Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20397
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Olorunwa
Jacob Adebanjo
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Olorunwa Jacob Adebanjo, Nigeria
Represented by Dev Kumar Parmar
RESPONDENT:
Naft Al-Basrah FC, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20397
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the dispute are:
• the Nigerian player Olorunwa Jacob Adebanjo (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
and
•
the Iraqi club Naft Al-Basrah FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to
the Iraqi Football Association (IFA).
2.
On 2 August 2024, the Player initiated contact via an instant messaging application with a
person referred to as “Mr. Bong” (hereinafter: the Agent), who, according to the Player, is
allegedly head of a company named Bong Sports Management, a purported “football
agency dedicated to representing and managing athletes whose main area of work is the Asian
continent”.
3.
On 3 August 2024, after discussions to find a club for the Player, the Agent asked about the
Player’s willingness to go to Iraq. Upon the Player’s positive response, the Agent confirmed
the purported interest from an Iraqi club.
4.
On 8 August 2024, following ongoing communications with the Agent, the Player received
a document which, according to him, was an employment contract issued by the Club. The
Agent requested the Player to sign such document without delay, providing detailed
instructions on how to execute the document.
5.
On 10 August 2024, the Player submitted his personal information to the Agent for
inclusion in this document.
6.
On 11 August 2024, according to the Player, the Agent sent him a definitive version of the
document, which he signed and returned to the Agent, thereby allegedly entering into an
employment contract with the Club (hereinafter: the Alleged Contract), purportedly valid as
from 1 September 2024 until 1 July 2025.
7.
Under the terms of the Alleged Contract, the Club allegedly undertook to pay the Player as
follows (quoted verbatim):
“1. The Contract has a total value of 60,000$
In words: sixty thousand US dollars
2.
Concerning the season 2024/2025, the Player shall receive from the Club the total
amounts as follows:
a. Advance payment:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20397
12,000 twelve thousand US after passing the medical test and signing the contract after
arriving in the city (Basra)
b. Monthly salary:
4,800 four thousand eight hundred US dollars to be paid at the end of each Gregorian month
for the period from 01-09-2024 until 01-07-2025
[…]
6. Other entitlements: professional player
The Club shall provide the Player for each season with housing, a car and return flights return
tickets in economy class for the route (IRAQ – second party country – IRAQ) with a total value
of. As agreed by the parties.
7. Taxes / Social contribution
The Player's income refers to net amounts in the State of IRAQ. Any taxes, social costs,
contributions, or any other amounts the Player may need to pay in the country of his
residence or any other country are to be borne by the Player and the Club insofar shall not
be obliged to pay any additional amounts to the player as those agreed upon in this Contract.”
8.
In addition, clause 9 of the Alleged Contract established as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Article 9 – Termination by the Club or the Player
1. IFA regulations governing this matter and, where applicable, FIFA regulations in force from
time to time apply.
2. This Contract may be terminated before its expiry by mutual agreement.
3. This Contract may be terminated by either party, without consequences for the terminating
party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
4. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to the
Player compensation equal to the total amount of: The last salary that the second party
deserves.
5. If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to the
Club compensation equal to the total amount of: 50% of the total amount received.
6. The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under the provisions
of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the principles of parity and
reciprocity of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances related to the Contract’s
conclusion and execution.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20397
7. This Contract may be terminated by either party, without consequences for the terminating
party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
The following situations are deemed to be considered a just cause to terminate the Contract
(non-exhaustive list):
a) Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or change
the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (the Player or the Club) to terminate
the contract with just cause.
b) In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate the Contract,
provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least
15 days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
c) The Player, in the event that, in the course of the season, has appeared in fewer than ten
percent (10%) of the official matches in which the Club has been involved may terminate his
contract prematurely on ground of sporting just cause. Due consideration shall be given to
the Player’s circumstances in the appraisal of such cases. The Player may only terminate his
contract on this basis in the 15 days following the last official match of the season.”
9.
On unspecified dates, the Agent informed the Player that visa-related issues were
preventing him from joining the Club.
10. On 2 March 2025, the Player and the Finnish club KPV (hereinafter: the Subsequent Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Subsequent Contract), valid as from 3
March 2025 until 31 October 2025. Under the Subsequent Contract, the Subsequent Club
undertook to pay the Player a monthly gross salary of EUR 1,100, payable on the last day
of each month during the term.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 18 August 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
12. The Player asserted that, on 2 August 2024, he contacted the Agent, allegedly head of a
company focused on representing athletes in Asia. After discussions, the Agent inquired
about the Player’s interest in joining a club in Iraq, to which the Player agreed.
Subsequently, on 8 August 2024, the Player received what he believed to be a valid
employment contract from the Club, with the Agent requesting him to sign promptly. The
Player argued that he submitted his personal details, received a final version of the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20397
document on 11 August 2024 (i.e., the Alleged Contract), and returned it signed within two
hours. The Agent then congratulated him on the engagement but later informed him that
visa issues were preventing his move to the Club.
