Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19378
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Ben Aziz Dao
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Ben Aziz Dao, Burkina Faso
Represented by Padel Juste Mougnoba Siama
RESPONDENT:
FC Nouadhibou, Mauritania
Represented by Hamouda Bouazza
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19378
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 18 July 2024, the player from Burkina Faso, Aziz Ben Dao (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the club from Mauritania, FC Nouadhibou (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
its date of signature until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a signing
bonus of USD 20,000, a monthly salary of USD 1,700 during the first season (2024/2025)
and USD 2,000 during the second season (2025/2026).
3.
On 15 October 2024, the Claimant sent a message via WhatsApp, allegedly to the
Respondent’s coach, stating that he was appalled by the living conditions in which he found
himself, that he had no space to eat, that it was unhygienic and that the electricity in his
apartment was cutting out regularly. The Claimant requested a rectification of these issues.
4.
On 21 November 2024, the Claimant sent a further message on WhatsApp, allegedly to the
Respondent’s president, requesting a phone call, to no avail.
5.
On 4 December 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a mutual agreement to
terminate the Contract (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement), whereby it was stipulated
that the parties “acknowledge to each other that they have fulfilled all of their obligations
towards each other and waive their right to claim any amount or compensation”.
6.
On 11 April 2025, the Claimant messaged the alleged president of the Club, informing him
that he had returned to Europe due to the poor conditions, racist behaviour of the Club
and its failure to respect its commitments.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 25 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
8.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to pay him a single instalment
under the Contract, including the signing bonus of USD 20,000 and five monthly salaries of
USD 1,700 each between July 2024 and November 2024.
9.
The Claimant equally clamoured that the Respondent forced him to sign the Termination
Agreement, whereby he would have waived his outstanding monthly salaries. In this
respect, the Claimant argued that he signed the Termination Agreement under duress,
whereby representatives of the Club appeared at his domicile surreptitiously without his
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19378
consent. As a result, the Claimant argued that the Termination Agreement could only be
upheld if the Respondent would pay all amounts due to him until that point.
10. Accordingly, the Claimant requested payment from the Respondent of outstanding
remuneration totalling USD 28,500, without any interest.
b. Position of the Respondent
11. In its reply, the Respondent alleged that it had paid all of the outstanding amounts under
the Contract to the Claimant.
12. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had signed the Termination
Agreement willingly, and that he had requested to be released from the Contract due to
personal reasons. Hereby, the Respondent clarified that the Claimant bore the burden of
proving that he was coerced into signing the Termination Agreement, quod non.
13. The Respondent further alleged that the Contract actually foresaw a signing bonus of USD
10,000, and not USD 20,000 as alleged by the Claimant, which it insisted was in any event
paid.
14. In conclusion, the Respondent requested for the claim to be rejected.
c. Unsolicited correspondence from the Respondent
15. After being granted a deadline extension to submit its reply to the claim, the Respondent
requested an additional extension to obtain proofs of payment for the amounts allegedly
paid to the Claimant.
16. On 21 July 2025, without having been granted a second deadline extension, the
Respondent submitted an alleged proof of payment to the Claimant.
17. For the sake of procedural consistency, and given that the Respondent had already been
granted one deadline extension, the FIFA general secretariat disregarded the alleged proof
of payment submitted by the Respondent, in accordance with art. 11 par. 4 of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 25 May 2025 and submitted for
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19378
decision on 3 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
19. 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 player from Burkina Faso and a club from Mauritania.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent
as per the Contract, namely the signing bonus of USD 20,000 and five monthly salaries of
USD 1,700 each between July 2024 and November 2024. In this respect, the Single Judge
noted that the Respondent referred to the wording of the Termination Agreement, and
equally emphasised that, in any event, the signing bonus was only USD 10,000, and not
USD 20,000 as suggested by the Claimant.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19378
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 latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations.
25. The Single Judge first recalled the wording of the Termination Agreement, which stipulated
that the parties “acknowledge to each other that they have fulfilled all of their obligations
towards each other and waive their right to claim any amount or compensation”.
26. In continuation, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant did not dispute signing the
Termination Agreement, but argued to have been pressured into signing it. In this regard,
the Single Judge stated that any claim of duress needs to be proven, and the signed
Termination Agreement is binding upon the parties unless there is convincing evidence to
the contrary.
27. With the above principle in mind and considering the lack of evidence filed by the Claimant
to support his allegation of duress, the Single Judge determined that he did not meet his
burden of proof in line with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, hence his argumentation
in this regard should be set aside. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, according to which a party signing a document of
legal significance, generally, does so on its own responsibility and is so liable to bear the
legal consequences of it.
28. In accordance with the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that it was not
possible to establish that the Termination Agreement was concluded under duress and,
therefore, it is valid regarding the mutual termination of the Contract between the parties.
29. Notwithstanding the above, given the generic wording of the Termination Agreement and
the fact that the Claimant contested having received several payments – none of which
were substantiated by the Respondent – the Single Judge concluded that the Termination
Agreement effectively implied that the Claimant was (partially) waiving outstanding
remuneration.
30. At this point, the Single Judge wished to recall that the mere signing of a contract is not
sufficient to ensure the enforceability of its contents. In particular, the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) on
waivers provides that (i) in general terms, an employee (e.g., a player or a coach) cannot
waive remuneration for work already performed; and (ii) in order to assess whether a
transaction is permissible, the court / deciding-making body is required to conduct a
balancing of interests by considering whether the reciprocal claims waived by each party
are of comparable value. Put differently, whether there is an appropriate equivalence
between the parties’ reciprocal concessions.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19378
31. Accordingly, the Single Judge held that, in principle, the Player’s salaries from 8 July 2024
until 4 December 2024 could not be waived as part of the Termination Agreement. In light
of the parties’ submissions and the evidence on file, the Single Judge was not convinced
that there was an appropriate equivalence between the parties’ reciprocal concessions
and, therefore, the Player could not waive remuneration for work already performed. In
particular, the Single Judge noted that the Club failed to rebut the Player’s allegations
regarding his employment with the Club and did not provide evidence to support its
assertion that the Player had requested to be released due to personal circumstances.
32. The Single Judge then 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 Single Judge observed that the Respondent failed to timely
provide evidence of payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
Furthermore, the Single Judge pointed out that no reasonable justification was presented
by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of the Contract.
33. Therefore, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda and the
Claimant’s requests for relief, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is still liable to
pay him the amounts which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of its
termination on 4 December 2024. In this respect, the Single Judge determined that,
contrary to the Respondent’s argument, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the signing bonus amounted to USD 20,000 as stipulated in the Contract.
34. Consequently, the Single Judge stated that the Player should be entitled to USD 28,500, i.e.,
the signing bonus of USD 20,000 and five monthly salaries of USD 1,700 each between July
2024 and November 2024.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
35. 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
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
36. 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.
37. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19378
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.
38. 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.
39. 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
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19378
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ben Aziz Dao, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Nouadhibou, must pay to the Claimant USD 28,500 as outstanding
remuneration.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19378
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. 10