Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20988
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Birahima Tandia
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Birahima Tandia, France
Represented by Guy San Bartolome Sarrey
RESPONDENT:
Al Tai, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20988
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 September 2024, the French player Birahima Tandia (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Tai (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its date of signature until
29 June 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of USD 34,000 net by the last day of each month and a bonus of USD 1,000 net for every
goal scored.
3.
In addition, the Contract stipulated that the goal bonus is payable by the Respondent to
the Claimant within 30 days of the condition being satisfied.
4.
On 10 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of outstanding remuneration under the Contract in the amount of USD
28,617.12 net.
5.
On 18 August 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 10 days, and at the latest on 29 August 2025, of outstanding remuneration under
the Contract in the amount of USD 77,000 net, i.e. USD 68,000 as the monthly salaries for
May and June 2025, as well as a goal bonus of USD 9,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 23 September 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
7.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration under the
Contract in the amount of USD 77,000 net. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the
Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations under the Contract regarding the
monthly salaries for May and June 2025, in addition to the bonus for the nine goals he
scored in the season 2024/2025.
8.
Considering the foregoing, the Claimant requested payment from the Respondent of the
following amounts:
•
USD 34,000 net as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May
2025 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20988
•
USD 9,000 net as outstanding amount, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 June 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
•
USD 34,000 net as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 June
2025 until the date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. 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 23 September 2025 and submitted
for decision on 3 November 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.
11. 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 competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a French player and a Saudi Arabian club.
12. 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
13. 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).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20988
c. Merits of the dispute
14. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that,
according to the Claimant, he is entitled to outstanding remuneration of USD 77,000 net
under the Contract.
16. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent did not respond to the claim,
entailing that his decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is,
the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules.
17. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations.
18. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent failed to
provide any evidence to prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the
Claimant. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that no reasonable justification was
presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of the Contract.
19. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Single Judge recalled the content of art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving
it.
20. In this context, after a thorough analysis of the evidence on file, the Single Judge concluded
that the Player failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he is entitled to a bonus
of USD 9,000 net for the nine goals he allegedly scored during the season 2024/2025. In
particular, the Single Judge observed that the evidence on file regarding the goals allegedly
scored by the Player during the season 2024/2025 did not contain any reference to the
Player, either by name or by any other identifying element. In addition, the Single Judge
noted that the evidence submitted by the Player did not identify the specific column
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20988
corresponding to the goals allegedly scored in the list of matches during the season
2024/2025.
21. 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 the Claimant USD 68,000 net
as the outstanding monthly salaries for May and June 2025 under the Contract.
22. Lastly, 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:
•
On the amount of USD 34,000 net, as the outstanding monthly salary for May 2025,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025 until the date of effective payment; and
•
On the amount of USD 34,000 net, as the outstanding monthly salary for June 2025,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2025 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations,
he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art.
12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
27. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20988
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20988
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Birahima Tandia, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Tai, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 34,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 34,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2025
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20988
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 9