Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20145
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abdoul
Karim Traore
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
DERBY FOOTBALL CLUB DE KALABAN COURA, Mali
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Abdoul Karim Traore, Mali
Represented by Nezar Ahmed
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Al Ain FC, UAE
Represented by Nezar Ahmed
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20145
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
The Malian club DERBY FOOTBALL CLUB DE KALABAN COURA (hereinafter: Derby or
the Claimant), affiliated to the Fédération Malienne de Football (FMF);
•
The Malian player Abdoul Karim Traore (hereinafter: the Player or the First
Respondent); and
•
The Emirati club Al Ain FC (hereinafter: Al Ain or the Second Respondent), affiliated to
the United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAEFA).
2.
The First and the Second Respondent are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Respondents.
3.
On 24 September 2023, Derby contacted Al Ain via email, stating the following, quoted
verbatim:
“To whom it may concern,
I hope this email finds you in good health.
I would like to come to you regarding our players Dramane Koumare and Abdoumkarim
Traore.
Indeed, we are extremely surprised to see that these two players are playing with your
team (Abdoulkarim having even participated in official matches of the 1st team) while we
have not even concluded a transfer agreement. The ITC of both players has never been
sent by the Malian football federation were dramane and abdoulkarim are still registered
as players in the Derby FC squad.
We even recently received a call from the malian federation to provide these two players
at the disposal of the local national team of Mali.
We hope to have a clear explanation on this subject and subsequently find the best
solution to this matter,
Best regards”
4.
On 23 October 2023, Derby reiterated its previous correspondence, noting that it had
remained unanswered, and granted a 10-day deadline for a response.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20145
5.
On 20 February 2024, the FMF issued a declaration (hereinafter: the FMF Declaration),
confirming that the Player remained registered with Derby and that no request for his
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) had been received.
6.
On 25 February 2024, Derby sent another email to Al Ain, enclosing a copy of the FMF
Declaration and recommending that the club verify the Player’s registration status to avoid
potential litigation.
7.
On 3 April 2024, Derby issued a formal default notice to Al Ain, alleging breach of contract
and inducement. Al Ain was thereby invited to “provide the clarifications about the present
matter”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 30 July 2025, Derby filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Derby’s claim
9.
Derby claimed that the Player had been registered with Derby and that no transfer
agreement had been concluded with Al Ain. It pointed out that the FMF confirmed that it
had not received an ITC request, which was a mandatory requirement under art. 9 of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
Despite this, Al Ain registered and fielded the Player, which Derby argued constituted a
breach of art. 5 par. 1-3 and 6 of the Regulations.
10. Derby further alleged that the Player terminated his contract without just cause and had
been induced to do so by Al Ain. This, according to Derby, triggered joint and several liability
under art. 17 of the Regulations, which held clubs accountable for inducing breaches of
contract. Additionally, Derby claimed that Al Ain had failed to notify it in writing before
entering into negotiations with the Player, as required by art. 18 par. 3 of the Regulations.
11. To quantify damages, Derby relied on the principle of “positive interest”. Derby claimed
EUR 3,000,000 in compensation, based on the purported Player’s market value and transfer
interest from clubs such as Galatasaray, Sevilla, and Nice. Derby argued that this valuation
reflected the real economic loss it had suffered due to the unauthorized transfer.
12. In addition, Derby invoked art. 62 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), arguing that Al
Ain had been unjustly enriched by acquiring the Player’s services without legal basis. Derby
outlined the three required elements for unjust enrichment: enrichment of the
respondent, corresponding loss to Derby, and absence of legal justification. Derby asserted
that all three had been met, as Al Ain had gained sporting and economic value without
compensating Derby, and no transfer agreement or ITC had been issued.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20145
13. Finally, Derby requested that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) order the Player
and Al Ain to pay EUR 3,000,000 in compensation, plus 5% interest from the date of the
breach.
14. Derby submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall earn out a decision in which condemns the
Respondent Player ABDUL KARIM TRAORE to pay a compensation to the Claimant of
3.000.000,00 € equal to the real market value of the Player ABDUL KARIM TRAORE, based
on the expected transfer fees of the player, according to the real market value of the
player, namely the specificity of the sport, FIFA Statutes and Regulations and Swiss Law,
plus interest at 5% rate since 24 September 2023 until effective payment.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall earn out a decision in which condemns the
Respondent Club AL AIN FC joint and several liable and responsible, together with
Respondent Player, for paying the abovementioned compensation to the Claimant.”
b. Respondents’ Reply
15. On 22 September 2025, the Player and Al Ain submitted their replies. Although each party
filed a different statement, they are represented by the same legal representative, and
their submissions are materially identical.
16. The Respondents argued that no employment relationship ever existed between the Player
and Derby. They asserted that the Player had never signed an employment contract with
Derby and was only (and maybe wrongly) registered as an amateur player with the FMF
from 10 November 2019 until 11 December 2023.
