Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20289
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Abobaker Mamoun Kafi Sima
BY:
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Abobaker Mamoun Kafi Sima, Sudan
Represented by Greg Griffin
RESPONDENT:
Al Nasr, Libya
Represented by Lamjed Belkahia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20289
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 February 2025, the Sudanese player Abobaker Mamoun Kafi Sima (hereinafter, the
Player or the Claimant) and the Libyan club Al Nasr (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 17 February
2025 until 16 August 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following remuneration:
“The value of the first six months from 17-02-2025 to 16-08-2025, is (250,000 dollars) two
hundred and fifty thousand (Americans), advance payment (125.000 dollars) the value in
letters (one hundred and twenty five thousand US dollars) and the (125.000 dollars) rest of
the value is divided over 6 months with a value of (20.833 dollars us) twenty thousand eight
hundred and thirty three for every month”.
3.
On 9 July 2025, the Parties exchanged several messages via WhatsApp. According to the
Club, the Player participated in only 5 out of 12 matches for the Club. According to the
Player, he was available for every match except one, and his absence from other matches
resulted from the coach’s decision not to field him. After some discussions, the Club sent
the following message to the Player:
“We have booked a ticket for your return to your home country tomorrow via Turkish
Airlines. A club official will accompany you to the airport in the morning to complete all
formal departure procedures.
Following the conclusion of the current sports season, and in light of the team’s failure to
qualify for the semi finals of the Cup and the final-six phase of the league championship,
your journey with Al-Nasr SC comes to an end.
You are required to depart as scheduled, and from this point forward, FIFA will be the final
arbiter between us”.
4.
On 11 July 2025, the Player put the Club in default of payment, granting it a deadline of 15
days to pay USD 41,666, broken down as follows:
o USD 20,833 as May 2025 salary; and
o USD 20,833 as June 2025 salary.
5.
On 29 July 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract for outstanding salaries.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20289
6.
On an unspecified date, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Thai club
Chonburi FC, valid as from 1 August 2025 until 31 May 2026, under which he is entitled to
a monthly salary of THB 500,000 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 11 August 2025, the Player lodged the claim at hand before FIFA.
8.
On 13 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Club and granted
it a time limit to provide its position on the claim by 2 September 2025, which was
subsequently extended upon substantiated request until 12 September 2025.
9.
On 11 September 2025, the Club filed its reply to the claim and also lodged a counterclaim
against the Player.
10. On 1 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Club to complete its
counterclaim by no later than 6 October 2025, in accordance with art. 21 par. 2 in
combination with art.18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter, the Procedural Rules). The Club was informed that, should it fail to complete
the counterclaim, it would be deemed withdrawn, in accordance with art. 18 par. 2 of the
Procedural Rules.
11. On 10 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged that the Club did not
complete its counterclaim and, accordingly, informed the Parties that the counterclaim was
deemed withdrawn. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the FIFA general secretariat invited
the Player to provide its position exclusively on the Club’s reply.
12. On 27 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Player’s
correspondence dated 15 October 2025 and invited the Club to provide its final comments
by no later than 3 November 2025.
13. On 2 November 2025, the Club submitted its final comments in the matter.
14. A summary of the Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
15. In his claim, the Player asserted that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract for outstanding salaries, after having placed the Club in default, to no avail, in
accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter, the Regulations).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20289
16. In particular, the Player acknowledged that he received the advance payment, but
submitted that the Club failed to pay the salaries for May and June 2025.
17. On this basis, the Player requested the following relief:
“As such, and by filing of this Petition in the FIFA Players’ Status Committee, the Claimant
claims:
1. Payment of the unpaid amount of USD 41,666 Net.
2. Payment of the sum of USD 41,666 Net for the salaries of July and August 2025.
3. Interest to be calculated on the damages awarded at the maximum allowable interest
per annum under Swiss law of 18%; and
4. An order that the Respondent pay the Claimant’s cost of these proceedings in accordance
with rule 18 of the Procedural Rules, up to the maximum amount of CHF 25,000.00
referred to in the Procedural Rules.
5. Additional compensation pursuant to Article 17 paragraph 1 (ii) of the RSTP in the sum
of USD 62,499.00 due to the egregious circumstances of the Respondent’s conduct.”
b. Reply of the Club
18. In its reply to the claim, the Club argued that the Player did not have just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract under art. 14bis of the Regulations. In particular, the
Club submitted that, under the Contract, the contractual period was divided into six
successive monthly periods, each running from the 17th day of one month to the 16th day
of the following month. Accordingly, the Club argued that the first contractual month ran
from 17 February to 16 March 2025; the second from 17 March to 16 April 2025; the third
from 17 April to 16 May 2025; the fourth from 17 May to 16 June 2025; the fifth from 17
June to 16 July 2025; and the sixth from 17 July to 16 August 2025. According to the Club,
each of these periods gave rise to the payment of a net monthly salary of USD 20,833.
