Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19678
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Soufiane
Bahja
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Vanessa PLAVJANIKOVA (Czech Republic), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Soufiane Bahja, Morocco
Represented by Iliass Segame
RESPONDENT:
Regdalin, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19678
I. Parties
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
• The Moroccan player Soufiane Bahja (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
• The Libyan club Regdalin (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the
Libyan Football Federation (LFF).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
2.
On 21 June 2025, the Player submitted a breach of contract claim to FIFA.
3.
The Player alleged that he had entered into an employment relationship with the Club in
January 2025 for one sporting season. He stated that although the Club repeatedly
promised to formalize the written contract, which was to provide an annual salary of USD
20,000, the document was never executed. Nevertheless, the Player argued that he
rendered his services in good faith, fully trained with the team, and participated in all
activities under the Club’s authority.
4.
The Player asserted that the existence of the employment relationship was confirmed
through photographs and numerous recorded telephone conversations with the Club
President, during which the Club acknowledged both the relationship and its financial
obligations.
5.
The Player claimed that despite fulfilling all his professional duties, he never received any
of the agreed remuneration. From January 2025 onwards, the Club failed to pay any salary
and allegedly offered repeated excuses concerning internal administrative issues. The
Player held that this conduct amounted to a fundamental breach under art. 14 and 14bis
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations),
given that the Club failed to pay overdue payables for more than two consecutive months.
He emphasized that the non‑payment over nearly six months constituted a severe violation
of the Club’s obligations.
6.
The Player also maintained that he attempted to resolve the situation amicably. In
particular, on 31 May 2025, he allegedly issued a formal notice of default, granting the Club
fifteen days to cure the breach. He argued that the Club ignored this notice and failed to
provide any payment or justification. As a result, he contended that he was left with no
alternative but to terminate the employment relationship with just cause and bring the
matter before the FIFA Football Tribunal.
7.
Furthermore, the Player submitted a claim for compensation pursuant to art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations. He sought the full amount of USD 20,000, representing the unpaid salary
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19678
for the season, and argued that he was prevented from signing with another club due to
the contractual uncertainty created by the Club.
8.
The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“25. In light of the above, the Claimant respectfully requests the Chamber to grant the
following relief:
25.1. Acknowledge the existence of an employment relationship between Mr. Soufiane
Bahja and Al Talaea Regdalin FC;
25.2. Confirm that the Player was entitled to terminate the employment relationship with
just cause in accordance with Articles 14 and 14bis RSTP.
25.3. Order the Respondent to pay the outstanding amount of USD 20,000 as
compensation for breach of contract.
25.4. Grant interest on the amount awarded at the standard rate and from the date of
the breach or such other date as the Chamber may consider fair and appropriate.”
9.
The Club did not reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. 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 21 June 2025 and submitted for decision on
30 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.
11. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Moroccan player and a Libyan club.
12. 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
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19678
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
13. 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
14. 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
15. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for alleged non-payment of remuneration and
termination with just cause.
16. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player asserted that an employment relationship
existed between the parties, that the Club breached its obligations by failing to pay the
agreed salary, and that he was thus entitled to compensation.
17. Conversely, the Club did not reply to the claim. Consequently, and in line with art. 21 par.
1 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC confirmed that its decision should be based on the
documentation contained in the case file, namely the Player’s submissions.
18. In this context, the Chamber also acknowledged that the central issue to be determined
was therefore whether a valid and binding employment relationship existed between the
parties.
19. The Chamber began its assessment by noting that while the Player submitted that the
parties orally agreed to terms and that the Club promised to formalize a written contract,
no executed contract was placed on file, nor was a draft contract signed by both parties
presented. The Player asserted that the Club “promised” to finalize a written agreement
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19678
and claimed that photographs and recorded conversations demonstrated the Club’s
acknowledgment of the relationship.
20. The Chamber then recalled that in line with established FIFA jurisprudence, the absence of
a signed contract is not automatically decisive, as mutual consent may exceptionally be
demonstrated through other robust, objective evidence. However, a high evidentiary
standard applies when a party alleges the existence of an employment contract without an
executed document.
21. In the present case, the Chamber observed that the Player submitted:
•
Photographs of himself allegedly wearing training attire and participating in
training sessions;
•
A screenshot purportedly demonstrating a phone call with a Club representative,
which however contains no date nor contact identification.
22. Nevertheless, the Chamber found decisive that the photographs do not support an
employment relationship between the Player and the Club, as well as do not contain clear
references to dates or context. Furthermore, the DRC highlighted that the social media
posts were only partially translated to an official procedural language (cf., art. 13, par. 1 and
3 of the Procedural Rules).
23. Further, the Chamber emphasised that the Player did not present any document signed by
the Club, written confirmation or communication evidencing salary terms, payment
receipts, nor official action by the Club (e.g., visa support, flight arrangements, equipment
issue), indicating execution of an employment agreement.
24. Notably, the Player argued that the Club verbally acknowledged the relationship in
recorded calls. However, the Chamber noted that no transcripts, authenticated audio, or
contextual information were provided to substantiate this claim.
25. The Chamber held that there was equally no documentary indication that the Club
recognised any obligation to pay remuneration, let alone the quantum claimed by the
Player. In fact, the Player did not even furnish a copy of the notification purportedly sent to
the Club referring to these sums.
26. Taking all the above into consideration, the Chamber concluded that the sparse evidence
on file did not meet the standard of proof required to establish the existence of a valid and
binding employment relationship between the parties. In other words, the Chamber
established that the Player could not discharge its burden of proof in accordance with art.
13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
27. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the claim of the Player.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19678
d. Costs
28. 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.
29. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
30. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19678
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Soufiane Bahja, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19678
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. 9