Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20283
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Karim
Abubakar
BY:
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica)
CLAIMANT:
Karim Abubakar, Ghana
Represented by PCN Sportiva
RESPONDENT:
Al Qasim, Iraq
Represented by Ammar Asfour
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20283
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Ghanaian player Karim Abubakar (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant) and the Iraqi club AL QASIM (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until 1
September 2025.
2.
The Contract foresaw inter alia the following terms:
-
-
3.
A total contractual value of USD 50,000;
Salary, which was expressed in 2 different manners in different sections of the same
Contract:
o USD 5,000, payable at the end of each month, for the period from 1
September 2024 until 1 September 2025; and
o USD 4,500 payable at the end of each month, for the period from 1
September 2024 until 1 July 2025, and an amount of USD 5,000 paid in
advance.
Other entitlements:
o “The Club shall provide the Player with housing, flight return tickets for once
class”
o “Sports-orientated medical and therapeutic care” to be made available by the
Respondent (cf. art. 4 par. 2 of Contract).
In addition, and as it relates to sickness and injury, art. 7 of the Contract stipulated the
following (quoted verbatim):
“7Article
Sickness and Accident
1-Any incapacity or sickness shall be reported by the Player to the Club immediately and the
Club shall keep a record of any incapacity.
2. The Player shall submit promptly to such medical and as the Club may reasonably require
and shall undergo, at no expense to himself, such treatment as may be prescribed by the medical
adviser of the Club in order to restore the Player to fitness. The Club shall arrange promptly such
prescribed treatment and shall ensure that such treatment is undertaken and completed
without expense to the Player.
3- If the player is unable to cause illness or injury for less than three months, the club continues
to pay the player’s monthly salary according to the contract of the footballer.
4.In the event the Player shall become incapacitated by reasons of sickness or injury for a period
between three and six months, established by independent medical examination the Club shall
be entitled to reduce the Player’s monthly salaries for a percentage of 50 % for the period
exceeding 3 months.
5.In the event the Player shall become incapacitated by reasons of sickness or injury and
declared unfit by relevant medical institution for the period following the six months, established
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20283
by independent medical examination the Club shall be entitled to terminate this Contract upon
one month’s written notice to the Player.
6.IRAQ legislation regarding sickness and accidents applies to both Parties. Any provisions in the
IFA regulations governing this matter also apply.
7- The Club must insure the Player against sickness and accidents. Such insurance shall include
coverage against sickness and accident during the entire period of the player’s release to
representative teams as per the relevant FIFA regulations governing such matter in one of the
insurance companies accredited by the Iraqi Football Association. The cover must also extend
to any injuries sustained during international match(es) for which the Player is released. Any
supplementary insurance is at the Player’s expense.”
4.
Moreover, art. 13 of the Contract stipulated as follows (quoted verbatim):
“13Article
Applicable Law and Jurisdiction
1-This Contract is governed firstly by the IFA regulations and subsidiary by the Laws of the State
of IRAQ as well as AFC and FIFA Regulations.
2-Any dispute between the club and the player in respect of shall be settled by the following
means: A-Review of th Federation’s Players Affairs Committee to take action and resolve the
conflict B-Review of the civil courts in Iraq to resolve the dispute between the parties in
accordance with Iraq’s legal methods C-Internati Federation Dispute Resolution Commission to
resolve dispute between parties
3. Decisions of the Players’ Affairs Committee or the International Federation are binding and
not subject to appeal. It is only appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is based in
Lausanne/Switzerland.”
5.
On 13 July 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and granted 15 days to remedy
its default. In said notice, he claimed 3 outstanding salaries, and reimbursements for flights
purchased in December 2024 and July 2025.
6.
On 29 July 2025, the Claimant sent a second default notice and granted the Respondent 10
days to remedy its default. In said notice, he claimed 3 outstanding salaries, and
reimbursements for flights purchased in December 2024 and July 2025 as well as medical
costs incurred in the amount of EUR 1,500.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 9 August 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20283
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
The Player’s claim requested payment of outstanding remuneration and reimbursements.
9.
According to the Claimant, he informed the Respondent of his injury via WhatsApp and
incurred related costs of EUR 1,500.
10. Also according to the Claimant, he incurred flight ticket costs in December 2024 and July
2025 due to the Respondent not providing him with the contractually stipulated flights.