19. On this basis, the Club contended that the salary for the period 17 May to 16 June 2025
became due on 17 June 2025, and the salary for the period 17 June to 16 July 2025 became
due on 17 July 2025. Accordingly, the Club argued that, when the Player issued his default
notice on 11 July 2025, the salary for this second period was not yet due.
20. In the alternative, the Club argued that the Player was absent from several matches without
justification. Specifically, the Club alleged that the Player was absent from the matches
played on 12 April, 28 April, and 19 June 2025 due to injuries for which no evidence was
provided. In this respect, the Club submitted an “attendance record” and a transcript of an
interrogation of the Player.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20289
21. Furthermore, the Club submitted that the Player’s participation rate was only 21.56%,
which, combined with his alleged unjustified absences, constituted clear breaches of
contract. On this basis, the Club argued that it would have been justified in terminating the
Contract with just cause.
22. The Club also argued that the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the Parties
demonstrate that the Player admitted to having a low participation rate and acknowledged
that he did not deserve to receive his full remuneration. According to the Club, the fact that
the Coach did not select the Player for matches was, unless proven otherwise, a direct
consequence of the Player’s own poor performance.
23. The Club further submitted that it acted in a transparent manner and arranged a flight
ticket for the Player’s return to his home country.
24. In light of the above, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in its entirety.
c. Replica of the Player
25. In his replica, the Player argued that, at the time he placed the Club in default, the salaries
for May and June 2025 were already due. In this regard, the Club’s failure to pay these
salaries justified his termination of the Contract on 29 July 2025.
26. The Player further submitted that he made himself available for every match, and that it
was solely the coach’s decision not to select him. He added that, on 10 July 2025 (i.e., one
day before his default notice), the Club instructed him to leave the country.
27. The Player also argued that he never received any notice of breach from the Club, and
categorically denied refusing to participate in any matches.
28. On this basis, the Player reiterated his initial request for relief.
d. Club’s final comments
29. In its final comments, the Club reiterated its previous arguments concerning the
contractual periods and their respective due dates, as well as its position that no two
monthly salaries were outstanding when the Player issued his default notice. Accordingly,
the Club maintained that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract under
art. 14bis of the Regulations on 29 July 2025.
30. The Club further reiterated that the Player admitted his low participation rate in the
WhatsApp exchanges. In this respect, the Club argued that a professional player must
demonstrate merit through daily commitment and that the Player himself allegedly
acknowledged not deserving his full remuneration.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20289
31. The Club also submitted that the Player signed a new contract with Chonburi FC only two
days after terminating the Contract. It argued that this demonstrates the abusive nature of
the termination and should be considered for mitigation purposes. According to the Club,
awarding compensation would amount to unjust enrichment.
32. On this basis, the Club reiterated its request that that the Player’s claim be dismissed.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20289
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. First of all, the Single Judge of 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 11 August 2025 and submitted for
decision on 17 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
34. 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 (July 2025 edition), the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Sudanese player and a Libyan club.
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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. 8
REF. FPSD-20289
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
38. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for breach of contract under art. 14bis of the
Regulations and the legal consequences arising therefrom.
39. At the outset, the Single Judge observed that although it could be argued that the Club
effectively terminated the Contract on 9 July 2025 —when it informed the Player that his
“journey” with the Club had ended and instructed him to leave the country— it remained
undisputed, based on the Parties’ conduct and submissions, that the termination was in
fact effected on 29 July 2025 through the termination notice issued by the Player. The Single
Judge therefore considered 29 July 2025 as the relevant date of termination.
40. Having established this, the Single Judge noted that the Player claimed not having received
his remuneration corresponding to May and June 2025. In this respect, the Single Judge
observed that, according to the Player, he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, after having placed the Club in default, to
no avail.
41. The Single Judge further noted that, according to the Club, the salary periods ran from the
17th of each month to the 16th of the following month. On this basis, the Club argued that
only the salary corresponding to the period 17 May–16 June 2025 was outstanding at the
time of the Player’s default notice. The Single Judge noted that the Club maintained that
the salary for the period 17 June–16 July 2025 became due only on 17 July 2025 and was
therefore not overdue when the Player issued his default notice on 11 July 2025.
