Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19267
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Idrissa Traore
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Idrissa Traore, Mali
Represented by Slim Boulesnam
RESPONDENT:
Alandalus, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19267
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 September 2024, the Malian player Idrissa Traore (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player) and the Libyan club Alandalus (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until the end of the season
2024/2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant USD
20,000 in three instalments, namely USD 10,000 as an advance payment, USD 5,000
between the first and second legs of the season and USD 5,000 at the end of the season.
3.
On 4 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of USD 7,000 as outstanding remuneration under the Contract, i.e., the
remaining balance of USD 2,000 for the first instalment of the Contract and USD 5,000 as
the second instalment of the Contract.
4.
On 9 February 2025, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Respondent:
“[…] We hereby wish to draw your attention to the situation of the Malian player Idrissa Traoré,
currently under contract with your club until the end of the 2024/2025 season, as per the
agreement signed on September 29, 2024.
(Attached is a power of attorney for representation).
We are sending you this second formal notice as our first notice dated February 4, 2025, has
remained unanswered. We wish to address the following breaches and violations:
•
Following an injury sustained during the first match of the championship against
Mourouj Club, the player has been left without any follow-up or support from your side.
•
Contradictory information has been communicated to him, and he has been asked to
terminate his contract in exchange for USD 2,000.
•
The player has not received the USD 5,000 installment due between the first and second
half of the season. We demand payment of this amount within 15 days.
Additionally, we have been informed that your club has confiscated the player’s passport and
refuses to return it. Worse still, your club is using this official document as leverage to pressure
the player into accepting an unfair termination of his employment contract. Such actions are
unlawful and constitute a serious violation of the player’s fundamental rights.
We therefore demand that you return the player’s passport immediately and no later than 48
hours from the receipt of this email. In the case of non-return within the mentioned timeframe,
I will seek the intervention of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee and demand sanctions.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19267
We grant you a 3-day deadline to:
• Confirm in writing your contractual intentions towards your employee.
• Provide the necessary medical care and a rehabilitation plan.
We also request that you send any documents (agreement proposals, receipts, attestations, etc.)
to our attention via email before presenting them to the player. No document shall be signed
without our prior validation.
This state of uncertainty is causing the player unacceptable stress. We rely on your cooperation
to put an end to these violations.
In case of continued silence and prolonged non-compliance beyond the given deadlines, we will
have no choice but to consider your disinterest in maintaining the contractual relationship. We
refer you to the FIFA RSTP, particularly Articles 12bis, 14, 14bis, 17, and 22. The player reserves
the right to initiate proceedings before the FIFA Football Tribunal to uphold his currently violated
rights. […]”
5.
On the same day, i.e., 9 February 2025, the Respondent answered the latest
correspondence from the Claimant as follows:
“We, Al-Andalus Club, notify you that the player is being treated well and that the passport
document is completed by the club to complete the travel procedures for the player and that
the player’s entitlements are the player’s right according to the concluded contract and that the
club will reach a mutual agreement with the player and provide medical care. The player has
requested that he undergo medical examinations in his country and this is the player’s wish and
we asked him for treatment inside Libya but he insisted that this be in his country and we are
with the full rights of the donor and he receives the rewards and we will terminate it for him. All
his rights”
6.
On the same day, i.e., 9 February 2025, the Claimant answered the latest correspondence
from the Respondent as follows:
“[…] I acknowledge receipt of your letter, which contains numerous inaccurate allegations.
Following his injury, the player Idrissa Traoré consulted a doctor in his home country to obtain
a second medical opinion. Contrary to your claims, his condition does not require surgical
intervention. However, we kindly request that you provide us with a copy of the medical report,
along with the CD of the ultrasound and MRI scans, so that we may seek a third independent
medical opinion. Furthermore, we wish to remind you that the player has no intention of
terminating his contract and fully intends to honor it until its conclusion. Your attempts to force
him into a termination are unacceptable.
Additionally, we have been informed that your club is illegally withholding the player's passport,
preventing him from leaving the country. This retention is a clear violation of his rights. Even
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19267
more concerning, we have found that Mr. Idrissa Traoré's administrative situation is not in order,
as he does not possess a residence permit or a work permit allowing him to legally reside and
work in Libya.
We therefore demand that you immediately regularize his situation and return his passport
without delay. Failing this, we will escalate the matter to the relevant authorities to ensure his
rights are upheld.
We look forward to hearing from you soon. Please do not hesitate to contact us. […]”
7.
On 15 February 2025, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Respondent:
“[…] I note that you are once again attempting to force the player Idrissa Traoré to sign a
contract termination in exchange for the return of his passport. You have scheduled a meeting
with him on Sunday, February 16, 2025, stating that you will hand over his passport and a return
ticket to Mali.