17. According to the Respondents, the Player was also registered with Al Ain as an amateur
between 17 January 2023 and 30 June 2023. Subsequently, on 1 July 2023, the Player and
Al Ain signed an employment contract valid from that date until 30 June 2026, providing for
a monthly salary of USD 3,500.
18. According to the Respondents, amateur players do not have professional contracts, and
therefore, their transfers do not require formal agreements or give rise to compensation
claims.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20145
19. The Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the DRC, arguing that it is only competent
to hear employment-related disputes involving professional players. Since the Player was
registered and acted solely as an amateur, the Respondents claimed the DRC lacked
jurisdiction under art. 22 of the Regulations. They further contended that Derby failed to
provide any documentary evidence of a professional contract, rendering the claim
procedurally defective and inadmissible.
20. Even if jurisdiction were assumed, the Respondents maintained that the claim was without
merit. They emphasized that art. 13 to 18 of the Regulations, including art. 17 concerning
breach of contract, apply exclusively to professional players. As the Player had neither a
written contract nor received remuneration exceeding his expenses, he did not meet the
definition of a professional player under art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations.
21. In conclusion, the Respondents requested that the claim be rejected in its entirety, that
Derby bear all costs of the proceedings, and that the DRC grant any further relief it deemed
appropriate.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 30 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 5
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.
23. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Malian player, a Malian club and an Emirati club.
24. At this point, the DRC noted that the Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA by
stating that the Player was never registered as a professional with Derby and therefore that
there this dispute was not “employment-related” as required by art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the
Regulations.
25. Although it ultimately falls on the DRC to determine whether an employment relationship
between the parties existed, the Chamber recalled that the Football Tribunal has
consistently recognized that the analysis of jurisdiction must be broader than a mere
procedural threshold (see Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20145
Players, 2023 edition, pp. 459–462). Specifically, the Chamber emphasized that the
assessment of whether a valid and binding employment contract existed between the
Player and Derby is not merely a jurisdictional question but one that goes to the merits of
the case.
26. In this matter, Derby alleged that the Player was contractually bound to the club and that
his registration with Al Ain constituted a breach of contract. Derby further suggested that
Al Ain induced the Player to terminate his contract without just cause, thereby triggering
joint and several liability under art. 17 of the Regulations.
27. The Respondents, on the other hand, denied the existence of any employment
relationship, asserting that he had only been registered as an amateur and had never
signed a professional contract with the Derby.
28. However, considering the nature of the allegations – namely, the alleged breach of contract
and inducement by a foreign third party – the Chamber found that the dispute sufficiently
exceeded the employment-related preliminary threshold. According to the DRC, Derby’s
assertions, if proven, would establish a contractual relationship and a violation of FIFA’s
rules on contractual stability. As such, the Chamber concluded that it should assess the
existence and validity of the alleged contract as part of its analysis of the merits.
29. Accordingly, the DRC confirmed that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction on this matter.
30. 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. Burden of proof
31. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
32. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20145
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that, in essence, the
dispute on the merits centres on whether the Player was a professional player contractually
bound to Derby, and whether his move to Al Ain constituted a breach of contract and
inducement under the Regulations. The Chamber recognized that the resolution of this
issue depended on its assessment of whether a valid employment relationship existed.
34. After a careful analysis of the parties’ allegations and supporting documentation, the DRC
found the evidence regarding the existence of an employment relationship between the
Player and Derby to be inconclusive or even inexistent.
35. The DRC pointed out that Derby alleged that the Player was contractually bound to the
club. However, the Chamber found it essential that Derby did not submit a written
employment contract or any documentation establishing the terms of such a relationship.
In fact, although it claimed breach of contract, Derby equally admitted that the Player was
registered as an amateur.
36. The Chamber outlined that this assertion was further supported by the Player’s registration
passport issued by the FMF, which classified him as an amateur. Similarly, the Chamber
pointed out that the Player seemingly received no remuneration for his footballing
activities, which, under art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, confirmed his status as an amateur.
37. Therefore, the Chamber found no clear indication of a valid and binding employment
contract between the parties. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the provisions on
contractual stability and compensation for breach do not apply.
38. Consequently, the Chamber rejected Derby’s claim in its entirety.
39. The DRC pointed out that the above conclusion was however without prejudice to the
assessment of Al Ain’s compliance with its obligations under the TMS. In this respect, the
Chamber noted that Al Ain seemingly failed to request the Player’s ITC from the FMF, which
is a mandatory requirement under art. 9 of the Regulations, irrespective of the Player’s
status as an amateur. Furthermore, Al Ain also appears to have failed to declare the Player’s
first professional registration, which may have implications for the triggering of training
compensation under art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Given the Football Tribunal’s
limited investigatory powers, the Chamber ordered the FIFA administration to forward this
matter to the FIFA Regulatory & Compliance Department for further investigation, as
applicable.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20145
d. Costs
40. In continuation, 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.
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20145
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, DERBY FOOTBALL
CLUB DE KALABAN COURA.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20145
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. 11