13. The Player alleged that communication from both the Agent and the Club began to
diminish significantly and eventually ceased altogether.
14. The Player claimed that, around 16 September 2024, the Club signed the Togolese
footballer Mr. Kangnivi Ama Tchoutchoui, who plays in the same position as him (i.e.,
centre-back). The Player argued that the Club’s decision to sign a replacement player in his
position, coupled with the cessation of communication, clearly indicated the Club’s
unwillingness to fulfil its contractual obligations towards him under the Alleged Contract,
constituting a breach of contract.
15. As to the validity of the Alleged Contract, the Player argued that the copy he received from
the Agent constitutes a valid and binding contract. He asserted that the document was
transmitted via the Agent, and mirrors the structure, formatting, and content of other
official contracts issued by the Club – specifically referencing a purported agreement
pertaining to another player, Mr. Ebimobowei Thankgod Peter. The Player highlighted that
both documents shared identical elements, including clause structure, formatting, font,
typographic errors, and the listing of the Club President, Mr. Ali Hanoon Odaib, in the field
dedicated to the signatory. According to the Player, the only notable difference is the
absence of the Club’s watermark in the background of the pages in the Player’s version,
which, according to the Player, further supports its originality.
16. The Player further asserted that the Alleged Contract contained no indication that it was
provisional or non-binding. Therefore, even if the Club were to argue otherwise, the Player
invoked the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem, whereby any ambiguity must be
interpreted against the drafter.
17. Additionally, the Player argued that the Club’s failure to provide a visa or work permit does
not invalidate the Alleged Contract, as per art. 18.4 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and established jurisprudence, which
place the responsibility for such administrative matters on the employer. In this regard, the
Player claimed to have taken all reasonable steps to obtain a visa, including submitting his
Portuguese residency permit, but the Club failed to act accordingly.
18. The Player also asserted that the Alleged Contract, as an employment offer by the Club,
constituted a binding agreement under Swiss law. According to him, pursuant to art. 5 of
the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), an offer made in the absence of the offeree remains
binding until a timely reply could reasonably be expected. The Player outlined he accepted
the offer, and no valid withdrawal occurred prior to acceptance. He argued that, even if a
withdrawal were alleged, it would have been ineffective as it occurred after acceptance,
contrary to Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence. He further contended that, once acceptance
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20397
was communicated, the agreement contained all essential elements (consent, object, and
cause) rendering it binding under Swiss Law.
19. The Player emphasized that the agreement was not a pre-contract but a final contract, as
both parties consented to the essential terms without reservation, consistent with CAS
2020/A/6748. Furthermore, he held that, by failing to honour the accepted offer and
facilitate the Player’s integration, the Club acted in bad faith, violating the principles of
venire contra factum proprium and legitimate expectations. According to the Player, this
conduct caused significant harm, as he rejected other opportunities and remained without
a club for months, later securing employment at a substantially lower level and salary.
20. As to the Agent’s role, the Player argued that the Agent acted on behalf of the Club during
the hiring process. In support of this, the Player argued that the Agent “has clear ties with
the Respondent”, citing that the Agent’s social media indicates he “operates in the AFC regions,
where the Club is from,” and highlighting that the Agent had “concluded other deals” with the
Club “during the period of time in which the events took place”, namely the signings of a coach
named Andrej Panadic and a player named Hamed Toure Junior.
21. In addition, the Player asserted that the communications between him and the Agent
reflected the latter’s coordination with the Club, including aligned terminology and
references. In this regard, the Player stressed that the Agent presented him a screenshot
of a failed call with an alleged Club representative. As such, the Player held that the Agent’s
actions and role in this matter should be directly attributed to the Club.
22. In this context, the Player concluded that the Club fundamentally breached the Alleged
Contract by failing to register him with the Iraqi FA and by neglecting to secure the requisite
visa and work permit. According to him, said omissions, coupled with the non-payment of
remuneration, constituted a clear and serious violation of contractual obligations, thereby
entitling the Player to terminate the Alleged Contract with just cause pursuant to art. 14 of
the Regulations.
23. Ultimately, the Player highlighted that, despite having valid grounds for immediate
termination, he acted in good faith by refraining from signing with another club and by
reiterating his readiness to fulfill the Alleged Contract. Nevertheless, the Club’s persistent
breaches left him without income and deprived him of the opportunity to secure
alternative employment, resulting in substantial financial and professional losses.
Accordingly, he argued that the Club bears liability to compensate him for breach of
contract under art. 17 of the Regulations.
