Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20103
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Shedrack Asiegbu
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Shedrack Asiegbu, Nigeria
Represented by Johnny Precious Ogbah
RESPONDENT:
Tabora United, Tanzania
Represented by Raphael Omalla
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20103
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 July 2024, the Nigerian player, Shedrack Asiegbu (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Tanzanian club, Tabora United Sports Club (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid for a year
or until the end of the league.
2.
Art. 2 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“2. EFFECTIVE TERM OF CONTRACT
2.1 The Player commence work on signing of this agreement stated on 26/07/2024 for a
duration of year or after the completion of the league with playoffs if it so occurs.
2.2 The Contract has been concluded for a specified term and shall expire on concluding an
employment contract for a specified term is provided by the FIFA, CAF and TFF Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players.
2.3. The Signing fee is US Dollar Seven Thousand ($7000), for the one year season (2024/2025)
2.4. The Player and the Club have equal right negotiations for extending the Contract by
notifying the other party of this in writing at least SIX (6) months before the date of expiry of
the Contract in advance.
2.5. The Club has the right to terminate the contract with the player within the first 30 days
from the signing of the contract without any obligation to pay compensation or costs.”
3.
Art. 5. of the Contract provides quoted verbatim:
“5. SALARY, INSURANCE AND OTHER FEES
5.1 The monthly gross salary of the Player is US Dollar Two Thousand ($2000)
5.2 The Club may pay the Player a bonus for example depending on the match
result; taking part in the matches and quality of work of the football Player; taking
part in international matches; in the case of large changes in the Club’s revenue (e.g.
qualifying for a next round) etc. The management of the Club decides on paying
bonuses at its own discretion
5.3 The Player pays statutory taxes for monetary benefits
5.4 The Club ensures that the Player is paid contractual salary during a period of
injury.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20103
5.5 The Club ensures the Player for accidents during the entire contractual period,
the person entitled to receive insurance benefits is the Club.
5.6 The Club withholds statutory taxes and a payment from salary agreed upon in
clause 5.1. of the Contract and pays these for the Player pursuant to the law. In
addition, the Club pays social tax pursuant to the law from the gross amount. The
amount and type of taxes and payments withheld by the Club and payable for the
Player may change if relevant laws change.”
4.
Art. 7.1. of the Contract provides, quoted verbatim:
“7. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CLUB
The Club is obligated to:
7.1 Pay the Player salary and other fees pursuant to clause 5 of the Contract, including during
a period of representing the national team;”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 26 July 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
The Player submitted that he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 2,000, but that from
August 2024 to April 2025, the Club only paid him USD 1,500 leaving a shortfall of USD
4,500 (9 months x USD 500).
7.
The Player stated that the Club failed to pay him his salary for May 2025, June 2025 and July
2025 for which he claimed USD 6,000 as outstanding (3 months x USD 2,000), as well as the
remaining amount of his signing fee claiming that USD 3,500 was outstanding.
8.
The Player also requested USD 500 as reimbursement of his return flight ticket.
9.
The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“Reliefs Sought
In view of the above, we respectfully request the FIFA Players' Status Committee to:
1. Order Tabora United FC to pay Mr. Shadrack Asiegbu the total outstanding remuneration
of USD 12,500, broken down as follows:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20103
o USD 4,500 for monthly salary shortfalls,
o USD 6,000 for unpaid May, June & July 2025 salaries,
o USD 3,500 unpaid sign-on fee,
o USD 500 reimbursement for return flight ticket.
2. Award an additional USD 5,000 as reasonable legal costs and fees incurred in pursuing
this claim.
3. Apply any disciplinary sanctions under Art. 12bis (4) RSTP in the event of continued noncompliance by Tabora United FC, including but not limited to transfer bans or deduction of
points by the Tanzanian Football Federation.
4. Grant any further relief deemed just and equitable.”
b. Position of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club, through his legal representative, denied that the Player was
contractually entitled to receive a flight ticket to return to his home country, or
reimbursement in lieu of.
11. The Club submitted that the payments of salary were made in TZS at a rate of TZS 2,500 for
1 USD, as the Player provided a local bank account, and that the exchange rate between
the TZS and the USD fluctuated from month to month. Hence, the Club asserted that the
Player received TZS 5,000,000 as a monthly salary, considering that the salary was to be
paid in a gross amount, it cannot be deemed that he paid the Player only USD 1,500.
12. In addition, the Club submitted that the Contract ended on the last day of competition
which they say was 22 June 2025, and that therefore the Player was not entitled to a salary
for the month of July 2025, contrary to the Player’s claim.
13. The Club admitted owing the Player USD 3,500 as the balance of the signing-on fee, as well
as USD 1,000 gross for the salary of May 2025 and USD 2,000 gross for the salary of June
2025.
14. The Club’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“In the view of all the facts and legal considerations mentioned above, the Respondent,
Tabora United Football Club respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
as follows:
1.To reject the present Claim in its entirety
2. To reject the present Claim, save for the admission of liability as stated in paragraph 19 of
this Response”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20103
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 26 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 30 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.
16. 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 Nigerian player and a Tanzanian club.
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20103
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Player alleged that the Club withheld USD 500 on the salaries of August 2024 until April
2025, for a total of USD 4,500, whereas the Club submitted that the salaries were paid in
TZS at a rate of TZS 2,500 for 1 USD as the exchange rate was fluctuating monthly. The
Player also alleged that the Club did not pay him his remuneration for the months of May,
June and July 2025 amounting to USD 6,000 (3 times USD 2,000), in addition to an amount
of USD 3,500 outstanding from his sign-on fee and USD 500 for reimbursement of flight
tickets.
