Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20989
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Eduvie Marho Ikoba
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Eduvie Marho Ikoba, USA
Represented by Sheriff Adeshina
RESPONDENT:
Académico Viseu FC, Portugal
Represented by Jose Gomes Mendes
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20989
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 August 2023, the American player Eduvie Marho Ikoba (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Portuguese club Académico Viseu FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
its date of signature until 30 June 2026, i.e., the end of the 2025/2026 sports season in
Portugal.
2.
Clause three of the Contract provided as follows, quoted verbatim:
“CLAUSE THREE
1. In the scope of the present Contract, Académico SAD undertakes to pay the Player, as
remuneration for the activity carried out by the player, as well as for the assignment of
the rights referred to in Clause Seven, and according to the information provided on this
date by the Player regarding the composition of his house hold, during the 2023/2024
season, the gross annual amount of €154.478,45 (one hundred and fifty thousand four
hundred and seventy eight euros and forty five cents), which will be paid in 10 (ten) gross
montlhy installments in the amount of €15.447,85 (fifteen thousand four hundred and
forty seven euros and eighty five cents) each, which includes the payment of vacation
and Christmas allowances, which fall due on the 5th of October 2023 and the remaining
9 (nine) on the same day of the subsequent months of the 2023/2024 season, under the
terms of paragraph 4 of article 15 of Law 54/2017, of July 14th.
2. In the scope of the present Contract, Académico SAD undertakes to pay the Player, as
remuneration for the activity carried out by the player, as well as for the assignment of
the rights referred to In Clause Seven, and according to the information provided on this
date by the Player regarding the composition of his house hold, during the 2024/2025
season, the gross annual amount of €185.374,20 (one hundred and eighty five thousand
three hundred and seventy four euros and twenty cents), which will be paid in 12 (twelve)
gross installments of €15.447,85 (fifteen thousand four hundred and forty A seven euros
and eighty five cents) each, which “ Includes the payment of vacation and Christmas
allowances, which fall due on the 5th of August 2024 and the remaining 11 (eleven) on
the same day of the subsequent months of the 2024/2025 season, under the terms of
paragraph 4 of article 15 of Law 54/2017, of July 14th.
3. In the scope of the present Contract, Académico SAD undertakes to pay the Player, as
remuneration for the activity carried out by the player, as well as for the assignment of
the rights referred to in Clause Seven, and according to the information provided on this
date by the Player regarding the composition of his house hold, during the 2025/2026
season, the gross annual amount of €185.374,20 (one hundred and eighty five thousand
three hundred and seventy four euros and twenty cents), which will be paid in 12 (twelve)
gross installments of €15.447,85 (fifteen thousand four hundred and forty seven euros
and eighty five cents) each, which includes the payment of vacation and Christmas
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20989
allowances, which fall due on the 5th of August 2025 and the remaining 11 (eleven) on
the same day of the subsequent months of the 2025/2026 season, under the terms of
paragraph 4 of article 15 of Law 54/2017, of July 14th.
4. During the term of the contract, the Player is entitled, in each of the sports seasons,
to the following performance-based bonuses:
a) € 5.000,00 (five thousand euros) net if, during a sports season, the Player scores 8
(eight) goals in Liga Portugal 1 or 2;
b) €10.000,00 (ten thousand euros) net if, during a sports season, the Player scores 16
(sixteen) goals in Liga Portugal 1or2;
The two bonuses referred above are not cumulable between themselves.
c) € 2.500,00 (two thousand and five-hundred euros) net for each group of 10 (ten)
matches played, “match played” being defined by the Parties as every Liga Portugal 1or2
game that the player starts and stays on the pitch until the end of the first half;
d) € 10.000,00 (ten thousand euros) net if SAD achieves, through sports rights and
competition, promotion to the Portuguese First Division and the Player, during the
season of reference, participated in at least 20 (twenty) league matches, "participated”
being defined by the Parties in the following manner: any game the Player starts and
remains on the pitch until the end of the 1st half;
e) € 5.000,00 (five thousand euros) net if SAD achieves, through sports rights and
competition, promotion to the Portuguese First Division, regardless of the number of
games the Player participated in.
§ The bonuses set on points d) and e) are not cumulable between themselves.
5. If during the term of this contract SAD gains promotion, through sports right and
competition, to Liga Portugal 1, the global annual net amount paid as salary will be
increased by 30% (thirty percent).
