Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19855
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Godwin Festus Udoka
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Godwin Festus Udoka, Nigeria
Represented by FIFPro Africa
RESPONDENT:
AFC 1919 Dacia Unirea, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19855
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2024, the Nigerian player Godwin Festus Udoka (hereinafter, the Player or
the Claimant) and the Romanian club AFC 1919 Dacia Unirea (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 20
August 2024 until 30 June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of RON 2,500, payable “at the
latest on 30 of the next month”.
3.
In accordance with Clause 14 of the Contract:
“The disputes between the club and the player arising from or in connection with this
contract shall be settled by the relevant jurisdictional bodies”.
4.
On 6 June 2025, the Player sent an email to the Club requesting the return of his passport
within 48 hours, as well as to stop the abusive behaviour, threats and blackmail regarding
the resident permit. In addition, the Player granted the Club a deadline of 15 days to pay
RON 19,000.
5.
According to the Player, on 6 June 2025, he and the Club’s president exchanged the
following messages via WhatsApp:
[Player]: “Good evening Mr president. I was called to come and collect my passport and
leave the house before Tuesday?”
[Club’s president]: “Correct! From Tuesday the termination of your contract will be sent to
the federation! The termination of the contract will also be transmitted to Immigration,
which will cancel the residence permit. That’s what you wanted… right? You are free to go
wherever you want. If from Tuesday onwards you are still in Romania… with the permit
cancelled… you will be wanted by the authorities to be repatriated. What applies to you…
also applies to Papillo. Please tell him too! I’m so disappointed with you… I should have left
you in the Czech Republic. Whom you don’t let die… won’t let you live. Starting on
07/07/2025, you and Papillo are no longer eligible for the meal. Alina has been instructed
to discontinue. It is her decision whether she wants to continue feeding you”.
6.
On an unspecified date, allegedly the Player and the Club’s president exchanged the
following messages via WhatsApp:
[Player]: “And now Leo is telling me you said from today 6th no feeding for us”.
[Club’s president]: Replying to the following message: “I would like to offer you 15 days
to 20th June as per article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP to pay the amount outstanding of 19000
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19855
Ron. Sporting regards, [the Player]”: “Do to this message, our collaboration ends! Correct,
from Tuesday the termination of your contract will be sent to the federation! The termination
of the contract will also be transmitted to Immigration, which will cancel the residence
permit. That’s what you wanted… right? You are free to go wherever you want. If from
Tuesday onwards you are still in Romania… with the permit cancelled… you will be wanted
by the authorities to be repatriated”.
7.
On 12 June 2025, a meeting between the Parties took place in the Club’s premises. In the
context of this meeting, the Parties allegedly signed the so-called “Agreement cease of sport
activity contract” (hereinafter, the Termination Agreement), according to which:
“Art. 1 – The contract concluded between the parties (…) shall cease to be valid as of
12.06.2025.
Art. 2 – By signing this agreement the two parties confirm that they have no financial,
material, or any other, past, present and future claims arising from the provisions of [the
Contract], annexes, internal regulations, etc”.
8.
Also on 12 June 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club denouncing that it had unilaterally
terminated the Contract. In his letter, the Player stated, inter alia, the following:
“According to the contract, the Player is entitled to a monthly salary of RON 2,500; however,
to this day, the Player has only received RON 3,500 in total, thus leaving an outstanding
amount of RON 19,967 from the RON 23,467 he should have received by now for the prorata salary of August and the full salaries from September 2024 to May 2025.
What is more, the Club had illegally confiscated the Player’s passport and intended to
blackmail him by informing him that the Club would only return his passport if the Player
left the Club and returned his residence permit.
In view of the foregoing, on 5 June 2025 the Player put the Club in default and provided the
latter with 15 days to pay his outstanding salaries, 48 hours to return his passport and to
immediately stop the abusive behaviour.
