Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19253
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Anael
Festeddy Bakaki
BY:
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Anael Festeddy Bakaki, Congo
Represented by Hamouda Bouazza
RESPONDENT:
Najran SC, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Ahmad Alamir
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19253
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the present case are:
the Congolese player, Anael Festeddy Bakaki (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
and
the Saudi Arabian club, Najran SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
On 11 June 2024, the Club sent an offer to the Player with the following conditions:
-
A one season contract starting in 2024 and ending in 2025;
-
A “signing fee” of USD 20,000;
-
A total remuneration of USD 65,000,
-
Accommodation, car and air ticket for the Player and his wife.
3.
On 1 August 2024, the Player and the Club allegedly entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 August 2024 to 31 May 2025. It is to be noted that
the Contract does not include the Club’s signature.
4.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia a monthly net salary of USD 6,500, totalling USD 65,000 net and a signing fee of USD
20,000 net payable on 1 August 2024.
5.
Clause 12 of the Contract read as follows:
“1. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the Player wall be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this Contract,
provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least
15 days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
2. If either Party terminates the Contract with just cause, following amount will have to be
paid: (). If there is no agreement on the amount, compensation for breach of contract is
payable in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations.
3. The Club shall not terminate the contract due to the Player sustaining an injury during play
or training.
4. The validity of the Contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination
and/or the grant of a work permit.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19253
5. The Club shall not suspend, interrupt or delay the Player’s remuneration due to the Player
sustaining an injury during play or training. The Contract may nor be terminated by either
party during the sporting season in any circumstances, with the exception of cases where: (a)
there is just cause; and/or (b) the Parties have agreed to terminate the Contract before the
dare of its expiry by mutual consent.
6. The Player shall not, under any circumstances, waive salaries for work already performed,
unless it is of greater benefit to the player.
7. The Club shall notify the Committee in writing of any termination of this Contract without
delay and within three (3) working days at the latest. The Club shall also notify the League
Organiser wherever so required under the relevant League Organiser regulations.”
6.
On 21 April 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested USD 42,500
corresponding to the salaries from November 2024 to March 2025 and the signing fee. The
Player set a deadline of 15 days in order for the Club to remedy its default.
7.
On 7 May 2025, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club mentioning that the
salaries remained unpaid.
8.
The Player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 15 May 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
10. The Player argued that both he and the Club had entered into a valid agreement (i.e., the
Contract), and that he terminated said Contract with just cause. Regarding its validity, the
Player submitted a copy of the offer and various posts from the Club’s social media
accounts to support his claim.
11. The Player requested the following :
-
Salaries from November to April of USD 6,500 each plus 5 % interest p.a. as from
the last day of each month.
-
Signing fee of USD 10,000 plus 5 % interest p.a. as from 1 August 2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19253
-
Compensation for breach of contract of USD 6,500 plus 5 % interest p.a. as from
7 May 2025.
-
To impose sporting sanctions on the Club.
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. Despite being invited, the Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 11 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.
14. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Congolese player and a Saudi Arabian club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19253
c. Merits of the dispute
17. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Player requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
19. The Single Judge observed that Claimant argued that the parties had a valid contract, and
that he had just cause to terminate the Contract. The Club, on the other hand, did not
respond to the claim, entailing that the decision must be made on the basis of the
documentation on file, that is, the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line
with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. Moreover, the Single Judge
observed that the Claimant provided a copy of the Contract without the Club’s signature.
20. In view of the above, the Single confirmed that the first issue in the present claim is to
determine whether the Contract can be considered as a valid and binding employment
agreement. In doing so, the Single Judge started by recalling the Football Tribunal wellestablished jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be
considered as valid and binding, it should contain the relevant essentialia negotii, such as
the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and
the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
21. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that the signature of a contract by both parties is an
important element in order to establish an employment relationship, essentially because
this is the easiest way to demonstrate mutual consent. However, having an unsigned
specimen of the Contract does not automatically mean there is no employment
relationship between the parties, because this shall be established on a case-by-case basis
and considering the entirety of the facts of the case and the elements at the disposal of the
deciding authority.
22. In the present case, the Single Judge observed that:
-
the Club had submitted an offer to the Player containing identical terms regarding
salary and bonuses as those stipulated in the Contract;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19253
-
the Club’s social media posts—which were not contested—indicated that the Player
the Player was part of its squad; and
-
the Club neither disputed any of the documents submitted by the Player nor
provided any comments in response.
23. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that a valid and binding contract existed
between the parties. The Single Judge then proceeded to examine the issue of the
termination.
24. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
25. The Single Judge then referred to 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 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 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
26. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the salaries from November 2024 to April 2025. Furthermore, the Single
Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent
in default on 21 April 2025, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract
on 7 May 2025.
27. The Single Judge also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Respondent did not reply to the claim and no evidence was
provided.
28. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
29. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
30. The Single observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the Player, corresponded to USD 10,000 as signing
fee and USD 39,000 as salaries between November 2024 and April 2025.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19253
31. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
49,000.
32. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of USD 10,000 as from 2 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of USD 6,500 as from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of USD 6,500 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of USD 6,500 as from 1 February 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of USD 6,500 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of USD 6,500 as from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of USD 6,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of effective payment;
33. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
34. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19253
35. As a consequence, Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to 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)).
36. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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 Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 6,500 serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
37. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
38. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
39. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
Contract that was prematurely terminated.
40. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 6,500 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
41. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 7 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19253
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
43. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
45. 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.
46. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
47. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
48. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
49. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19253
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Anael Festeddy Bakaki, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Najran SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 August 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 6,500 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 May
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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19253
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. 12
REF. FPSD-19253
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13