6. SAD will pay the Player a monthly net housing subsidy in the amount of €500,00 (fivehundred euros).
7. SAD will pay the Player, until the 4" of September 2023, a signing fee bonus in the net
amount of €2.500,00 (two thousand and five hundred euros).
8. SAD may also pay the Player bonuses or match or classification prizes that are
established by it reasonably and in good faith, depending on the results obtained by
Académico SAD, being the definition of the criteria for allocation and payment of such
prizes made by Académico SAD during the duration and validity of this contract and
until the deadline of 60 (sixty) days after the end of this contract, prizes that do not
constitute remunerational nature.
9. All performance-based bonus payments set under the present clause are paid with
the salary for the last month of the sports season of reference.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20989
3.
Clause 11 of the Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“CLAUSE ELEVEN
All cases and situations not foreseen in this contract shall be governed by the C.C.T.
signed between the National Union of Professional Football Players and the Portuguese
Professional Football League, as well as by the I applicable Portuguese Labor Law.”
4.
Clause 17 of the Contract established the following, quoted verbatim:
“CLAUSE SEVENTEEN
The Parties agree to elect the Judicial Court of Viseu as the competent body to settle, in
the first instance, any disputes, doubts, divergences or controversies arising from the
present contract.”
5.
The Portuguese version of clause 17 of the Contract provided as follows:
“As partes atribuem ao foro do Juízo de Trabalho do Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de
Viseu a competência exclusiva para dirimir, em primeira instância, quaisquer litígios,
dúvidas, divergências ou controvérsias emergentes do presente contrato”
Freely translated into English by the Respondent:
“The Parties confer upon the Labour Court of the Judicial District of Viseu exclusive
jurisdiction to settle, in the first instance, any disputes, doubts, divergences, or
controversies arising from this contract.”
6.
Clause 18 of the Contract stipulated the following, quoted verbatim:
“This contract is signed in Portuguese and English versions. In case of dispute or
discrepancies regarding its interpretation, the Portuguese version prevails.”
7.
Also on 31 August 2023, the Club submitted an email and a document apparently to the
Portuguese migratory office, expressing its intention of interest for the Player’s continued
stay in Portugal. The Club stated that it would initiate the process as soon as it was able to
obtain the tax identification number and the social security number for the Player.
8.
On 10 October 2023, the Club reportedly requested the scheduling from the migration
office in respect of the Player, based on the “expression of interest”.
9.
On 7 January 2024, the Player, the Club and the Korean club Seoul E-Land Football Club
(hereinafter: E-Land) concluded a document titled “Loan Transfer Agreement” (hereinafter:
the First Loan Agreement), by means of which the Player was transferred on a loan basis
from the Club to E-Land from 8 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20989
10. On 8 January 2024, the Player and E-Land concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the E-Land Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 31 December 2024. Accordingly,
the Player was entitled to USD 450,000 as basic annual compensation, i.e., USD 37,500 per
month, and a USD 50,000 signing fee to be paid on 10 February 2024.
11. According to the Player, on an unspecified date, E-Land proposed that he sign a mutual
agreement on 18 July 2024 to terminate the loan, by paying him USD 80,000 by the end of
August 2024. Nevertheless, the Player argued that he did not accept this agreement.
12. Also, according to the Player, on an unspecified date, E-Land proposed that he sign a
mutual agreement on 22 July 2024 to terminate the loan, by paying him USD 100,000 by
the end of July 2024. The Player argued that, while in principle he accepted this agreement,
he did not sign it due to unjustified deductions and the refusal to refund his apartment
deposit.
13. On 25 July 2024, the Player, the Club and E-Land concluded a document titled “Mutual
Agreement for Early Termination of Loan Agreement” (hereinafter: the Loan Termination),
by means of which the First Loan Agreement was terminated.
14. The Loan Termination read as follows, quoted verbatim:
“1. Termination of Loan Agreement:
• The Parties hereby agree that the Loan Agreement for Player Eduvie Marho Ikoba,
originally set for the period from January 8, 2024, to December 31, 2024, is officially
terminated as of July 25, 2024.
2. Agreement on Compensation
• The Parties hereby agree that for the early termination of the Loan Agreement, Seoul
E- Land FC will pay Académico de Viseu FC the amount of€ 90.000,00 (ninety thousand
euros), to be paid until August 10, 2024.