21. The Single Judge observed that the Club admitted that the salary of June 2025 remained
outstanding and effectively USD 3,500 was also outstanding on the sign-on fee but denied
having unlawfully withheld part of the Player’s salaries, as well as the Player’s entitlement
to reimbursement of his flight tickets, and to a salary for the month of July 2025.
22. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to first determine the end
date of the Contract, then assess the Player’s entitlements and the amount outstanding.
23. The Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 2.1. of the Contract, which stated, quoted
verbatim:
“2. EFFECTIVE TERM OF CONTRACT
2.1 The Player commence work on signing of this agreement stated on 26/07/2024 for a
duration of year or after the completion of the league with playoffs if it so occurs.
24. In the present situation, the Single Judge considered that in absence of evidence to the
contrary, the Contract was valid for year from its commencement date, i.e. 26 July 2024,
and thus concluded on 25 July 2025, as it is the only foreseeable date. The Single Judge also
recalled that in case of conflicting interpretation of a contract, the legal principle of contra
proferentem applied, which further reinforced her determination.
25. Keeping in mind the above, the Single Judge moved to the allegations of the Player that the
Club partially paid him his monthly salary between August 2024 and April 2025, stating that
each time it withheld USD 500. The Single Judge noted that the Club affirmed having paid
the Player at a rate of TZS 2,500 for 1 USD, due to fluctuating exchange rates between both
currencies.
26. The Single Judge first noted that the Club has not provided evidence that the parties had
agreed to a flat exchange rate, and a that by virtue of this intention to stabilize the exchange
rate, it actually intended for the Player to receive USD 2,000.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20103
27. The Single Judge also recalled the wording of arts. 5.3 and 5.6 of the Contract, which read
as follows:
“5.3 The Player pays statutory taxes for monetary benefits
[…]
5.6 The Club withholds statutory taxes and a payment from salary agreed upon in clause 5.1. of
the Contract and pays these for the Player pursuant to the law. In addition, the Club pays social
tax pursuant to the law from the gross amount. The amount and type of taxes and payments
withheld by the Club and payable for the Player may change if relevant laws change.”
28. Given the contradictory clauses concerning tax obligations and the inconsistencies in the
monthly deductions, the Single Judge determined that these deductions could not have
been for tax purposes and, in any event, that the Club failed to discharge its burden of
proving both their purpose and its entitlement to make them.
29. Considering the above the Single Judge determined that the Player was entitled to the full
amount of USD 2,000.
30. The Single Judge took note that the Player submitted copies of his bank statements
covering the period from August 2024 to May 2025 in support of his claim. These
statements reflect the amounts credited by the Club during the relevant months and were
considered by the Single Judge when assessing the payments actually made.
31. Based on this evidence, the Single Judge concluded that the Club had only partially fulfilled
its financial obligations. Accordingly, the Judge awarded the Player the difference between
the contractual monthly salary of USD 2,000 and the amounts paid by the Club, resulting
in a total outstanding sum of USD 3,087.72 (calculated as follows: August 2024 – USD
158.60; September 2024 – USD 169.72; October 2024 – USD 169.72; November 2024 – USD
113.37; December 2024 – USD -48.22; January 2025 – USD 40.15; February 2025 – USD
85.08; March 2025 – USD 183.75; April 2025 – USD 143.95; May 2025 – USD 1,071.60). For
the sake of completeness, the Single Judge took note that the Club admitted only paying
half of the salary of May 2025, amounting to USD 1,000, but as per the bank statements
submitted by the Player it appeared that he only received USD 928.40, thus leaving USD
1,071.60 for that month.
32. The Single Judge then moved on to the allegation by the Player that the Club failed to pay
his salary of July 2025, in that sense the Single Judge calculated that the Player was entitled
to a pro-rated salary of USD 1,612.90 for the 25 days worked in July 2025.
33. As the Club did not provide evidence that the salaries were paid, the Single Judge
considered that it did not discharge its burden of proof of demonstrating that it fulfilled its
obligation to pay under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, and that USD 1,612.90 were
outstanding for the prorated salary of July 2025.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20103
34. Considering the admissions of the Club that USD 3,500 remained outstanding on the signon fee, and USD 2,000 for the salary of June 2025, coupled with the determinations that
USD 3,087.72 was outstanding on the salaries of August 2024 to May 2025, and that the
pro-rated salary of July 2025 amounting to USD 1,612.90 was also outstanding, the Single
Judge concluded that the outstanding remuneration totalled USD 10,200.62.
35. Taking into account the apparent contradiction between art. 5.3 and 5.6 of the Contract the
Single Judge decided that the amount be awarded without qualification as to its net or gross
nature.
36. Regarding the Player’s claim for the reimbursement of his flight tickets, the Single Judge
noted that the Contract did not provide the Player with flight tickets or reimbursement of
such expenses in lieu of, and that in any case the Player did not provide evidence of having
incurred this expense, thus not meeting the burden of proof of art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules.
37. Given the foregoing and coupled with the request for relief of the Player, the Single Judge
awarded USD 10,200.62 as outstanding remuneration.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
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.
41. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20103
42. 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
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20103
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Shedrack Asiegbu, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Tabora United, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 10,200.62 as outstanding remuneration
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20103
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. 12