Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20716
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Thievy
Guivane Bifouma Koulossa
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Thievy Guivane Bifouma Koulossa, France
Represented by Deléchat, Ludovic Delechat
RESPONDENT:
Esteghlal Khozestan FC, Iran
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20716
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 August 2024, the French player, Thievy Guivane Bifouma Koulossa (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Iranian club, Esteghlal Khozestan FC (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) which’s
duration was detailed in Clause 3 as follows (quoted verbatim):
Contract period (season):
Two season
Contract signing date:
15 August 2024
The contact start date:
10 July 2024
Contract end date:
May 31, the end of the
contract season
Contract start season:
2024-2025
Contract end season:
2025-2026
1- The term of the contract is seasonal.
2- The end date of the contract is May 20 of the final season of the contract.
[…]
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia the sum of USD 310,000 net for the 2024/2025 season and the sum of USD 410,000 net
for the 2025/2026 season.
3.
Clause 3 of the Contract also allocated the payment schedule for the 2024/2025 season in
instalments as follows:
2024/2025 season
- USD 53,000 on 22 August 2024
- USD 53,000 on 22 October 2024
- USD 53,000 on 22 December 2024
- USD 73,000 on 22 February 2025
- USD 78,000 on 22 May 2025
4.
2025/2026 season
- USD 82,000 on 22 August 2025
- USD 82,000 on 22 October 2025
- USD 82,000 on 22 December 2025
- USD 82,000 on 22 February 2026
- USD 82,000 on 22 May 2026
Clause 7 of the Contract established as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Bonuses:
1. If the Player plays at least 60% of the total minutes of the league matches he receive 10% of
the total contract fee.
2. If the team wins the FA cup the player receives 10% of the total contract fee.”
5.
On the 2024/2025 season with the Club, the Player participated in 26 games, scored 5 goals
and provided 5 assists.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20716
6.
On 27 April 2025, the Claimant entered into an employment contract with the Iranian club
Persepolis FC. Under this contract, the Player is entitled to USD 75,000 net for the
2025/2026 season.
7.
On 23 May 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 109,000
corresponding to remuneration and bonuses and granted a 15-day deadline in order to
remedy the default.
8.
On 10 June 2025, the Claimant issued a termination notice and cited just cause for overdue
payables.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 8 September 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
10. According to the Claimant, since the beginning of the contractual relationship, the
Respondent did not comply with its financial obligations towards him. In particular, the
Club failed to pay the salary instalment of USD 78,000 due on 22 May 2025 and the bonus
payment of USD 31,000.
11. The Claimant asserted that he had a very positive 2024/2025 season with the Club,
participating in 26 games, scoring 5 goals and providing 5 assists. Therefore, he is entitled
to a bonus in accordance with Clause 7 of the Contract.
12. The Claimant argued that the Club never complied with its financial obligations, which led
the Player to terminate the Contract on 10 June 2025.
13. According to the Claimant, at the time of termination of the Contract, the following
remuneration remained outstanding:
a. USD 78,000 due on 22 May 2025; and
b. USD 31,000 due since the Player played at least 60% of the total minutes of the
league matches in accordance with Clause 7 of the Contract. That corresponds to
10% of the yearly salary of USD 310,000.
14. The Claimant therefore argued that the severe breach of the contractual obligation from
the Club entitled him to terminate the Contract with just cause. Consequently, the
Respondent must pay USD 109,000 net plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a., as well as
compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20716
15. The Claimant contended that, due to the lack of a compensation clause in the Contract,
compensation shall be the remaining contractual value of USD 410,000 net. Furthermore,
the Claimant requested additional compensation corresponding to three monthly salaries,
amounting to USD 90,000 net.
16. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“1. The claim of the Claimant shall be accepted in its entirety.
2. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 109,000 net as
outstanding salaries, plus interest at a rate of 5% per year over said amount, as from the
relevant due dates until the effective date of payment.
3. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 410,000 net as
compensation for breach of contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% per year over said amount,
as from the date of termination, i.e. 10 June 2025, until the effective date of payment.
4. The Defendant shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 90,000 net in
accordance with article 17 par. 1 lit. ii) FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
(hereinafter: RSTP).
5. Art. 24bis of the FIFA RSTP shall be applied in the present matter. Consequently, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and
consecutive registration periods shall be applied against the club Defendant.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. The Respondent did not provide a reply to the claim despite being invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 8 September 2025 and submitted for decision
on 22 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.
19. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20716
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an French player
and a Iranian club.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to outstanding
remuneration and therefore requested the payment of the overdue amounts plus
compensation.
