Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20189
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Ibrahima Keita
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahima Keita, Mali
RESPONDENT:
TP Mazembe, Congo DR
Represented by Altius
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20189
I. Facts of the case
1.
In June 2023, the Malian player Ibrahima Keita (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the
Congolese club TP Mazembe (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a signature
bonus of USD 50,000, payable in two instalments of USD 25,000 each, at the signature of
the Contract and at the beginning of the season 2024/2025 respectively.
3.
On 30 April 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
USD 25,000, representing the second instalment of USD 25,000 (signature bonus), which
fell due at the beginning of the 2024/2025 season. The Claimant set a deadline of 8 days in
order to remedy the default.
4.
On 20 May 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of the same amount, granting
another deadline of 8 days to remedy the default.
5.
On 7 July 2025, the Claimant sent a final default notice, requesting the salary of June 2025,
as well as the signature bonus of USD 25,000, granting a further deadline of 8 days to
remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 2 August 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to remit the last instalment of
the signature bonus which was due at the beginning of the 2024/2025 season, in the
amount of USD 25,000.
8.
The Claimant emphasised that he had put the Respondent in default on several occasions,
to no avail.
9.
As to the additional fees of USD 5,000, the Claimant argued that this consisted of several
contractual concepts – namely, accommodation, flight tickets, visa costs, prejudice to the
Claimant’s character, and overall penalties for late §payments occurring throughout the
Contract.
10. The Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20189
11. Thus, the Claimant requested a total amount of USD 25,000 with no interest in his petitum.
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent argued that the amount of USD 25,000 was duly paid on 12 July
2025. The Respondent enclosed a payment order from its local bank to corroborate its
assertion.
13. The Respondent hereby emphasised that it made the payment on the Claimant’s own local
bank account, whereas other payments had indeed occurred through other means.
14. As for the additional amount of USD 5,000, the Respondent argued that the Claimant
provided no evidence of any entitlement thereto, nor of any costs incurred which
warranted a reimbursement.
15. Therefore, overall, the Respondent argued that the claim shall be rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
16. In his replica, the Claimant insisted on his previous request for relief, for the reasons
outlined below.
17. Firstly, the Claimant argued that, even if the payment were to be acknowledged, it took
place belatedly, which constitutes a breach of contract.
18. Additionally, the Claimant argued that he received a second proof of payment dated 12
August 2025, on the same date, for the amount of USD 25,000, from a representative of
the club.
19. The Claimant hereby pointed out that he no longer lives in Lubumbashi (Congo DR), which
prevents him from verifying whether or not the amounts which were stipulated in the
proofs of payment sent by the club in the present proceedings, as well as on 12 August
2025. The Claimant further highlighted that the bank does not have any mechanism
permitting the Claimant to verify the balance on the account from abroad, and that the
Claimant intended to close his account with said bank in any event.
20. Moreover, the Claimant argued that the fact that there were two separate proofs of
payment was suspicious, as this would indicate that the Respondent actually had paid him
USD 50,000 rather than USD 25,000.
21. As a result, the Claimant insisted on his initial request for relief, including that the payments
would be made on the bank account indicated in the FIFA Bank Account Registration Form.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20189
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 2 August 2025 and submitted
for decision on 21 September 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 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), she is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Malian player and a Congolese
club.
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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. 5
REF. FPSD-20189
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
27. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial obligations under the Contract
– i.e., the second instalment of the signature bonus under the Contract.
28. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
Respondent had indeed fallen short of its obligations by not paying the amount at stake,
as alleged by the Claimant, and if so, what the consequences of such unlawful default may
be.
29. The Single Judge firstly recalled the parties’ respective submissions. On one hand,
according to the player, the club failed to remit USD 25,000 – i.e., the second instalment of
the signature bonus. Furthermore, the player claimed various additional amounts related
either to reimbursements or of a punitive nature, totalling USD 5,000.
30. The Respondent, however, argued that the payment had indeed been made, enclosing the
relevant proof of payment. As to the other amounts claimed, the Respondent argued that
these were not duly corroborated and should be dismissed.
31. At this stage, the Single Judge wished to reiterate the principle of the burden of proof, which
is laid down in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, and pursuant to which a party
asserting a certain fact also bears the burden of proving it with adequate evidence.
32. Having set this out, the Single Judge proceeded with her analysis of the submissions and
evidence on file.
33. Hereby, the Single Judge deemed it important that the Respondent has met the burden of
proving the payment, to the extent that it has enclosed a proof of payment which was
addressed to the Claimant’s bank account in Congo DR. The Claimant has also argued that
he received another proof of payment in respect of such amount on a separate date.
34. The Single Judge observed that the Claimant has not actually challenged the veracity of the
proof(s) of payment, nor has he challenged that the amounts were received. Instead, the
Claimant described that he has no means of verifying that the amount was indeed remitted
– although he confirms that the account is in his name, and that he intended to close it
(which it appears from his submission, has not yet taken place).
35. Said justification did not, in the Single Judge’s opinion, detract from the Respondent’s
compliance with the terms of the Contract, nor did the account in which the amounts are
remitted – given that the account, as confirmed by the Claimant, is in his name.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20189
36. As a result, the Singel Judge dismissed the Claimant’s argumentation and held that the
payment of USD 25,000 was complied with by the Respondent, pursuant to art. 13 par. 5
of the Procedural Rules.
37. Moving on, the Single Judge concurred with the Respondent’s line of reasoning that the
additional request for USD 5,000 is not duly corroborated by the Claimant. No proof of any
entitlement, nor costs incurred has been submitted to the file. Furthermore, no regulatory
basis (apart from interest, which has not been requested in the case at hand, and for which
– as established above, no principal debt has arisen) exists upon which the Claimant may
base his claim for late payment damages or penalties.
38. In conclusion, the Single Judge was able to establish that the Respondent had, based on
the evidence and submissions on file, complied with its contractual obligations.
39. Therefore, the Single Judge rejected the claim of the Claimant in full.
d. Costs
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20189
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahima Keita, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20189
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. 9