Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19786
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nana
Dwomoh Akosah-Bempah
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI, Qatar
CLAIMANT:
Nana Dwomoh Akosah-Bempah, USA
Represented by Dyego Tavares
RESPONDENT:
ACS Petrolul 52, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19786
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the American player, Nana Dwomoh Akosah-Bempah (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant), and the Romanian club, ACS Petrolul 52 (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment
Contract) valid as from 19 July 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
Article 4 of the Employment Contract provided:
“Article 4: Remuneration
i. The Club undertakes to pay the Player for his professional services a monthly amount
of 7.000 euro net (in words: seven thousands euro net), to be paid at the latest on 15
of the next month.
ii. In the event that the Club activates the clause of Article 2, paragraph ii), the Club
undertakes to pay the Player, in exchange for his professional services, for the period
from 01.07.2025 to 30.06.2026 a monthly remuneration of 8,050 euros net (in words:
eight thousand and fifty euros net), no later than the 15th of the following month.”
3.
Pursuant to Article 4, k) of the Employment Contract, the Club also undertook to pay the
Player: “2 round trips plane tickets for each competition season, in each of the summer- winter
competition breaks, on the Romania- South Africa route.”
4.
On 31 March 2025, the same parties also signed an “Agreement regarding the establishment
of outstanding financial rights, the deferral of their payment, and the amendment of certain
provisions in the [Employment Contract]” (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement).
5.
The relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement provided the following:
“Article 1. The parties agree that, as of the signing date of this agreement, ACS PETROLUL
52 has an outstanding debt to the Player. AKOSAH BEMPAH NANA DWOMOH, in the total
amount of 29,000 euros (twenty-nine thousand euros).This amount represents all
financial entitlements owed to the Player up to the date of signing this agreement,
including payments for March 2025, due in April 2025. The amount arises from both the
[Employment Contract]and other legal relationships between the Player and the Club.
Article 2. The parties agree that the payment of the amount specified in Article 1 shall be
made in 4 installments, as follows:
-
4000 euros (four thousand) by 16.04.2025;
7,250 euros (seven thousand two hundred fifty) by 15.05.2025;
7,250 euros (seven thousand two hundred fifty) by 15.06.2025;
10500 euros (ten-fifteen) by 15.07.2025.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19786
Article 3. The Player declares that, apart from the amounts established in this
agreement, he has no further financial claims against the Club for the period preceding
the signing of this agreement.
Article 4. The parties agree that Article 4, regarding monthly remuneration in
the[Employment Contract], registered with LPF under No. 202408070003. shall be
amended and starting from 01.04.2025, the Player's monthly net remuneration shall be
3 000 euros.”
6.
On 11 June 2025, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, demanding payment of
“E$7250.00(seven Thousand two hundred fifty) euros and R 10.467,00 (ten thousand four
hundred and sixty seven)” (sic) within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 2 July 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
8.
The Player referred to both the Employment Contract and the Settlement Agreement,
stating that the Club failed to pay the instalments due for May and June 2025, and also
defaulted on salary payments for April, May, and June 2025.
9.
According to the Player, under the Settlement Agreement, the Club was obligated to pay a
total of EUR 29,000 in four instalments. The Club failed to pay for the May and June
instalments, hence the Player requested payment of the remaining EUR 25,000.
10. Additionally, the Player claimed unpaid salaries under the Employment Contract, totalling
EUR 12,000 for the months of April, May, and June 2025, based on the amended monthly
salary of EUR 4,000.
11. The Player also sought reimbursement for airline tickets, as the Employment Contract
entitled him to two round trips per season.
12. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“In view of all the above factual and legal arguments, requests the DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAMBER to:
a – That the competence of this Doctor DRC / Tribunal Football be declared, as set out in
item II, 1;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19786
b – In view of the above, payment of the tickets is requested in the amount of the
installments due on 05/15/2025, 06/15/2025 and due on 07/15/2025, in the amount of
E$25.000,00 (twenty-five thousand euros) is requested, as per item III;
c – Payment of full salaries for the months of April, May and June 2025, in the amount of
E$12.000,00 (twelve thousand euros), as per item IV;
d – In view of the above, payment of the tickets is requested in the amount of E$418,68
(four hundred and eighteen reais and sixty-eight cents) – R 10.467,00 (ten thousand four
hundred and sixty seven) South African Rand, as per item IV;
e – The possibility of designating Mediation to attempt a friendly conciliation, according
to item V;
f – Moratorium interest of 5% (five percent), according to the consolidated jurisprudence
of this Douta DRC.”
b. Reply of the Club
13. On 24 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s claim.
14. The Club acknowledged the existence of the Employment Contract and confirmed the
subsequent Settlement Agreement to settle outstanding financial obligations. However,
the Club contested the Player’s allegations regarding unpaid salaries and breach of its
financial obligations.
