Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20007
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Joyce Katulondi Kati
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER- RESPONDENT:
Joyce Katulondi Kati, Congo DR
Represented by Padel Juste Mougnoba Siama
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
HUSA (HASSANIA UNION SPORT AGADIR), Morocco
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20007
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 August 2022, the Congolese player, Joyce Katulondi (hereinafter: Claimant / CounterRespondent or Player) and the Moroccan club, HUSA (hereinafter: Respondent / CounterClaimant or Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: Contract) valid as from
9 August 2022 until 30 June 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player inter alia an annual
performance bonus, payable as follows:
-
For the season 2023/2024: MAD 600,000
For the season 2024/2025: MAD 700,000
3.
In terms of the above bonus, no additional condition was stipulated.
4.
Moreover, the Contract foresaw the possibility of discretionary match bonuses, in
accordance with the Club’s internal regulations.
5.
Furthermore, the Contract stipulated as follows under its article 3, quoted verbatim:
“The present contract may be renewed for an additional year under the same administrative
and financial conditions as existing in the contract’s third and final year. The renewal is
conditional on the club sending the player a formal letter before the end of the 2024/2025
season.”
6.
Over the course of 2024, the Player received five (5) different payments in respect of the
annual performance bonus for 2023/2024, as acknowledged by himself, in total amount of
MAD 581,818.
7.
On 17 November 2024, the Club informed the Player of its decision to extend the Contract
by another year, in accordance with the terms outlined therein.
8.
In 2025, the Player received 5 further payments in respect of the annual performance
bonus for the season 2024/2025, in the total amount of MAD 617,647.
9.
On 15 July 2025, the Club sent an email to the Player, in which it outlined that it had fully
complied with its financial obligations, particularly concerning the annual performance
bonus, as this was purportedly paid in direct proportion to the number of official matches
played in that season. Furthermore, the Club highlighted to the Player that it would initiate
proceedings before FIFA, as well as contact a local bailiff regarding his recent absences
from training.
10. On 16 July 2025, the Player replied to the Club, arguing that there was no condition
regarding the annual performance bonus, and that he was therefore entitled to receive
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20007
MAD 100,535 in total corresponding to the performance bonus over the seasons
2023/2024 and 2024/2025. Moreover, the Player pointed out that the Contract had expired
and that he did not acknowledge any extension of the Contract, and that, consequently, he
did not deem to have missed any training sessions.
11. On 17 July 2025, the Club replied to the Player, insisting that it complied with its financial
obligations and that it considered the Contract unilaterally extended, as the Contract
foresaw such possibility.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 19 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 / Counter-Respondent
13. The Player lodged the present claim before FIFA requesting overdue payables.
14. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club failed to pay part of the loyalty bonus for the
seasons 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 respectively.
15. The Player specified that the bonus was not payable subject to any condition, such as
matches played. The Player emphasized that the amount was agreed to be paid as a lump
sum, conditional on the Contract still being in force.
16. Consequently, the Player requested overdue payables in the amount of MAD 100,535, plus
interest as from the instalments’ respective due dates.
17. As for the match bonuses, the Player argued that, from the relegation tie played at the end
of the season, he was entitled to MAD 60,000 per match. The Club paid the bonus of MAD
60,000 for the first match but still owed MAD 60,000 in terms of the second match.
18. The Player specified that, although the Contract did not foresee a specific method of
calculation for this bonus, he argued that he ratified its value by contacting a bailiff at local
level to notify the Club of its default.
19. Consequently, in addition to the annual performance bonus of MAD 100,535, the Player
also requested MAD 60,000 as match bonus.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20007
b. Counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
20. The Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player, arguing that the latter had been in
breach of contract as he refused to acknowledge the extension of the Contract.
21. The Player stressed that the Contract foresaw the possibility of a unilateral extension of
the Contract under the same conditions, based solely on the notification of a written
confirmation by the Club during the preceding season.
22. As the Club had notified the Player of its intention to extend the Contract unilaterally on 17
November 2024, the Club considered the Contract to still be in force. The Player, by refusing
to acknowledge its validity and being absent from training for the new season, was in
breach.
23. Based on the above, the Club argued that the Player’s continued absence constituted a
unilateral breach of contract, which gave rise to compensation for breach of contract.
24. As for the bonus payments requested, the Club briefly outlined that the annual
performance bonus was payable in direct proportion to the number of matched played,
whereas the bonus of MAD 60,000 which the Player described as the “first instalment”, was
a one-time payment, purely discretionary and did not give rise to a second payment of MAD
60,000.