Whereas the Player received his passport on 6 June, instead of receiving his salaries as well,
he was met with hostility by the Club and on the same day he was told that he needed to
vacate his accommodation and that the Club would stop providing food for him and his
Nigerian teammate. Indeed, on 6 June 2025 the Club informed the Player via WhatsApp that
his contract was terminated.
What is more, after summoning the Player to the Club’s premises, today on 12 June 2025
the Club informed the Player that his contract was officially terminated, alleged that the
Player had supposedly already signed a mutual termination letter (quod non), and stated
that he was free to sign anywhere else. We would like to make clear that we consider the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19855
Club’s overall attitude to be abusive behaviour. In view of the fact that the Player has never
signed nor agreed to mutually terminate the contract, we deem that on 12 June 2025 the
Club has unilaterally terminated the employment contract without just cause in violation of
article 14 of the FIFA RSTP”.
9.
On an unspecified date, the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Romanian
Football Federation (hereinafter, the NDRC of Romania) notified the Parties that a trial would
take place on 26 June 2025 in the case file 384/CL/2025: Association of Football Club 1919
Dacia Unirea Brăila vs. Godwin Festus Udoka.
10. According to the information retrieved from TMS, on 29 July 2025 the Player joined the
German club VFL Germania Leer as an amateur player.
11. On 31 July 2025, the NDRC of Romania notified its decision on the aforementioned
proceeding. In its decision, the NDRC of Romania found as follows:
“File no. 384/CL/2025: Association of Football Club 1919 Dacia Unirea Brăila vs. Godwin
Festus Udoka
o Admits the exception of general lack of jurisdiction of the FRF, in resolving the cause, as
well-founded.
o It rejects the claimant’s claim.
o With appeal within 5 days of communication.
o Pronounced today, 31.07.2025”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 10 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 Claimant
13. In his claim, the Player stated that, by June 2025, the Club had only paid him RON 3,500,
leaving an outstanding balance of RON 19,967 from the total amount of RON 23,467 that
he should have received.
14. The Player further alleged that the Club had unlawfully retained his passport since February
2025 and that he was informed he would only recover it if he agreed to renounce his
Romanian residence permit. According to the Player, this conduct demonstrates the Club’s
lack of interest in continuing the contractual relationship. He added that the Club returned
his passport on 6 June 2025, following his default notice dated 5 June 2025.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19855
15. The Player claimed that, rather than ceasing its abusive conduct, the Club’s president
informed him and his Nigerian teammate, Mr Ezekiel Leo, via WhatsApp that their contracts
were being immediately terminated. The president also threatened to report their
unemployment status to immigration authorities. The Player’s agent was also informed of
this development.
16. The Player further stated that, on 12 June 2025, he and his teammate went to the Club’s
premises, where they were met with hostility by the Club’s president, team manager, and
secretary. According to the Player, he was presented with two termination letters: one presigned by him but containing blank spaces to be filled in by hand (i.e., the Termination
Agreement), and another completed digitally but unsigned. The Player claimed he does not
recall signing the Termination Agreement and suspects it may have been forged. He argued
that requiring players to pre-sign such documents enables the Club to misuse them by
inserting content without the Player’s consent. The Player further submitted that, while he
was able to video record part of the meeting, his teammate managed to capture an audio
recording of the same. These recordings, according to the Player, support his claim
regarding the coercive nature of the meeting and the irregularities surrounding the
termination process.
17. The Player stated that he refused to sign the termination letter that was completed digitally
and left the meeting. Following this, he sent a default notice the same day, asserting that
the Club had unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause.
18. According to the Player, the Club subsequently used the pre-signed termination letter
without his consent, dated it 12 June 2025, and submitted it to the Romanian Football
Federation (FRF), falsely claiming that a mutual termination agreement had been reached.
19. The Player received a copy of the Termination Agreement from the FRF on 24 June 2025
and immediately contested its validity, stating he had never agreed to such termination.
20. The Player argued that the Club’s actions amounted to a unilateral termination without just
cause. He was evicted from his accommodation, denied meals, and informed via WhatsApp
that his contract had been terminated. He also described the events of 12 June 2025 as a
clear case of abuse of power and blackmail. According to the Player, the Club admitted
during the meeting that all players were required to sign a blank termination letter when
signing their employment contracts.