24. The Respondent, on the other hand, failed to respond to the claim, meaning that the
decision will be taken solely on the basis of the evidence available on file (cf., art. 14, par. 1
and art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
25. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Claimant terminated the Contract with just cause and the consequences thereof.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20716
26. To properly address this matter, the Chamber found it necessary to first refer to art. 14bis
of the Regulations, which sets out two requirements to justify the termination of a contract
due to overdue payments: (i) the club must owe at least two months of overdue salary; and
(ii) the player must have formally notified the club in writing and granted a 15-day period
to fulfil its financial obligations.
27. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Chamber noted that the Claimant terminated the
Contract on 10 June 2025, citing overdue payments. Specifically, the Claimant argued that
the Respondent failed to pay the fifth salary instalment for the 2024/2025 season,
amounting to USD 78,000, which was due on 22 May 2025.
28. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations provides that,
for salaries not payable on a monthly basis, the pro-rata value corresponding to two
months shall be considered. The Player’s total salary for the 2024/2025 season was USD
310,000; therefore, the pro-rata value for two months equals USD 62,000.
29. However, the Chamber found it noteworthy that the Player signed a new employment
contract with Persepolis FC on 27 April 2025, which was more than three weeks prior to
issuing the notice of default to the Respondent on 23 May 2025. By entering into this new
agreement, the Player effectively terminated the existing Contract with the Respondent.
30. Furthermore, the instalment that the Player claimed as overdue (USD 78,000
corresponding to the fifth salary instalment for the 2024/2025 season) was only due on 22
May 2025, which is after the Player had already signed the new contract. Therefore, at the
time of signing with Persepolis FC, no salary was outstanding. Even if a bonus may have
been unpaid at the time, art. 14bis of the Regulations refers to overdue salaries, not to
conditional payments such as performance bonuses. Accordingly, the requirements under
Article 14bis are not met.
31. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber further recalled that, under art. 14 of the
Regulations, a contract can be terminated by a party without consequences of any kind
where there is just cause: a sufficiently serious breach of contractual obligations or
objective circumstances that would render it unreasonable to expect the employment
relationship between the parties to continue. However, in accordance with consistent
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the termination of a contract should always be an
action of last resort (an “ultima ratio” action). This implies that a party can only establish
just cause to terminate an employment contract if it has previously warned the other party
of its unacceptable conduct.
32. In the present case, the Chamber also noted that the Claimant terminated the Contract (by
entering into a new contractual relationship with a new club) before issuing a default notice
to warn the Respondent of its contractual breach. Therefore, the Claimant’s abrupt
termination of the Contract was not an ultima ratio measure, which precludes the
establishment of just cause.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20716
33. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant did not terminate the
Contract with just cause.
ii. Consequences
34. Having stated the above, the Chamber found that, although the Claimant terminated the
Contract without just cause on 27 April 2025, he remains entitled to remuneration for
services rendered up to that date. Since the salary was not paid on a monthly basis, the
amount must be calculated on a pro-rata basis.
35. The fifth instalment under the Contract amounted to USD 78,000 and covered the period
from 23 February 2025 to 22 May 2025. However, as noted above, the contractual
relationship ended on 27 April 2025. Therefore, only 63 days of work within this period shall
be taken into account for the calculation.
36. Accordingly, and based on the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the amount of USD 55,840.68 net as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 April 2025.
37. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed his entitlement to a bonus of
USD 31,000. The Chamber recalled that under Clause 7 of the Contract, “if the player plays
at least 60% of the total minutes of the league matches he receive 10% of the total contract fee”.
38. The Chamber considered this clause to be ambiguous, as it refers to the “total contract fee”
while also linking the condition to league matches, which are played over a single season.
To resolve this ambiguity, the Chamber referred to the Claimant’s interpretation, which
calculated the bonus based on the value of one contract year. The Chamber further noted
that this interpretation was not disputed by the Respondent.
39. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the bonus under Clause 7 should be calculated
on the basis of the Contract value for the first season, i.e., USD 310,000.
40. The Claimant submitted evidence demonstrating that he participated in more than 60% of
the minutes in the matches he played. Thus, the Chamber decided that the condition set
out in Clause 7 had been fulfilled, and the Claimant is therefore entitled to the bonus.
41. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall also pay the Claimant
the amount of USD 31,000 net in concept of bonus plus 5% p.a. as from 8 June 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20716
42. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
43. In this regard, the DRC 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.
44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
45. 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.
46. The DRC 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
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20716
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Thievy Guivane Bifouma Koulossa, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Esteghlal Khozestan FC, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 86,840.68 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 55,840.68 net as from 27 April 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 31,000 net as from 8 June 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. 10
REF. FPSD-20716
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11