24. In light of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“f. Requests for Relief
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20397
1. In light of the aforementioned points and enclosed supporting evidence by way of exhibited
items, the Claimant respectfully and humbly requests the following from the Football
Tribunal:
a. To enforce FIFA’s jurisdiction as the competent body to hear and determine this matter;
and
b. To find that Naft Al-Basrah Sports Club has breached the Contract issued to and agreed by
the Player; and
c. To order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 55,088.14 (Fifty-Five Thousand and Eighty-Eight US Dollars and Fourteen Cents) as
Mitigated Compensation for breach of the Contract; and
- USD 4,911.86 (Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eleven US Dollars and Eighty-Six Cents) as
Additional Compensation for breach of the Contract; OR
- In the alternative instance that the FIFA Judge, for whatever reason, determines that no
additional compensation shall be paid to the Player by the Club, to order the Club to pay the
Player USD 55,088.14 (Fifty-Five Thousand and Eighty-Eight US Dollars and Fourteen Cents)
as compensation for breach of Contract.
d. To declare that all applicable tax relating to compensation awarded shall be paid by
Respondent;
e. To grant interest at 5% p.a. (five per cent per annum) on amounts stipulated in point c. of
requests for relief herein;
f. To order Respondent to cover all costs of these proceedings and bear all legal fees incurred
by Claimant in connection with this matter. The costs are itemised and sent to FIFA in due
course;
g. To grant any further or other relief Tribunal may deem fit.”
b. Position of the Respondent
25. Despite having been invited to respond, the Club has failed to submit any reply to the
Player’s claim.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20397
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. 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 18 August 2025 and submitted for decision
on 7 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.
27. 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 competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Nigerian player and an Iraqi club.
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20397
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract.
32. In summary, the Chamber recalled that the Player asserted that the copy of the Alleged
Contract, which was transmitted by the Agent and signed only by the Player, constituted a
valid and binding agreement with the Club. He further argued that the Agent was acting on
behalf of the Club and, as such, the Agent’s conduct and involvement in the matter should
be directly attributed to the Club. Ultimately, the Player contended that the Club failed to
register him and neglected to undertake the necessary steps to enable him to perform his
professional duties, entailing the payment of compensation for breach of contract
33. Conversely, the Chamber noted that, as per art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, since the
Club did not provide its position on the Player’s claim, the decision should be taken based
on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the statements and documents presented by
the Claimant).
34. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the Alleged
Contract constituted a valid and binding agreement, and, if so, to determine whether a
breach occurred on the part of the Club and the resulting legal consequences, as will be
examined in turn.
Did the Alleged Contract constitute a valid and binding agreement between the parties?
35. Firstly, the Chamber observed that the copy of the Alleged Contract submitted was not
signed by the Club. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, which has determined on previous occasions that
the actual signature of a contract is not the sole or even a necessary element to determine
whether there was an existing contractual relationship between the parties. Instead, the
validity and the enforcement of a contract should be established based on a
comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions taken by the parties within the
context of their relationship.
36. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the well-established jurisprudence has also
stipulated that the DRC must be very careful with accepting documents other than the
employment contract duly signed by the parties as evidence for the conclusion of a
contract.
37. Specifically, the Chamber observed that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
established that: (i) the conclusion of a contract can sometimes, in very specific and limited
circumstances, be proved without a formal signature, provided that such proof meets
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20397
certain standards of confidence; and (ii) decisions determining that a contractual
relationship was formed, without having a copy of a signed contract on file, must require a
high standard of proof.
38. In the case at hand, the DRC reiterated that it is undisputed that the case file does not
contain a fully signed copy of the Alleged Contract. Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that
the Player submitted elements that, in his view, support the existence of a contractual
relationship with the Club, namely:
•
The Player contended that the Agent who transmitted the copy of the Alleged Contract
acted on behalf of the Club throughout the hiring process. To support this claim, the
Player asserted that the Agent “has clear ties with the Respondent,” referencing the Agent’s
social media presence, which suggests he “operates in the AFC regions, where the Club is
from.” The Player further emphasized that the Agent had “concluded other deals” with the
Club “during the period of time in which the events took place,” and alleged a pattern of
coordination between the Club and the Agent. Accordingly, the Player maintained that
the Agent’s conduct and involvement in this matter, including the transmission of the
Alleged Contract, should be directly attributed to the Club; and
•
The Player contended that the Alleged Contract sent by the Agent closely mirrors the
structure, formatting, and substantive content of other official documents issued by the
Club. In particular, the Player referenced the copy of a purported agreement related to
another player, Mr. Ebimobowei Thankgod Peter, as a direct comparison. According to
the Player, both documents exhibit identical characteristics, including the arrangement
of clauses, formatting style, font selection, typographical errors, and the inclusion of the
Club President, Mr. Ali Hanoon Odaib, as the designated signatory.
39. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber found that the Player has failed to discharge the
burden of proof necessary to establish that the Agent acted on behalf of the Club.