21. The Player submitted that, even if his signature on the Termination Agreement is deemed
authentic and he simply does not recall signing it, the agreement should still be declared
null and void as it was signed under duress. He explained that he faced an impossible
choice at the time of signing: either sign the blank termination letter and be employed, or
refuse and remain unemployed. Alternatively, he argued that he was under strained
circumstances, which also renders the agreement invalid.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19855
22. Lastly, the Player argued that even if the Termination Agreement is considered legally valid
despite being pre-signed, its content is abusive and should therefore be declared null and
void. He emphasized that it is not legally permissible to waive salary for work already
performed or compensation.
23. Consequently, the Player requested that the Termination Agreement be disregarded and
that the Club’s actions be considered a unilateral termination of the Contract without just
cause.
24. Based on the above, the Player claimed to be entitled to outstanding remuneration of
RON 19,967, as well as to compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
RON 32,500, representing the residual value of the Contract.
25. The Player requested the following relief:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine
that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause on 12 June 2025, and to order the
Club to pay the Player the following amounts:
1. RON 19,967 as outstanding remuneration + 5% interest p.a. as per the following relevant
due dates until the effective day of payment.
o 2,467 + 5% as of 1 November 2024 for October’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 December 2024 for November’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 January 2025 for December’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 February 2025 for January’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 March 2025 for February’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 April 2025 for March’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 May 2025 for April’s salary
o 2,500 + 5% as of 1 June 2025 for May’s salary
2. RON 32,500 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as
of 12 June 2025, i.e. the day of termination, until the effective payment.
3. In addition, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to impose sporting sanctions on the
Club for the breach of Contract within the protected period”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
26. In its reply, the Club initially requested the suspension of the present proceedings, arguing
that a previous dispute involving the same parties was already being addressed under case
file 384/CL/2025 before the NDRC of Romania.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19855
27. On the merits of the case, the Club claimed that the Player had been approached by a
foreign agent who promised to secure him a transfer to more prestigious teams. Following
this contact, the Player’s attitude and sporting performance allegedly deteriorated
significantly. The Club asserted that the Player began fabricating various excuses, including
feigned injuries and disruptive behaviour during accommodation and meals, in an
apparent attempt to pressure the Club into releasing him.
28. The Club further stated that, during the meeting held on 12 June 2025, it proposed to the
Player and his teammate a mutual termination of their contracts, conditional upon a waiver
of outstanding salaries. According to the Club, the Player accepted this proposal, signed
the Termination Agreement, and subsequently departed. The Club maintained that the
Termination Agreement was validly concluded, and that the Player voluntarily agreed to
waive his financial entitlements in order to leave the Club without compensation.
29. The Club also contended that the recordings submitted by the Player were made covertly
and without the consent of the individuals involved, in clear violation of EU regulations.
Consequently, the Club argued that such recordings cannot be admitted as evidence in any
legal proceedings.
c. Replica of the Claimant
30. In his replica, the Player initially stated that the NDRC of Romania had declared itself non
competent to adjudicate the claim initiated by the Club.
31. Regarding the merits, the Player firmly denied having ever agreed to a mutual termination
of the Contract. In this regard, he reiterated his previous arguments concerning the alleged
pre-signed blank termination letter.
32. Furthermore, the Player argued that the Club failed to challenge the authenticity of the
submitted recordings, nor did it address the Player’s claim that Club representatives
verbally confirmed having forced him into signing a blank termination letter on the day the
Contract was signed. The Club also did not respond to the Player’s assertion that he refused
to sign the completed termination letter, nor to the allegation that his passport had been
confiscated. Additionally, the Club did not dispute the content of WhatsApp messages
indicating that the termination of the Contract had already been decided prior to the
meeting held on 12 June 2025.