15. The Club argued that the Player had failed to fulfil his professional obligations during the
final months of the employment, particularly by being absent without justification.
According to the Club, this absence constituted a breach of contract and justified the
withholding of salary payments for April, May, and June 2025. The Club claimed that it had
attempted to contact the Player and resolve the matter internally but received no
cooperation or explanation from him.
16. Regarding the Settlement Agreement, the Club asserted that the payment schedule was
conditional upon the Player’s continued compliance with contractual duties. Since the
Player allegedly abandoned his responsibilities, the Club considered the agreement voided
and denied liability for the remaining instalments. The Club also claimed that the Player’s
claim was premature insofar as it concerned the last instalment of the Settlement
Agreement.
17. The Club also disputed the reimbursement claim for airline tickets, stating that the Player
did not follow the proper procedure for requesting travel expenses and failed to provide
prior notice or approval for the ticket purchase.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19786
18. In conclusion, the Club requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to dismiss the
Player’s claims in full, arguing that the Player’s conduct amounted to a breach of contract
and that the Club acted within its rights by withholding payments and terminating the
mutual agreement.
19. The Club submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“41. In light of the foregoing submissions, the Respondent, Asociaba Clubul Sportiv
Petrolul 52, respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal. Dispute Resolution Chamber,
to issue a decision that:
1. REJECT the Claimant's claim for the salaries of april may and june arc
inadmisibile and premature because of the failure to respect article 12bis of the
FIFA RSTP regarding the obligation to put in default in writting the debtor;
2. REJECT the Claimant's claim for the instalments of 7250 euro due on 15.06.2025
and 10.500 euro due on 15.07.2025 are inadmisibile and premature because of
the failure to respect article 12bis of the FIFA RSTP regarding the obligation to
put in default in writting the debtor;
3. REJECT the Claimant's claim for the installment of 10,500 euro due on 15 July
2025 to be inadmissible as it was premature at the time of filing.
4. REJECTS the Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of an airline ticket in the
amount of euros 418.68 as unfounded;
5. REJECTS all of the Claimant's claims that arc found to be unfounded or
premature.
6. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should the Tribunal find any amount to be due to the
Claimant for unpaid salaries, to first reduce the claimed amount from euros
12,000 to the contractually correct maximum of euros 9.000.
7. REJECTS the Claimant's request for moratorium interest.
8. ORDERS the Claimant to bear all costs associated with these proceedings.”
c. Replica of the Player
20. On 4 August 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
21. The Player reaffirmed that the Club had failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement,
particularly regarding the instalment due on 15 May 2025, which had been overdue for
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19786
more than 30 days. The Player also noted that the Club had been duly notified through
extrajudicial means, and that an additional instalment due on 15 July 2025 had since
become payable and remained unpaid. Therefore, the Club’s argument that the claim was
premature was expressly rejected.
22. Regarding salary payments, the Player contested the Club’s assertion that the monthly
salary had been reduced to EUR 3,000. He maintained that the reduction was unilateral
and abusive. Nevertheless, in the spirit of conciliation and mediation, the Player agreed to
accept the amount of EUR 9,000 for the unpaid salaries of April, May, and June 2025 –
calculated at EUR 3,000 per month.
23. The Player also challenged the Club’s claim that it was not obligated to reimburse airline
tickets. He argued that the original Employment Contract clearly provided for the Club’s
responsibility to cover travel expenses. The Player emphasized that there was no express
waiver of this right in the Settlement Agreement, and therefore the obligation remained
valid.
24. In conclusion, the Player requested the DRC to recognize and admit the claim, and to order
the Club to pay the following:
•
•
•
•
EUR 25,000 for the unpaid instalments due on 15 May, 15 June, and 15 July 2025.
EUR 9,000 for unpaid salaries for April, May, and June 2025.
EUR 418.68 for airline ticket reimbursement.
5% default interest.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
25. On 6 August 2025, the Club submitted its duplica.
26. The Club reiterated its position that the Player had breached his contractual obligations by
abandoning his duties without justification during the final months of the Employment
Contract. It maintained that this conduct invalidated the Settlement Agreement, which was
contingent upon the Player’s continued compliance with his professional responsibilities.
The Club argued that the Player’s absence constituted a serious breach and justified the
withholding of both salary payments and the remaining instalments under the agreement.
