
periods, they regulated distinct legal transactions: the Loan Agreement governed the
temporary transfer of the Player’s registration rights between clubs; the Employment
Contract governed the employment relationship between the Player and the Club. As such,
the Chamber considered that although the two instruments were linked, they did not
necessarily produce identical legal consequences at identical moments in time.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19178
61. In the DRC’s view, the mere fact that the Termination of a Loan Agreement was not formally
completed on 31 January 2024 did not automatically entail that the employment
relationship persisted beyond that date. Crucially, the Chamber emphasised that the Player
did not dispute that he personally signed the Termination Agreement on 31 January 2024,
nor did he dispute that he ceased rendering services immediately thereafter. His conduct
following the execution of that document – notably his absence from training, his failure to
request reinstatement, and his lack of any contemporaneous objection – also supported
the conclusion that he accepted the termination of the employment relationship as of that
date.
62. Accordingly, the Chamber held that although the Loan Agreement was indeed not formally
terminated until April 2024, and although the Player’s registration technically remained
with the Club until that date, the parties nevertheless tacitly accepted that the employment
relationship between the Player and the Club had been formally and de facto terminated
by mutual consent on 31 January 2024. From that moment onwards, the Player stopped
providing services, and neither he nor Amiens sought his reintegration or reactivation
within the Club’s professional structure. In fact, it was only in April 2024, when the
registration formally reverted to Amiens, that the Player resumed a contractual pathway.
63. In the Chamber’s opinion, this extended period of mutual inaction, coupled with the
Player’s immediate cessation of services after signing the Termination Agreement,
demonstrated that the parties treated the employment relationship as having ended on 31
January 2024, irrespective of the later administrative finalisation of the loan termination.
64. Consequently, the DRC decided that – irrespective of the matter of registration – the Player
and the Club terminated their employment relationship on 31 January 2024 through the
Termination Agreement.
B. VALIDITY OF THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT
65. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Player argued in the alternative that the
Termination Agreement should be declared invalid. In essence, he alleged that he was
placed under pressure, excluded from training, and induced to sign without receiving any
reciprocal concession, further noting that Amiens had not signed the Termination of a Loan
Agreement. On this basis, he submitted that the Termination Agreement should be
declared void.
66. In this respect, the Chamber first recalled that the Termination Agreement provided the
following:
“1.[The Club] and the PLAYER entered into a Sports Employment Contract on August 26,
2023, by which the player undertook to carry out his professional activity in the service
of the aforementioned club until the end of the 2023/2024 sports season.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19178
2. By this agreement, the CLUB and the PLAYER agree to revoke the same Contract in full
and by mutual agreement, with immediate effect.
3. The CLUB will pay the PLAYER on this date the net remuneration of € 4,000.00 (four
thousand EURO) for the month salary of December 2023.
4. The CLUB will also pay the PLAYER the net remuneration of € 4,000.00 (four thousand
EURO) for the month salary of January 2024, until February 15, 2024.
5. The PLAYER declares that upon receipt of these amounts, he has no further claim
against [the Club], for any reason whatsoever, and in particular for the termination of
his employment contract and any other possible amendment.”
67. The DRC further noted that the Player confirmed having received all remuneration up to
the date he ceased providing services, and that by signing the Termination Agreement he
accepted – either explicitly or implicitly – a general release of any entitlement to the residual
value of the Employment Contract from February 2024 onwards (or, in any event, until midApril 2024, when he re-joined Amiens). The Termination Agreement therefore represented
a settlement of rights relating to the remaining contractual period.
68. Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that once the Player signed a Termination
Agreement, thereby ending the employment relationship, and particularly once he ceased
rendering services, the burden of proof shifted to him to demonstrate that the Termination
Agreement was invalid – either due to coercion or to a manifest imbalance in reciprocal
concessions. Similarly, as the Player was no longer contractually bound to the Club after 31
January 2024, he bore the primary responsibility to substantiate the alleged defects in the
termination.
69. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber held that the Player could not discharge his
burden of proof because (i) he could not substantiate his allegations of duress / coercion;
and (ii) the evidence on file strongly indicated that the Player accepted, both formally
through signature and tacitly through subsequent conduct, that the employment
relationship had ended on 31 January 2024 by mutual consent.
70. In other words, the DRC was not persuaded by the Player’s allegations that the mutual
termination involved any manifestly unfair or disproportionate concessions between the
parties. The Player received all remuneration up to the date on which he ceased rendering
services, while the Club obtained certainty regarding the immediate termination of the
employment relationship. In the absence of credible evidence of coercion or imbalance,
the Chamber found no basis to set the Termination Agreement aside.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19178
C. CONSEQUENCES
71. Lastly, the Chamber turned to the consequences of its findings above, particularly whether
any basis remains for salary payment after the established date of termination.
72. According to the DRC, the case file showed that:
•
the Player ceased rendering services after 31 January 2024;
•
he never requested reinstatement or salary during February, March, or early April
2024;
•
he did not challenge the validity of the termination until litigation was initiated;
and
•
his registration only reverted to Amiens in mid-April, at which point he resumed
a professional pathway.
73. Consequently, the Chamber found no entitlement to the outstanding salaries.
Furthermore, as there were no overdue payables, the DRC determined that the Player’s
request for art. 12bis sanctions should also be dismissed. The DRC also rejected the Player’s
request for EUR 3,000 in costs (cf., art. 25 of the Procedural Rules).
74. Finally, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC noted the Club’s procedural objection
regarding the Player’s subsidiary claim (EUR 20,000). However, since the termination was
valid and the employment ended as of 31 January 2024, the Chamber concluded that the
subsidiary compensation claim failed on the merits, hence the assessment of the
procedural admissibility was moot.
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 reiterated his reference to 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. 16
REF. FPSD-19178
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ange Josue Chibozo, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19178
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. 18