33. The Player reiterated that, according to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a player cannot waive the right to
receive outstanding remuneration for work already performed. In this context, the Player
argued that the Club’s failure to address the existence of unpaid salaries constitutes an
implicit acknowledgment of its debt.
34. The Player maintained his request for relief.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19855
d. Duplica of the Respondent
35. In its duplica, the Club argued that, although the Player now contests the validity of the
Termination Agreement, he has nonetheless relied on its legal effects to transfer as a free
agent to the Lithuanian club FK Saned.
36. Consequently, the Club maintained that the Player can no longer challenge the validity of
the Termination Agreement, emphasizing that the Player expressly acknowledged having
no financial claims against the Club.
37. The Club requested that the Player’s claim be rejected.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19855
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 10 July 2025 and submitted for decision on
20 November 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.
39. 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 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 Nigerian player
and a Romanian club.
40. 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
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the claim
41. Having established the foregoing, the members of the Chamber observed that the Club
challenged the admissibility of the claim, invoking the principle of lis pendens. In particular,
the Club argued that a prior claim involving the same parties had already been lodged
before the NDRC of Romania under case reference 384/CL/2025.
42. Conversely, the Player asserted that the NDRC of Romania had declared itself lacking
jurisdiction to adjudicate the Club’s claim.
43. In this context, the DRC stressed that, before addressing the merits of the present dispute,
it must first determine whether the Player’s claim is affected by lis pendens and, therefore,
inadmissible.
44. The Chamber began its analysis by recalling that, on the basis of the principle of lis pendens,
a decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case that has
been submitted to and remains pending before another —competent— body. The DRC
further noted that the application of lis pendens requires, cumulatively, that the parties to
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19855
the dispute and the object matter in dispute are identical (in this regard, inter alia, DRC
Decision of 27 March 2025, Torbica).
45. With the above in mind, the Chamber went on to analyse the documentation provided by
the Parties and confirmed that the Club had indeed filed a previous claim against the Player
before the NDRC of Romania under reference 384/CL/2025.
46. However, as evidenced by the Player in his replica —and uncontested by the Club—, the
NDRC of Romania rendered a decision on 31 July 2025, declaring that it lacked jurisdiction
to adjudicate the Club’s claim.
47. In light of the above, the Chamber stressed that no parallel proceedings are currently
pending before any other competent adjudicatory body involving the same parties and
subject matter.
48. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the present claim is not affected by lis pendens and
is therefore admissible.
c. Burden of proof
49. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
50. 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
51. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerned a
claim by the Player against the Club for breach of contract and its legal consequences.
52. The DRC started the analysis of the present case by briefly recalling the Parties’
submissions, starting with the Player, who mainly argued the following:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19855
o By June 2025, the Club had paid him only RON 3,500, leaving an outstanding balance
of RON 19,967 from the RON 23,467 that he should have received.
o The Club unlawfully retained his passport from February 2025 until 6 June 2025,
returning it only after receiving a formal default notice.
o The Club’s president informed him and his teammate that their contracts would be
terminated immediately and threatened to report their unemployment status to
immigration authorities.
o On 12 June 2025, a meeting was held at the Club’s premises, attended by the Player,
his teammate, the Club’s president, team manager, and secretary. During this
meeting, the Player was presented with two termination letters: one pre-signed by
the Player but containing blank spaces, and another digitally completed but
unsigned.
o The Player denied signing the termination letter on 12 June 2025 and claimed that
the pre-signed document may have been forged. He argued that requiring players
to pre-sign blank termination letters enables abuse and undermines contractual
integrity.
o He submitted audio and video recordings of the meeting, which he claims
demonstrate coercion and procedural irregularities.
o Even if the Termination Agreement was considered signed, it was executed under
duress or strained circumstances and should be declared null and void.
o Additionally, the Termination Agreement includes a waiver of rights to remuneration
for work already performed, which is impermissible under FIFA and CAS
jurisprudence.