27. Regarding the salary reduction, the Club insisted that the Player had agreed to a revised
monthly salary of EUR 3,000, and that this adjustment was reflected in the Settlement
Agreement. The Club rejected the Player’s claim for EUR 9,000 in unpaid wages, asserting
that no further amounts were due given the Player’s failure to fulfill his duties.
28. On the issue of airline ticket reimbursement, the Club maintained that the Settlement
Agreement superseded the Employment Contract and did not include any provision for
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19786
travel expenses. It argued that the Player had implicitly waived his right to reimbursement
by signing the Settlement Agreement without reserving that claim.
29. In conclusion, the Club requested the DRC to dismiss the Player’s rejoinder and uphold its
original defense.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 2 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 9 October 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.
31. 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
an American player and a Romanian club.
32. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
33. 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 she 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19786
34. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for outstanding remuneration and reimbursement of flight tickets under both the
Employment Contract and the Settlement Agreement.
36. The Player claimed:
•
•
•
EUR 25,000 for the three last instalments under the Settlement Agreement.
EUR 9,000 for unpaid salaries for April, May, and June 2025.
EUR 418.68 for airline ticket reimbursement.
37. The Club disputed the Player’s entitlement to all the above.
38. The Single Judge then proceeded to assess each of the requests in turn.
A. OUTSTANDING SUMS UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (EUR 25,000)
39. The Club challenged its liability under the Settlement Agreement, arguing that the Player
had abandoned his employment and therefore was no longer entitled to his remuneration.
40. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge found that the Club did not provide sufficient
evidence of a formal termination or breach of contractual duties by the Player.
Furthermore, she considered that the unilateral breach by one party does not
automatically void a settlement agreement unless expressly stipulated. Therefore, the
Single Judge decided that the Club remained liable for payment of the outstanding
instalments.
41. Although the Single Judge noted that the last instalment of the Settlement Agreement was
indeed premature at the time of the claim, she considered that this sum fell due during
these proceedings and the Club had two opportunities to provide proof of compliance, to
no avail. As a result, and for the sake of procedural economy, the Single Judge ordered that
this amount be also awarded to the Player, totalling EUR 25,000.
42. According to the Single Judge, 5% interest p.a. on the outstanding amounts should be
calculated as follows:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19786
•
•
•
On EUR 7,250 as from 16 May 2025 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 7,250 as from 16 June 2025 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 10,500 as from 16 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
B. OUSTANDING SALARIES UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (EUR 9,000)
43. Regarding salary payments, the Single Judge recalled that the Player acknowledged the
salary reduction and agreed to accept EUR 9,000 for the three months in question.
44. The Club again referred to the Player’s departure from the Employment Contract as
justification for its non-compliance.
45. In this context, the Single Judge established that the same rationale outlined above applied:
the Club failed to prove any breach of contract by the Player, as well as it failed to provide
any evidence that it attempted to remedy the situation (e.g., disciplinary proceedings,
default notices, other means of communication).
46. Therefore, the Single Judge ruled that the Player is entitled to the outstanding salaries
amounting to EUR 9,000 and applicable interest of 5 % p.a. as follows:
•
•
•
On EUR 3,000 as from 16 May 2025 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 3,000 as from 16 June 2025 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 3,000 as from 16 July until the date of effective payment.
C. REIMBURSEMENT OF FLIGHT TICKETS (EUR 418.68)
47. As for the airline ticket reimbursement, the Single Judge noted that the Employment
Contract clearly provided for this benefit, and the Settlement Agreement did not expressly
waive it. As a result, the Single Judge considered that the Player would in principle be
entitled to reimbursement.
48. However, the Single Judge noted that the Player submitted two evidence to support his
claim: (i) a boarding pass for the flights on 2 and 3 March 2025; and (ii) and invoice issued
by a company named “TravelStart”.
49. Although the Single Judge found that the invoice appeared to match the flight itinerary
provided by the Player, it referred to additional costs expensed for the travel agent services
and it does not contain an identification of the currency used. The Single Judge further
outlined that the Player also failed to explain the conversion used in his claim.
50. Similarly, the Single Judge considered that, although the invoice suggested that a payment
had been made by card on 28 February 2025, there was no supplementary proof of
payment. Furthermore, the invoice was addressed to the Club.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19786
51. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Player did not discharge his burden of
proof, and this part of the claim was rejected.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
52. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
53. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the
Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
54. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
55. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the
above, and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Club within the last two years,
the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par.
4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
56. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19786
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
60. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
61. 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
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19786
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nana Dwomoh Akosah-Bempah, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ACS Petrolul 52, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 10,250 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 May 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 10,250 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 June 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 July 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19786
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. 14