11. As such, the Claimant requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“- Outstanding salary for the month of April 2025, $4,500 (Four Thousand Five Hundred United
States Dollars) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the due date of payment.
- Outstanding salary for the month of May 2025, $4,500 (Four Thousand Five Hundred United
States Dollars) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the due date of payment.
- Outstanding salary for the month of June 2025, $4,500 (Four Thousand Five Hundred United
States Dollars) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the due date of payment.
- The sum of $892 (Eight Hundred and Ninety Two United States Dollars) for flight tickets and
travel expenses in December 2024.
- The sum of €663 (Six Hundred and Sixty Three Euros) for flight tickets in July 2025.
- The sum of €1,500 (One Thousand Five Hundred Euros) being the medical costs for injury
treatment paid by the Claimant.
- Issuance of a proposal as it is a case without complex issues, an overdue payable under Article
12bis of the RSTP and there is already an admission of debt by the Respondent.”
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent firstly objected to FIFA’s jurisdiction and referenced
art. 13 of the Contract. In particular, the Respondent submitted that the Iraqi Centre for
the Resolution of Sports Disputes was competent, and that the Claimant further failed to
exhaust the domestic judicial remedies provided for in art. 13 par. 2 lit. a and b of the
Contract.
13. As to the merits, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant engaged in contradictory
behaviour by participating in direct communication and settlement negotiations with the
Respondent after filing his claim. In support of this, the Respondent provided WhatsApp
exchanges and a draft (unsigned) settlement agreement.
14. Additionally, the Respondent acknowledged the Claimant was owed “three back salaries,”
for a total of USD 13,500. However, it rejected the claim for flight tickets in the amount of
USD 892 and EUR 663, contending that the Contract only obligated the Respondent to
provide a one-time return ticket in kind and that it actually did so by sending the Claimant
a return ticket prior to his arrival in Iraq.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20283
15. Moreover, the claim for EUR 1,500 in medical costs did not align with the Respondent’s
records of the Claimant’s injury, which consisted of a minor bruise that was treated by the
club’s doctor without the need for outside intervention. The Respondent also argued that
the Claimant provided contradictory evidence in the form of a document confirming his
physical fitness and absence of injuries, on one hand, and a physiotherapy invoice, on the
other hand.
16. Therefore, the Respondent requested the following (quoted verbatim):
“In light of the facts and the acknowledgment of the amount owed, the defendant (Al-Qasim
Club) requests the following from FIFA:
Formal request (basic request): Issue a decision of lack of jurisdiction
Issue a decision declaring FIFA's lack of jurisdiction over this dispute, cancel the current
complaint procedures, and refer the parties to the contractually agreed-upon judicial
authority.
Procedural request (first alternative request): Referral to complete the amicable settlement
If jurisdiction is determined, we request that FIFA grant the plaintiff a grace period to
complete the direct amicable settlement it initiated with the club president, especially after
the club acknowledged the player's entitlement to three back salaries.
Procedural request (second alternative request): Referral to approved mediation
As an additional procedural alternative, we request that this case be referred to one of FIFA's
accredited mediators, given the confirmation of the original amount owed and the evidence
that both parties have opened the path to an amicable solution, confirming that mediation
is the optimal path to resolving the dispute.
Objective Defense (Third Alternative Request): Rejection of Remaining Financial Claims
If the Chamber rejects the previous requests, all other financial claims made by the plaintiff
(travel tickets and medical treatment) are rejected due to their lack of merit and inconsistent
evidence, given that the club's doctor provided all the necessary treatment for the player's very
minor injury.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20283
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. 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 9 August 2025 and submitted for
decision on 23 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 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.
18. 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 – a priori – competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Ghanaian player and an Iraqi club.
19. However, the Single Judge noted that the Club disputed FIFA’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the
Respondent referred to art. 13 of the Contract and submitted that the competent body for
resolving the dispute is the Iraqi Centre for the Resolution of Sports Disputes, in addition
to highlighting that the parties had agreed to a hierarchy of forums in art. 13 of the
Contract.
20. Considering that this claim was filed by the Claimant on 9 August 2025, the jurisdiction of
the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on art. 22 of the Regulations (July 2025
edition), in accordance with which:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress before
a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear: […]
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension; the
aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be decided
by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution body
operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance
with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction
clause must be exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining
agreement applicable to the parties.”