53. Based on the above, the Player contended that the Club unilaterally terminated the
Contract without just cause on 12 June 2025, and claimed being entitled to outstanding
remuneration in the amount of RON 19,967 for the period between November 2024 to June
2025, as well as to compensation for breach of contract amounting to RON 32,500,
representing the residual value of the Contract.
54. Conversely, the Club mainly claimed the following:
o The Player’s attitude and performance deteriorated after being approached by a
foreign agent, and he allegedly fabricated excuses to pressure the Club into
releasing him.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19855
o On 12 June 2025, the Club proposed a mutual termination of the Contract,
conditional upon a waiver of outstanding salaries. The Player accepted and signed
the Termination Agreement.
o The recordings submitted by the Player were made covertly and without consent,
allegedly in violation of EU data protection regulations.
o The Player subsequently used the Termination Agreement to transfer as a free agent
to another club, thereby confirming its legal effect and waiving any right to challenge
its validity.
55. Based on the above, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in its entirety.
56. After having carefully analysed the Parties’ submissions, the members of the Chamber
initially noted that it remained undisputed that the Parties concluded an employment
contract on 21 August 2024, valid until 30 June 2026, with a monthly salary of RON 2,500.
It also remained undisputed that a meeting took place on 12 June 2025 at the Club’s
premises, attended by the Player, his teammate, and Club officials, and that the Contract
was terminated on that date.
57. However, the Parties disagree on whether the Termination Agreement submitted to the
file —which bears both Parties’ signatures— was validly concluded on 12 June 2025. The
central issue is, therefore, whether the Contract was unilaterally terminated by the Club
without just cause, as claimed by the Player, or whether the Parties mutually agreed to
terminate the Contract, as claimed by the Club. The legal consequences of either scenario
must be also assessed.
58. As a preliminary remark, the DRC emphasised that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of burden of proof as enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, a party
that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it. Furthermore, the Chamber also
underscored that, in accordance with art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, any type of
evidence may be produced. In addition, a chamber has ultimate discretion as to the weight
it gives to evidence. Accordingly, nothing prevents the Chamber from analysing the
recordings submitted by the Player.
59. Having stated the above, the Chamber went on to analyse the evidence on file, and initially
noted that the probative value of the WhatsApp messages submitted by the Player,
although undisputed, is limited, particularly as the identity of the parties was not formally
verified.
60. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Chamber noted that the Club’s own declarations
confirm that it proposed to the Player a mutual termination of the Contract, conditional
upon a waiver of outstanding salaries, and argued that the Player had expressed a desire
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19855
to leave. However, the Chamber observed that the Club failed to submit any evidence to
substantiate this allegation.
61. The Chamber emphasised that the Club also failed to demonstrate that the Player had
been approached by an agent and that, following this, he engaged in misconduct to force
a release.
62. Instead, the Chamber found that the Club did not contest the content of the audio and
video recordings submitted by the Player, which are further corroborated by the Player’s
letter dated 12 June 2025 — an undisputedly valid piece of evidence. These elements reveal
that, during the meeting of 12 June 2025, the Player was presented with two termination
letters: one pre-signed with blank spaces, which had been collected from the Player at the
time of signing the Contract, and another digitally completed but unsigned.
63. In this respect, the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal consistently affirms the duty of
both clubs and players to exercise reasonable diligence in their contractual dealings.
Parties are expected to understand the legal implications of the documents they sign and
to act in good faith throughout the employment relationship (in this regard, inter alia, DRC
Decision of 3 July 2025, Florian Yonsian).
64. However, this practice —requiring players to pre-sign blank termination letters— is
fundamentally incompatible with the principles of contractual autonomy, free consent, and
good faith, which are cornerstones of FIFA’s regulatory framework. A termination
agreement must reflect the actual and contemporaneous intention of both parties to end
the employment relationship. The Chamber emphasised that a document signed in
advance cannot be considered a valid expression of consent.
65. In the present case, the DRC found that the Player has convincingly demonstrated that no
genuine mutual agreement existed on 12 June 2025 for the termination of the Contract.