25. Consequently, the Club requested for the claim to be rejected, and argued that the Player
shall be held liable to pay MAD 434,000 as compensation.
c. Reply of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent to the counterclaim
26. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player argued that the Club had not paid an advance
of costs, and that, as a result, the counterclaim should be deemed as withdrawn.
27. As to the merits, the Player largely argued that the counterclaim must be rejected, as the
Contract expired naturally. Hereby, the Player emphasised that he did not consent to the
extension of the Contract, and that, in the absence of a formal, mutually agreed extension,
the original term must be respected – i.e., 30 June 2025.
28. As for the outstanding amounts related to the annual performance bonus, the Player
specified that the Club neither met the burden of proving that the amounts were paid in
full, nor has proven that the amounts are subject to any other contractually stipulated
condition.
29. Moreover, the Player noted that the Club had made reference to match win bonuses in its
reply and pointed out, however, that these should not be confused with the annual
performance bonus which is at stake in the present dispute.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20007
30. Notwithstanding the above, the Player acknowledged as a result of the Club’s submission,
that several match bonuses had allegedly remained unpaid, and as a result, should be
included in his request for relief.
31. Consequently, the Player amended his request for relief from MAD 100,535 to MAD
249,535, to include MAD 149,000 in unpaid match bonuses.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20007
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 19 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 18 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.
33. 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 Congolese player and a Moroccan club.
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20007
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the outstanding amounts arising from their employment
relationship as well as whether the Contract was terminated unilaterally by the Player
without just cause, and the consequences thereof.
38. The Single Judge noted that according to the Player, the Club failed to pay part of the annual
performance bonus, which was purportedly unconditional in the Contract, as well as failing
to pay some match- related bonuses. The Club, on the other hand, argued that the Player
was in breach of contract by failing to recognize the unilateral extension. As to the annual
performance bonus, the Club argued that it complied with its obligations, as the amount
due was proportionate in relation to the matches played by the Player.
39. Hereby, the Single Judge first pointed out that the Player was precluded from amending his
claim, pursuant to art. 21 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules which states that “Should the
response to the counterclaim refer to matters which did not form part of the counterclaim, those
matters will not be considered.” The Single Judged deemed that the Player could have raised
these claims for additional discretionary match bonuses in his initial statement of claim,
and failing to claim them as outstanding in the first stage and subsequently describing
them as unpaid constituted venire contra factum propium.
40. Moreover, and in any event, the Single Judge noted that these bonuses were not
contractually stipulated or specified, and there was no evidence to corroborate that they
indeed were calculated as such (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). Therefore, the
Single Judge decided to reject the request for the match bonus of MAD 60,000.
41. Having set out the above, the Single Judge proceeded to deal with the claim for the residual
performance bonus for 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 respectively. In this regard, the Single
Judge noted that no condition was stipulated contractually and that, based on the wording
of the Contract, the amounts appeared to be unconditional and payable as long as the
Contract was in force, which was undisputed.
42. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player
MAD 100,535 as outstanding remuneration. In addition, taking into consideration the
Player’s request for relief as well as the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this
regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest over the amount of MAD 18,182 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of MAD 82,353 as from 1 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20007
43. As for the Club’s counterclaim, the Single Judge decided to reject it and recalled that
according to the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence, unilateral extension clauses are already
controversial as is, and if accepted or enforced at all, the conditions for the new term must
be favourable enough for the employee to the extent of not resulting in the extension being
an overbearing and unreasonable commitment. The Football Tribunal and CAS have
analysed these clauses with a high degree of caution, considering the specific
circumstances of each case.
44. Frequently, the “Portmann Criteria” (i.e. the criteria for a unilateral extension clause to be
deemed valid) have been seen as a set of guidelines to determine whether or not the terms
of a unilateral extension are reasonable, to the extent of being upheld, even when one
party (the player) does not agree with it at an ulterior point in time.
45. In the case at hand, the Single Judge considered that the terms of the renewed contract
year were exactly the same as in the last year of the Contract. In practice, this would fall
significantly short of the threshold set by the jurisprudence, which would not only require
a substantial salary increase, but also that the Player is not “at the club’s mercy”.
46. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the unilateral extension of the Contract was
invalid and that the Contract expired naturally on 30 June 2025, thereby excluding any
possibility of a breach of contract by the Player.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20007
50. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Club in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
51. 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
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20007
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, Joyce Katulondi Kati, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant, HUSA (HASSANIA UNION SPORT AGADIR), must pay
the Claimant the following amounts:
- MAD 100,535 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MAD 18,182 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of MAD 82,353 as from 1 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant is 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:
1. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant 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/ CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20007
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20007
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. 13