• The effects of this Early Termination of Loan Agreement are conditioned to the
verification of payment regarding the above stated compensation due from Seoul ELand FC to Académico de Viseu FC.
• Once payment is verified, the Parties are obliged to undertake any and all measures
regarding all international transfer procedures, including TMS instructions.
1. Player’s Consent:
• By signing this Agreement, Player Eduvie Marho Ikoba explicitly declares his consent
to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and acknowledges the early termination
of the Loan Agreement as outlined above.
• After signing this Agreement, with the condition set above, Seoul E-land is not
responsible for any financial compensation, including payment of annual salary, to the
player, Ikoba, whom declares having received any and all compensation agreed upon
under the Loan Agreement and the Loan Agreement Contract. However, Seoul E-land
shall pay the mutual termination agreement’s compensation has been agreed between
the player and club, the following shall be paid not later than 31st July 2024.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20989
15. On 29 August 2024, the Player received an offer from the Slovakian club MFK Zemplin
Michalovce, a.s. (hereinafter: Zemplin Michalovce), for the period from 1 September 2024 to
31 May 2025. Accordingly, the Player was offered a monthly salary of EUR 4,000.
16. On 3 September 2024, the Player, the Club and Zemplin Michalovce concluded a document
titled “Loan Transfer Agreement” (hereinafter: the Second Loan Agreement), by means of
which the Player was transferred on a loan basis from the Club to Zemplin Michalovce from
3 September 2024 to 30 June 2025. The Second Loan Agreement provided, inter alia, the
following, quoted verbatim:
“[…] d. During the Loan Period, the employment contract signed between VISEU and the
PLAYER will be fully suspended. The PLAYER and ZEMPLÍN shall enter into a valid
employment contract for the Loan Period and ZEMPLÍN must register the PLAYER
respectively for the term of the Loan Period.
e. ZEMPLÍN is not entitled to receive any further rights other that those necessary for
the Loan Period in connection with the PLAYER. In particular, but without limitation, the
PLAYER’s transfer rights to other clubs will solely and exclusively remain with VISEU.
f. During at the Loan Period, ZEMPLÍN shall be fully responsible for paying the PLAYER’s
salaries and any other employment benefits in accordance with the employment
contract signed between ZEMPLÍN and the PLAYER. VISEU, therefore, shall have no
obligations towards the PLAYER during the Loan Period. […]”
17. On 24 July 2025, the Player sent a picture of his visa entry to Portugal to a Club
representative via WhatsApp, along with the following message:
“I can send the entry in Portugal now, but the criminal record one was difficult for me
last time. I have to begin the process, but it takes several weeks.”
18. On 27 August 2025, an individual saved on the Player’s legal representative’s mobile phone
as Pedro Bessa, who, according to the Player, was the Club’s director (hereinafter: the Club’s
Director), offered him an agreement to terminate the Contract. The Player’s legal
representative stated that the Club owed him two salaries and that, once this amount was
settled, they could proceed to negotiate the termination.
19. On an unspecified date, the Club’s Director requested the Player to provide his criminal
records in order to be registered in the Portuguese Football Federation and the league.
20. Also on an unspecified date, the Club’s legal director sent an email to the Player requesting
that he provide the documents needed to initiate the process of converting his visa into a
work permit, failing which, as of 2 September, he would not be allowed to perform his
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20989
duties as a professional player, as his legal status in Portugal would prevent him from doing
so.
21. On 29 August 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s email by providing a copy of his passport
but stating that the timeframe given by the Club was not feasible, as the process to obtain
criminal records took a few weeks. In addition, the Player requested that the Club pay his
outstanding salaries (July and August 2025) by no later than 5 September 2025 and alleged
that the Club told him that he should vacate the apartment provided by the Club. In this
regard, he affirmed that he would vacate the apartment once the Club paid him the
monthly accommodation allowance of EUR 500. Furthermore, the Player remarked that he
was being told that he would not have minutes of play and therefore attempted to reach
an amicable solution. Lastly, the Player stated that he was never previously required to
provide criminal records and that this should not be used as a tactic to exclude him from
training.
22. On 1 September 2025, the Club acknowledged receipt of the copy of the passport, but
stated that this document alone was insufficient and, therefore, he was no longer eligible
to work in Portuguese territory. The Club therefore informed him that he was excluded
from training, that his salary for August would be paid on 5 September 2025, and that on
that day he would be notified of the termination of the Contract with just cause.