Please be advised that the player will not sign any document unless we receive a copy
beforehand, and he categorically refuses any contract termination.
Furthermore, we have noticed that your club has recently registered a new foreign Malian player,
Mr. Sekou Konate, under TMS ID 516523, despite already exceeding the permitted quota of
foreign players. Your current roster includes:
• Taoufik Safsafi (Morocco) and Mehdi Mesyaf (Morocco) (North African player quota),
• Mambela Ntshyi (Congo), El Bechir Sidi (Mauritania), and Idrissa Traoré (Mali) (foreign
player quota).
Therefore, any abusive action or behavior on your part will be considered a unilateral
termination of the contract without just cause by the club. We will contest any document signed
by the player if it has not been sent to us before hand. […]”
8.
On 11 March 2025, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the termination of the
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 16 May 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent terminated the Contract without just
cause. In particular, the Claimant argued that the Respondent pressured him into
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19267
terminating the Contract, by retaining his passport, failing to provide him with the
necessary medical care after his injury, and unilaterally purchasing a flight ticket for him to
return to his country of origin.
11. Accordingly, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“Outstanding remuneration: USD 5,000 due between the first and second halves of the
championship, with 5% interest per annum from February 4, 2025.
USD 5,000 compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest per annum from the date of
termination of the contract on March 12, 2025.
Impose a financial penalty on the Club for its conduct.
Impose a sporting penalty on the Club for breaching the Contract during the protected period.
USD 5,000 in legal fees.”
(Freely translated from French)
b. Position of the Respondent
12. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply 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 16 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 22 December 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.
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 DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Malian player and
a Libyan club.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19267
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 July 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).
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 Claimant strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the
Respondent.
19. In particular, the Single Judge acknowledged that, according to the Claimant, the
Respondent pressured him into terminating the Contract by retaining his passport, failing
to provide him with the necessary medical care after his injury, and unilaterally purchasing
a flight ticket for him to return to his country of origin.
20. In addition, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent did not respond to the claim,
entailing that his 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. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to establish the
circumstances of the termination of the Contract and the consequences thereof.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19267
22. In this respect, the Single recalled the content of 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. With this in mind, the Single Judge deemed that it was up to
the Claimant to prove the termination of the Contract without just cause by the
Respondent.
23. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the evidence on file, the Single Judge concluded that
the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent pressured him into terminating
the Contract by retaining his passport, failing to provide him with the necessary medical
care after his injury, and unilaterally purchasing a flight ticket for him to return to his
country of origin on 26 February 2025.
24. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge 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).
25. In the present matter, the Single Judge observed that on 4 February 2025, the Claimant put
the Respondent in default and requested payment of USD 7,000 as outstanding
remuneration under the Contract, i.e., the remaining balance of the first instalment of the
Contract and the second instalment of the Contract. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted
that the Claimant has provided written evidence of unilaterally terminating the Contract on
11 March 2025, at least 15 days after his default notice to the Club on 4 February 2025.
26. Taking into account (i) the wording of art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations; (ii) the fact that
the Claimant’s salary was not due on a monthly basis; and (iii) that no due date was included
in the Contract for the payment of its second instalment, the Single Judge considered that
it was up to the Claimant to prove, again on the basis of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, that the second instalment of the Contract was due on the date of his default notice
to the Respondent on 4 February 2025, as he alleged.
27. Within this framework, the Single Judge calculated the pro-rata value of the Claimant’s
monthly salary under the Contract and concluded that it corresponds to approximately
USD 2,222.22.
28. In view of the above considerations, and in the absence of any evidence to establish the
due date for the payment of the second instalment of the Contract, the Single Judge held
that only the first instalment of the Contract in the amount of USD 10,000 was due on 4
February 2025, i.e., the date of the Player’s default notice to the Club. In this respect, the
Single Judge recalled that the Player acknowledged in said default notice having received
from the Club a partial payment of USD 8,000 for the first instalment of the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19267
29. In the Single Judge’s view, the Player therefore had less than one outstanding monthly
salary under the Contract on 4 February 2025. In fact, the Single Judge pointed out that the
Player’s outstanding remuneration amounted to USD 2,000 on 4 February 2025, i.e., the
date of his default notice to the Club.
30. In continuation, the Single Judge highlighted that the Player’s requests for relief in his claim
before FIFA only concerned the second and third instalments of the Contract – which, based
on the evidence on file, were not due at the moment of termination – and not the remaining
balance of the first instalment.
31. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant did not have just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and decided to
reject his claim, based on the principle ne ultra petita.
d. Costs
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19267
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Idrissa Traore, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19267
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. 11