The evidence shows that the Player did not sign the Termination Agreement on that date,
but rather had previously signed a blank termination letter at the time of signing the
employment contract.
66. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the Termination Agreement is null and void, and
therefore the termination of the Contract must be considered unilateral and initiated by
the Club.
67. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that, even if the Termination Agreement
were to be considered valid and binding, several monthly salaries were outstanding—a fact
that remained undisputed by the Club and which gave the Player just cause to terminate
the Contract. The Chamber emphasised that, even though this document is not a waiver
per se, the Club’s declarations make it clear that the amounts were not paid but “voluntarily”
waived, which is impermissible under FIFA and CAS jurisprudence. Furthermore, the
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19855
concessions made in relation to outstanding remuneration and compensation were
manifestly unbalanced, reinforcing the abusive nature of the Termination Agreement.
68. Lastly, the Chamber determined that the Club’s argument that the Player used the
Termination Agreement to transfer to another club does not alter the legal assessment and
does not retroactively validate the Termination Agreement. Beyond being unproven, this
argument is not credible either, since the Player was registered as an amateur with his next
club.
69. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse whether the Club had just
cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 12 June 2025.
70. In this respect, the DRC referred to art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, which provides that:
“A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In
general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably
and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship”.
71. The Chamber further stressed that the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal determines that a premature contractual termination may only arise in the event
of a substantial or repeated breach of contract by the relevant counterparty. Furthermore,
if there are more lenient measures available to the parties to remedy their contractual
relationship, these measures should be exhausted before unilaterally terminating an
employment contract. Therefore, a premature unilateral termination can only be an ultima
ratio measure.
72. Bearing in mind the foregoing, and considering that the Club failed to provide any evidence
of misconduct or breach of contract by the Player that could justify the termination of the
Contract, the Chamber unanimously determined that the Club unilaterally terminated the
Contract without just cause on 12 June 2025 and is therefore liable for the consequences
that follow.
ii. Consequences
73. Having stated the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the legal consequences
arising from the breach of contract committed by the Club.
74. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to RON 19,976, broken
down as follows:
o RON 2,467 for the October 2024 salary;
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19855
o RON 2,500 for the November 2024 salary;
o RON 2,500 for the December 2024 salary;
o RON 2,500 for the January 2025 salary;
o RON 2,500 for the February 2025 salary;
o RON 2,500 for the March 2025 salary;
o RON 2,500 for the April 2025 salary; and
o RON 2,500 for the May 2025 salary.
75. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., RON 19,976 as
detailed ut supra.
76. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the stipulation in Clause 4 of
the Contract that salaries were payable “at the latest on 30 of the next month”, as well as the
constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the
Player interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day
following the respective due dates until the date of effective payment as follows, except for
the May 2025 salary, for which the dies a quo is the date of termination.
o October 2024 salary, as from 1 December 2024;
o November 2024 salary, as from 1 January 2025;
o December 2024 salary, as from 1 February 2025;
o January 2025 salary, as from 1 March 2025;
o February 2025 salary, as from 1 April 2025;
o March 2025 salary, as from 1 May 2025;
o April 2025 salary, as from 1 June 2025; and
o May 2025 salary, as from 12 June 2025.
77. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19855
78. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the Contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in the event of
breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
79. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, the
compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
80. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to him under the terms of the Contract from the
date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of RON 32,500 (i.e., the Player’s monthly remuneration of RON 2,500 for
the period from June 2025 until June 2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
81. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player 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 general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
82. The Chamber observed that the Player did not secure new employment following the
termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
83. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of
RON 32,500 to the Claimant (i.e., the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
84. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as from 12 June 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19855
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
85. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
86. In this regard, the DRC 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.
87. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
88. 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.
89. The DRC 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.
e. Costs
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19855
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Godwin Festus Udoka, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, AFC 1919 Dacia Unirea, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o RON 19,967 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,467 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 1 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 1 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 as from 12 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
o RON 32,500 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 12 June 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
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:
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-19855
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. 20
REF. FPSD-19855
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. 21