23. Also on 1 September 2025, the Player was removed from a WhatsApp group named
“Dinamicas AVFC 25/26”.
24. On an unspecified date, the Club’s Director informed the Player that he had to leave the
apartment and that, as he had a subsidy in the Contract, it was his responsibility to find
accommodation.
25. On 2 September 2025, the Player acknowledged receipt of his salary for July 2025 and that
his salary for August would be paid on 5 September 2025. Nevertheless, the Player stated
that he did not receive the housing allowance of EUR 500 and, therefore, he would remain
in the apartment. Furthermore, the Player pointed out that he had been removed from the
first-team WhatsApp group and added to the U23 group, while the Club informed him that
he could not train, which was contradictory. In addition, the Player again remarked that the
timeframe given to provide the documents was unreasonable and alleged that the attempt
to suspend and terminate the Contract was unfounded. The Player argued that, on the
contrary, should the Club fail to pay him the salary, he would be entitled to terminate the
Contract with just cause. Nevertheless, he stated that should the Club proceed with the
termination, he would seek redress before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter:
the DRC or the Chamber). Therefore, the Player requested payment of the salary for August
2025 by 5 September 2025, the payment of the housing allowance and clarification of his
status.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20989
26. On an unspecified date, the Player was removed from a WhatsApp group named “AVFC
SUB-23 25/26”.
27. On 16 September 2025, the Player paid USD 1,363.06 for 60 nights at an Airbnb in Vienna.
28. On 18 September 2025, the Player terminated the Contract, arguing that he was sidelined
and prevented from performing his obligations. The Player argued that he had just cause
under art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) and requested payment of all outstanding remuneration within five days.
29. On an unspecified date, the Club responded to the Player’s email, acknowledging the
termination of the Contract and stating that (i) he did not have just cause under art. 14bis
of the Regulations; (ii) the Contract was terminated by his own initiative without just cause;
and (iii) no outstanding remuneration was due as of that day. Therefore, the Club
requested that the Player vacate the property on 26 September 2025.
30. On 6 October 2025, the Player paid USD 1,682.03 for 60 nights at an Airbnb in Vienna.
31. On 20 January 2026, the Player concluded a new contract with the Hungarian club
Kazincbarcikai Sport Club FC KFT, valid as from 15 January 2026 to 30 June 2026. According
to this contract, the Player is entitled to HUF 1,900,000,
II. Proceedings before FIFA
32. On 23 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
33. The Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract, which was valid until the end of
the 2025/2026 season. However, he claimed that he was initially loaned to E‑Land, which
subsequently decided to terminate the First Loan Agreement and offered him an
agreement, first for USD 80,000 and then for USD 100,000, which he ultimately declined to
sign. The Player further stated that he then involved the Club and that, following its
intervention, the parties agreed to sign the Loan Termination, under the terms of which
EUR 90,000 was to be paid to the Club, while his proposed remuneration of USD 100,000
was excluded.
34. The Player stated that, despite receiving EUR 90,000 from E-Land, the Club failed to cover
his wage shortfall of EUR 5,000 per month during his loan in Slovakia. The Player alleged
that after this second loan he returned to Portugal and the Club proposed a settlement
agreement for two salaries, which he rejected.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20989
35. After this, the Player asserted that he was formally requested by the Club to provide several
documents, imposing a strict deadline of five days. He stated that, although he responded
on time, the time limit granted by the Club was unreasonable, as to obtain those
documents he would have needed a personal visit to the Unites States embassy in Lisbon
or direct travel to the United States. Hence, the Player argued that the Club created an
administrative burden that could not reasonably be fulfilled, breaching art. 14 of the
Regulations.
36. In addition, the Player argued that on 2 September 2025 he was excluded from first-team
training, removed from the first-team WhatsApp group chat, reassigned to the U23 group
chat and then also removed from the latter. Moreover, he stated that an apartment
eviction notice was served and that he had been isolated since then.
37. Based on this, the Player alleged that after repeated isolation and a refusal to reinstate
him, he terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations. In this
context, the Player argued that the Club had failed to pay him EUR 55,000 from the
difference between his salary and the contract with Zemplín Michalovce, and that the Club
benefitted from the EUR 90,000 received from E-Land.
38. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“Request for Relief
The Claimant respectfully requests that FIFA DRC:
1. Recognize the just cause termination of the player's contract with Académico de
Viseu F.C. as of 19 September 2025.