Consequently, the Player has not demonstrated that the Alleged Contract transmitted by
the Agent constituted a valid and binding employment agreement between himself and
the Club (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
40. First and foremost, the Chamber noted that the Player did not submit any evidence of
direct communication with any duly authorized representative of the Club. In particular,
there is no indication that a single notice or message was transmitted via official Club
channels or via a verified Club contact. The entirety of the Player’s claim relied exclusively
on exchanges with the Agent, under the assumption that the Agent was, in some capacity,
acting as a representative of the Club.
41. In this respect, the Chamber’s review of the WhatsApp correspondence between the Player
and the Agent revealed that it was the Player who unilaterally initiated contact with the
Agent, expressly soliciting his assistance in identifying new professional opportunities.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20397
According to the Chamber, this communication pattern strongly suggests that the Agent
was acting in the interest of the Player, not otherwise.
42. Furthermore, the Chamber found that the content of the communications makes it clear
that the Agent consistently positioned himself as representing the Player’s interests. For
instance, the Agent explicitly stated his intention to get the Player “into the market”. At no
point did the Agent present any mandate, power of attorney, or other formal
documentation suggesting authority to act on behalf of the Club, nor did he ever claim to
be acting for a specific club. On the contrary, the Chamber observed that the Agent's
messages suggest that he was circulating the Player’s profile to various clubs to explore
potential employment opportunities, a course of action to which the Player consented.
43. In this vein, the Chamber took note that, throughout the entirety of the correspondence,
the Player never expressed any concern, nor did he seek clarification, as to whether the
Agent was acting on behalf of the Club. He likewise failed to exercise even minimal due
diligence to verify the Agent’s purported role, such as requesting official accreditation, a
written mandate, or confirmation from any Club representative. According to the Chamber,
this absence of inquiry is significant, as the assertion that the Agent was acting on behalf
of the Club appears for the first time in the Player’s claim submissions, which casts serious
doubt on its credibility and suggests that it is a post-factum argument.
44. Ultimately, the Chamber pointed out that the mere fact that the Agent may have operated
in the Asian football market or previously concluded transactions involving the Club does
not, in and of itself, establish that the Agent acted on behalf of the Club. Likewise, the social
media excerpts submitted by the Player indicate that the Agent has apparently facilitated
transfers and engagements involving multiple clients and clubs, further undermining the
assertion that he was a Club representative.
45. In other words, the Chamber found that the Player has failed to present any conclusive
evidence that the Agent was acting on behalf of the Club, or even that the Agent was
genuinely communicating with any Club representative in any capacity. In this respect, the
Chamber highlighted that the only purported indication that the Agent may have been in
contact with someone from the Club is, as the Player himself acknowledged, a screenshot
suggesting a failed call to an alleged Club representative, whose contact appears merely as
“Alaaa AlBasra Iraq”. There is no further information or corroborating evidence to verify the
authenticity of this contact. Accordingly, to the Chamber, there is a complete lack of
material evidence to establish that the Agent acted as a representative of the Club, or even
that he had legitimate contact with the Club at all in regard to the Player.
46. Therefore, from the evidence contained in the case file, the Chamber considered that it is
not conclusive that the Alleged Contract was sent by the Agent on behalf of the Club, which
is the basis of the Player’s claim.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20397
47. Additionally, regarding the Player’s assertion that the Alleged Contract resembles other
documents purportedly issued by the Club (specifically, a copy of an alleged agreement
related to another player, Mr. Ebimobowei Thankgod Peter), the Chamber recalled that this
does not per se proves that the Alleged Contract was issued by the Club. On this note,
although both documents share similarities in wording and formatting, the Player himself
acknowledged that the Alleged Contract lacked the Club’s watermark, which was present
in the comparison document, thereby casting doubt on its authenticity due to this
inconsistency.
48. Ultimately, the Chamber outlined that the Player has not presented any material evidence
demonstrating that the copy of the Alleged Contract was, in fact, produced by the Club. As
the Player himself was able to obtain an unsigned comparison document purportedly
issued by the Club, the DRC considered that it stands to reason that any other person,
including the Agent himself, could likewise have produced a document such as the Alleged
Contract.
49. After this analysis, the Chamber again remarked that although the conclusion of a contract
can be proved without a formal signature, the standard of proof required is high,
considering that it would entail that an employment relationship was formalized without
an explicit proof of consent: the signature. In the opinion of the Chamber, the evidence
provided by the Player in this case does not meet the required standard. In particular, the
Chamber was not convinced that there was sufficient evidence to establish that there had
been mutual acceptance of both parties.
50. In light of the above and having carefully assessed the documents submitted with the claim,
the Chamber concluded that the Player could not discharge his burden of proof, meaning
that he failed to corroborate the existence of the alleged contractual relationship.
51. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20397
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Olorunwa Jacob Adebanjo, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20397
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