42. In view of the Parties’ divergent interpretations of the salary due dates, the Single Judge
held that, before assessing whether the formal requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations were fulfilled, it was first necessary to determine when the Player’s salary
actually became payable.
43. To this end, the Single Judge proceeded to analyse Clause 2 of the Contract, which reads as
follows:
“The value of the first six months from 17-02-2025 to 16-08-2025, is (250,000 dollars) two
hundred and fifty thousand (Americans), advance payment (125.000 dollars) the value in
letters (one hundred and twenty five thousand US dollars) and the (125.000 dollars) rest of
the value is divided over 6 months with a value of (20.833 dollars us) twenty thousand eight
hundred and thirty three for every month”.
44. The Single Judge noted, first and foremost, that this clause does not specify any payment
dates for the six monthly salaries of USD 20,833. In this respect, the Single Judged recalled
the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, which dictates that in the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20289
absence of explicit contractual payment dates, monthly salaries fall due at the end of each
calendar month, irrespective of the duration or structure of the underlying sporting
season.
45. Accordingly, taking into account that the Contract was valid from 17 February 2025 until 16
August 2025, and that the Player had already received an advance payment in February
2025, the Single Judge concluded that the Club was obliged to pay six monthly salaries of
USD 20,833 each, falling due at the end of every month from March to August 2025.
46. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the salary for May 2025 fell due on 31 May
2025, and that the salary for June 2025 fell due on 30 June 2025.
47. Having established this, the Single Judge proceeded to analyse whether the formal
requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations had been met in casu.
48. First, the Single Judge recalled that, pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations, if a club
unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player
will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the
debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the
debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
49. The Single Judge noted that the Player claimed not having received his salaries for May and
June 2025. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that Player provided written evidence of
having put the Club in default on 11 July 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 29 July 2025.
50. The Single Judge also noted that, in casu, the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the Parties.
Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Club failed to provide any evidence of
compliance with the aforementioned financial terms. It argued, instead, that the Player had
been absent from matches without authorisation and that his participation rate was low to
justify that no compensation is payable in the present matter.
51. Upon examining the evidence, the Single Judge found that the Club had never placed the
Player in default regarding the alleged absences. Moreover, the Single Judge determined
that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish systematic unjustified absences
and, in fact, the Player’s only proven absence was injury-related. Moreover, the Single Judge
emphasised that even a low participation rate could not justify withholding salary, as such
behaviour would be incompatible with the Club’s fundamental contractual obligation to
remunerate the Player. The Single Judge therefore rejected all arguments put forward by
the Club.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20289
52. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the Player did have
just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations, and that the Club is therefore liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
53. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
Outstanding remuneration
54. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is equivalent to three salaries
under the Contract, amounting to USD 62,499 net, broken down as follows:
o
USD 20,833 net as salary for May 2025;
o
USD 20,833 net as salary for June 2025; and
o
USD 20,833 net as salary for July 2025.
55. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., 62,499 net as
detailed ut supra.
56. The Single Judge observed that the Player only requested interests for the “damages”.
Consequently, and in line with the legal principle of ne ultra petita, the Single Judge decided
not to award interest on the outstanding remuneration.
Compensation for breach of contract
57. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
58. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in
the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20289
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
59. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual
value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new
contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the
Regulations).
60. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of USD 20,833 net (corresponding to the salary of August 2025)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
61. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
62. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Thai club Chonburi FC. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to THB 500,000 net per month,
which approximately amounts to USD 15,600 net for the relevant period (i.e., August 2025).
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of USD 15,600 net.
63. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
64. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the amount of additional compensation
of USD 62,499 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20289
65. However, the Single Judge underscored that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely
terminated contract.
66. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of
USD 20,833 net to the Player (i.e., USD 20,833 net minus USD 15,600 net plus USD 62,499
net, limited to USD 20,833 net), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
67. Lastly, the Singel Judge considered that the Contract contains no basis for the Player’s
request for interest at 18% per annum. Accordingly, in line with the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, and considering the Player’s generic request for interest,
the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest on said compensation at the rate of
5% p.a. as from the date of the claim (i.e., 11 August 2025) until the date of effective
payment.
68. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that although the Contract did not
expressly stipulate that the Player’s remuneration was to be paid on a net basis, the Club
itself explicitly confirmed during the proceedings that the salary was payable net.
69. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the amounts awarded shall be paid on a net
basis.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20289
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
73. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
74. 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
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20289
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abobaker Mamoun Kafi Sima, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Nasr, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o USD 62,499 net as outstanding remuneration.
o USD 20,833 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum
as from 11 August 2025 until the date of effective payment.
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. 15
REF. FPSD-20289
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. 16