2. Order Viseu to pay outstanding wages of EUR 55,000 (wage shortfall during the
Slovakia loan).
3. Order Viseu to pay compensation for breach of contract for EUR 90,000 (value of
contract until June 2026).
4. Award additional damages for isolation, unlawful use of the player's image, and
misappropriation of E- Land's termination compensation (to be quantified).
5. Impose sporting sanctions (transfer ban until full payment).
6. Award interest at 5% p.a. from the due dates until full payment.
7. Order Viseu to bear all costs of these proceedings.”
39. On 26 September 2025, the Player amended his claim and indicated that the amount in
dispute was EUR 235,000, of which EUR 55,000 corresponded to outstanding salaries, EUR
90,000 to breach-of-contract compensation, and EUR 90,000 to additional damages for
isolation, unlawful use of his image, and misappropriation of the E-Land compensation.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20989
b. Reply of the Respondent
40. In its response, the Club affirmed that the claim was inadmissible on account of the lack of
jurisdiction of the FIFA Football Tribunal. Relying on clause 17 of the Contract, the Club
maintained that the parties had conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the Labour Court of
the Judicial District of Viseu for any dispute arising from the Contract, while clause 11
designated Portuguese labour law and the applicable collective bargaining agreement as
the governing legal framework.
41. The Club further stressed that, in case of divergence, the Portuguese version of the
Contract prevailed, and that established FIFA and Court of Arbitration (hereinafter: CAS)
jurisprudence recognises the primacy of such a clear, exclusive choice-of-forum clause over
FIFA’s procedural competence. On this basis, the Club asserted that the DRC must decline
jurisdiction and declare the claim inadmissible.
42. Without prejudice to its preliminary objection, the Club further contended that, should the
DRC nevertheless consider itself competent, the Player had unilaterally terminated the
Contract without just cause on 18 September 2025.
43. The Club argued that under the Regulations, a party that terminates a contract without just
cause is not entitled to compensation and may itself incur liability. The Club underlined
that any impossibility to field the Player derived exclusively from immigration and
registration issues caused by the Player’s own omissions, in particular his repeated failure
to provide the required criminal record certificate from his country of origin or prior
residence.
44. The Club insisted that it had acted diligently and in good faith at all times to regularise the
Player’s status, first under the former “expression of interest” regime and later under the
new protocol on residence permits for professional players. The Club added that it could
not replace the Player in obtaining personal documents that only he could request and
produce. In this sense, the Club affirmed that as from 2 September 2025, the Player
became unable to perform duties and the Club became unable to receive or benefit from
the Player’s work, given his irregular status in Portugal, which was only attributable to the
Player.
45. The Club additionally submitted that it had no obligations towards the Player during the
agreed loan periods with E-Land and Zemplin Michalovce, as the Contract was expressly
suspended and the respective loan clubs had assumed full responsibility for the Player’s
remuneration and employment benefits. Consequently, the Club argued that any alleged
“wage shortfall” during the Player’s loan in Slovakia fell solely within the scope of the
contractual relationship between the Player and Zemplin Michalovce, with no residual or
subsidiary liability on the part of the Club. In the Club’s view, the Player’s claim for
outstanding wages was therefore entirely unfounded.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20989
46. Furthermore, the Club disputed in their entirety the Player’s claims for compensation
under art. 17 of the Regulations and for “additional damages”. The Club emphasised that
art. 17 of the Regulations presupposes a termination of the Contract without just cause by
the Club, whereas in the present case it was the Player who terminated it, despite having
failed to maintain a valid authorisation to work in Portugal.
47. The Club added that the claimed amount of EUR 90,000 lacked any contractual or
regulatory basis, and that the sum of EUR 90,000 paid by E-Land under the Loan
Termination was contractually due to the Club alone and never earmarked for the Player.
The Club recalled that the Player had expressly consented to the terms of the Loan
Termination, including the financial conditions, and thus could not validly allege
misappropriation or misuse of those funds. In the Club’s view, the allegations concerning
isolation, unlawful use of image and moral damages were unsubstantiated, unsupported
by evidence and devoid of any causal link to a contractual breach attributable to the Club.
48. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“In light of the foregoing, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal:
A. Declares that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the Claim;
B. Declares the Claim inadmissible;
C. Alternatively, dismisses the Claim in its entirety on the merits;
D. Orders the Claimant to bear all costs of these proceedings;
E. Rejects all requests for compensation, outstanding wages, additional damages,
sporting sanctions, or interest.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
49. The Player affirmed that the Respondent’s reliance on a domestic jurisdiction clause was
unfounded, stressing that, pursuant to art. 22 par. 1 lit b) of the Regulations, FIFA maintains
exclusive jurisdiction over employment‑related disputes of an international nature. He
emphasised that, as an American national employed by a Portuguese club, the dispute
clearly fell within FIFA’s mandatory competence, as constantly upheld in the jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal and CAS.
50. The Player further asserted that the Club illicitly diverted compensation for the termination
of the Contract arising from his prior employment with E‑Land. He argued that while the
draft of the mutual termination agreement awarded USD 100,000 to him alone, the Loan
Termination engineered by the Club improperly redirected EUR 90,000 to itself. The Player
contended that such conduct amounted to misappropriation, unjust enrichment and a
breach of arts. 14 and 17 of the Regulations.
51. The Player likewise maintained that he acted in full good faith when addressing the Club’s
documentation requests. He insisted that he promptly provided his Portuguese entry
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20989
stamp, confirmed the initiation of foreign criminal‑record checks, and supplied chat
evidence illustrating his cooperation. The Player submitted that the Club’s five‑day deadline
for multiple international police clearances was unreasonable and appeared deliberately
crafted to create the appearance of non‑compliance, later used to justify his exclusion from
training and threats of eviction - behaviour he characterised as administrative harassment
and constructive dismissal.
52. He additionally noted that, after the dispute escalated, the Club removed him from team
communication channels, ceased paying agreed benefits, and discontinued the EUR 500
monthly housing subsidy, thereby aggravating the environment of isolation. Following his
notice of termination of the Contract, the Player affirmed that he was left to cover his own
accommodation expenses, amounting to USD 3,045.09, equivalent to EUR 2,638.28, which
he considered a direct and compensable consequence of the Club’s conduct.
53. The Player therefore made the following requests for relief, quoted verbatim:
“On behalf of Mr. Eduvie Marho Ikoba, I respectfully request that the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber:
1. Confirm FIFA’s jurisdiction under Article 22(b) RSTP;
2. Declare that the Player terminated the contract with just cause on 19 September
2025;
3. Order Académico de Viseu F.C. to pay the following:
• EUR 55,000 as outstanding wages (loan period shortfall);
• EUR 90,000 as compensation for breach (residual contract value);
• EUR 90,000 as additional damages for misappropriation and isolation;
•EUR 2,638.28 as reimbursement of verified accommodation expenses
post‑termination;
• EUR 90,000 representing the loan termination compensation originally paid by Seoul
E‑Land FC to Viseu (must be returned to the Player);
• Total outstanding sum: EUR (55,000 + 90,000 + 90,000 + 2,638.28 + 90,000) = EUR
327,638.28
4. Apply interest at 5% per annum from the respective due dates until full payment;
5. Impose sporting sanctions (transfer ban) until full compliance;
6. Order the Club to bear all procedural costs.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
54. The Club again argued that FIFA lacked jurisdiction over the present dispute, stressing that
the parties expressly agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the Judicial Court of
Viseu. According to the Club, both FIFA and CAS jurisprudence consistently confirm the
validity of clear jurisdiction clauses in favour of national civil courts, even in matters
involving an international dimension. The Club thus refuted the Player’s assertion that
FIFA’s competence under art. 22 par. 1 lit b) of the Regulations was mandatory, adding that
the Player failed to provide any relevant jurisprudence supporting such an interpretation.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20989
55. The Club contended that the allegations regarding misappropriation of termination
compensation were unfounded. It asserted that the only binding document governing the
early termination of the loan with E-Land was the executed Loan Termination, which
imposed no obligation on the Club to transfer to the Player any portion of the EUR 90,000
paid by E-Land. The Club emphasised that the Player had signed the Loan Termination,
expressly acknowledging and consenting to the financial arrangements. As the Player had
demonstrated no contractual entitlement to the amount received by the Club, the
allegation was considered baseless by the Club.
56. The Club furthermore noted that the Player’s assertion of good-faith cooperation
concerning documentation requirements was inaccurate. It highlighted that the Player had
failed since 2023 to provide the mandatory criminal record certificate essential to the
immigration process. The Club added that when the Player returned to Portugal in June
2025, the previous visa application had already been denied due to missing documents.