21. In this context, in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the
interested party challenging the Football Tribunal’s should first demonstrate that the
parties had validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body
and, in such case, that such body has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20283
the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. The Single Judge also
highlighted that, according to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, these conditions were
cumulative and should all be met at the time a party submitted a claim to FIFA.
22. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge deemed that he first of all had to analyse whether
the parties had clearly and exclusively agreed on the jurisdiction of the NDRC of Iraq.
23. In doing so, he noted that art. 13 of the Contract refers to the “Federation’s Players Affairs
Committee,” whereas the Respondent expressly refers to the Iraqi Centre for the Resolution
of Sports Disputes. Hence, there was an evident lack of clarity as to which forum was
intended in art. 13 of the Contract. Secondly, the Single Judge noted that art. 13 par. 2 of
the Contract established alternative forums – the Federation’s Players Affairs Committee,
civil courts in Iraq, and the “Internati[sic] Federation Dispute Resolution Commission -, thus
detracting from any contentions of an exclusive or even sufficiently clear choice of forums.
As such, art. 13 of the Contract was considered to be neither clear nor exclusive.
24. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge also noted that the Iraqi Centre for the
Resolution of Sports Disputes, which the Respondent contended was the competent body,
is not a recognized NDRC in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles as of the date of filing of the claim.
25. As such, the Single Judge was satisfied that FIFA has jurisdiction over the present dispute.
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20283
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this case concerned a claim for outstanding remuneration and reimbursement for flight
tickets and medical costs.
30. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine which
amounts were owed to the Player.
31. As a preliminary note, the Single Judge observed that there were discrepancies within the
version of the Contract provided by the Player, with one section referring to a monthly
salary of USD 5,000 payable at the end of each month from 1 September 2024 until 1
September 2025, and another establishing a monthly salary of USD 4,500 payable at the
end of each month from 1 September 2024 until 1 July 2025, and an amount of USD 5,000
paid in advance.
32. Nevertheless, the Single Judge took note of the fact that the Player claimed the outstanding
salaries for April, May, and June 2025 at the rate of USD 4,500 per month and these
amounts were acknowledged in full by the Club as being owed, in addition to not contesting
the Player’s evidence concerning the default notice.
33. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract, i.e. USD 13,500 (i.e., USD 4,500 times 3).
34. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
−
−
−
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 1 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
35. As to the flight ticket reimbursement, the Single Judge recalled that the Contract foresaw
as follows: “The Club shall provide the Player with housing, flights return tickets for once class”.
The Single Judge further considered that the Respondent alleged having only been
obligated to provide one return ticket to the Claimant, which it purportedly did when the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20283
Claimant arrived in Iraq. However, it was not lost on the Single Judge that the Respondent
did not provide any proof to this effect.
36. To this end, the Single Judge recalled, on one hand, that it was incumbent upon the
Respondent to demonstrate that it had complied with its contractual obligation and, on the
other hand, that any ambiguity in the Contract’s drafting shall be construed against the
Respondent as the apparent drafter of the Contract (contra proferentem).
37. On his part, the Claimant put forth evidence purporting to show flight purchases in the
amounts of EUR 573,08 and EUR 89,99 on 4 July 2025, with no details as to what these
purchases were in the evidence (except for the fact that the apparent vendor was
Edreams). Moreover, the Claimant also provided proof of a flight purchased for 27-28
December 2024 from Najaf, Iraq to Madrid, Spain, in the amount of USD 891.70 (USD
125.50, USD 210, and USD 556.20).
38. Bearing the foregoing in mind, and particularly in light of the evidence on file, the Single
Judge considered that it was not possible to correlate all of the amounts submitted by the
Player for reimbursement to the Respondent’s contractual obligation. Therefore, the Single
Judge considered it was appropriate to award the Claimant a reimbursement for flight
tickets in the amount of USD 891.70
39. Finally, as to the request for reimbursement of medical costs in the amount of EUR 1,500,
the Single Judge considered that the Claimant did not prove to the requisite degree of
certainty that the physiotherapy sessions were undertaken within the scope of art. 7 par.
2 of the Contract, which stipulated the Respondent’s responsibilities vis-à-vis medical
treatment and costs. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to reject this claim.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
40. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
41. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
42. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
43. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Respondent within the last two
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20283
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) of the Regulations.
44. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20283
51. 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.
52. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20283
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Karim Abubakar, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Qasim, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,500 as from 1 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- USD 891.70 as reimbursement for flight tickets.
3.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20283
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20283
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. 15