Accordingly, the Club stated that it was obliged to initiate a new procedure requiring the
same certificate and that, despite numerous reminders, the Player did not present the
required document by the 1 September 2025 registration deadline, thereby rendering him
ineligible for registration and contradicting claims of cooperation. In the Club’s view, the
mere submission of an entry stamp did not amount to proper fulfilment of the Player’s
obligations.
57. The Club likewise rejected the Player’s allegations of isolation and exclusion from training.
It affirmed that, from 2 September 2025 onward, the Player was unable to perform his
contractual duties due to his irregular legal status in Portugal, which arose from his own
failure to provide the necessary documentation. The Club argued that it acted lawfully and
transparently in handling the situation, denying any conduct amounting to constructive
dismissal.
58. Concerning the Player’s additional demands for outstanding wages, housing subsidy, and
reimbursement of accommodation costs in Vienna, the Club insisted that these claims were
raised for the first time in the replica and were therefore procedurally inadmissible. The
Club underlined that it could not be held liable for expenses incurred in Austria after
termination of an employment contract concluded with a Portuguese entity, noting that no
contractual or legal basis justified such reimbursement.
59. The Club finally addressed the Player’s revised monetary request, which increased the total
amount claimed from EUR 235,000 to EUR 327,638.28. The Club indicated that the player
improperly introduced new factual allegations and duplicated claims - such as splitting the
EUR 90,000 termination-related amount into two separate heads of damages - despite
these items not having been part of his original filing. The Club maintained that such
additions exceeded the bounds of a permissible reply and must be disregarded, submitting
that only the originally claimed amount could be considered by the DRC given the
procedural limitations governing submissions.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20989
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
60. First of all, 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 23 September
2025 and submitted for decision on 9 April 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.
61. 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, in principle, competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an American player and a Portuguese club.
62. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Club challenged the jurisdiction
of FIFA to deal with the present matter. More specifically, the Club argued that clause 17 of
the Contract established that any dispute arising between the parties should be brought
before the Labour Court of the Judicial District of Viseu.
63. The Chamber observed that, conversely, the Player argued that FIFA had jurisdiction, as
this was an employment-related dispute between an American player and a Portuguese
club.
64. Taking the above into account, the Chamber first referred to art. 22 par. 1 lit b) of the
Regulations, which establishes, inter alia, that FIFA has jurisdiction to hear employmentrelated disputes between a player and a club with an international dimension “without
prejudice to the right of any player […] or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment
related disputes”.
65. In this case, the Chamber recalled that the jurisdiction clause included in the Contract was
as follows:
“CLAUSE SEVENTEEN
The Parties agree to elect the Judicial Court of Viseu as the competent body to settle, in
the first instance, any disputes, doubts, divergences or controversies arising from the
present contract.”
66. In addition, the Chamber recalled that, in case of any discrepancies, the Portuguese version
of the Contract prevailed. The Portuguese version of clause 17 stated the following:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20989
“As partes atribuem ao foro do Juízo de Trabalho do Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de
Viseu a competência exclusiva para dirimir, em primeira instância, quaisquer litígios,
dúvidas, divergências ou controvérsias emergentes do presente contrato”
Freely translated into English by the Respondent:
“The Parties confer upon the Labour Court of the Judicial District of Viseu exclusive
jurisdiction to settle, in the first instance, any disputes, doubts, divergences, or
controversies arising from this contract.”
67. While the Chamber noted that there were slight discrepancies in the wording of both
clauses, in the Chamber’s opinion the parties had anyway decided that any dispute arising
from the Contract would be submitted to the competent court of Viseu.
68. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Player did not dispute the clarity or exclusivity of
the jurisdiction clause of the Contract but merely relied on art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, stating that this dispute had an international dimension.
69. At this point, the Chamber recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a
civil court, and that such choice shall always prevail. In fact, the Chamber referred to the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, as well as the CAS’ jurisprudence in this regard, and
highlighted that even if the choice of law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g.,
a generic reference is made to a region/city), FIFA is not competent when the parties have
exclusively agreed upon the jurisdiction of a civil court.
70. In addition, the Chamber emphasised that art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations provides a clear
hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
71. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the choice of forum made by the parties shall
be respected. The Chamber therefore decided that the Football Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Player.
b. Costs
72. 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.
73. 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20989
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Eduvie
Marho Ikoba.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20989
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. 18