Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21053
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ezekiel
Joseph Bassey
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ezekiel Joseph Bassey, Nigeria
Represented by Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT:
Iraqi Army Sport Club, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21053
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are the following:
• The Nigerian player, Ezekiel Joseph Bassey (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
and
• The Iraqi futsal club, Iraqi Army Sport Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
In July 2025, an individual identified as the Player’s agent, Mr. Mahmoud Qasim
(hereinafter: the Player’s Agent), and an individual identified as the Club’s coach, Mr. Maher
Ohkla (hereinafter: the Coach), exchanged WhatsApp messages and conducted several
voice calls.
3.
Specifically, on 23 July 2025, the Coach provided the Player’s Agent with a draft employment
contract, which included, inter alia, the following essential terms and conditions:
• Term: from 15 September 2024 to 15 July 2025.
• Remuneration: a total amount of IQD 37,500,000, payable as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“A-Signing fee:
Only 3,750,000 (three million seven hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi Dinars) will be paid
from the date of signing the contract in monthly installments, including at the end of each
calendar month, for the period from 1/8/2025 to 1/6/2026. The player agrees and accepts
that, in accordance with the regulations of the Iraqi Football Association, no advance
payment of the signing fee may be made.
B-Monthly salary:(3,750,000) will be paid at the end of each Gregorian month for the
period from 1/8/2025 to 1/6/2026.”
4.
On the same date, 23 July 2025, the Player’s Agent forwarded a PDF file to the Player, which
allegedly consisted of a copy of the draft employment contract signed by the Player’s Agent.
The Player’s Agent further instructed the Player to sign and fingerprint each page of the
document and to record a video message thanking the Player’s Agent, which the Player
allegedly did on 25 July 2025.
5.
On an unspecified date, which the Player claims to be 25 July 2025, the Player’s Agent
forwarded a copy of the signed contract (hereinafter: the Purported Contract), together with
the photographs, to the Coach.
6.
On 29 July 2025, the Player’s Agent and the Coach also engaged in additional voice calls,
the content of which remains unknown.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21053
7.
On 8 August 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent the Club a notice of
default, recalling that the parties had entered into a valid and binding employment contract
(i.e., the Purported Contract), which, according to the Player, could no longer be unilaterally
withdrawn by the Club. The Player requested that the Club confirm its intention to comply
with the Purported Contract, provide the required flight ticket to allow the Player to join
the Club, and take the necessary administrative steps to register him no later than 13
August 2025.
8.
On 17 August 2025, the Player acknowledged that no response had been received from the
Club and, accordingly, stated that the Purported Contract had been unilaterally terminated
by the Club “with immediate effect through implicit conduct.” Without prejudice to this
position, the Player invited the Club to clarify its stance no later than 20 August 2025,
should his understanding be incorrect.
9.
The Player informed that he remained unemployed after the termination of the Purported
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 27 September 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
11. The Player maintained that a valid and binding employment contract had been concluded
between the Player and the Club (i.e., the Purported Contract).
12. In particular, between 23 and 25 July 2025, the Club, through the Coach, transmitted to the
Player a draft employment contract, which contained all essential elements of an
employment relationship, namely the contractual duration, the Player’s obligation to
render sporting services under the Club’s authority, and the agreed remuneration.
13. The Player claimed that he accepted the offer by signing the Purported Contract without
any objections or reservations and by returning the duly signed document through the
Player’s Agent on 25 July 2025. The Player argued that at no point did the Coach or the Club
contest either the validity of the Purported Contract or the authority of its Coach to act on
its behalf.
14. The Player referred to jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and argued
that the lack of a counter-signature by the Club did not prevent the formation of a valid
employment contract, since the mutual consent of the parties on the essential terms had
been clearly established through their conduct.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21053
15. The Player then alleged that the Club had terminated the Purported Contract without just
cause. He pointed out that shortly after the conclusion of the Purported Contract, the Club,
through its Coach, informed the Player that his services were no longer required.
Subsequently, despite being formally requested to confirm its intention to comply with the
Purported Contract, the Club failed to respond, failed to arrange the Player’s registration,
and failed to take any steps towards the performance of its contractual obligations.
16. The Player maintained that the Club’s continued silence and inactivity amounted to an
implicit termination by conclusive conduct, in accordance with well-established DRC
jurisprudence.-established DRC jurisprudence.
17. The Player further submitted that the Club never invoked any circumstances that could
constitute just cause within the meaning of art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), and that the mere decision not to engage
the Player did not justify the early termination of an employment contract.
18. In view of the above, the Claimant asserted that the Club bore full responsibility for the
unilateral termination of the Purported Contract. As a result, he requested to be awarded
the total contractual entitlement amounted to IQD 41,250,000 net, consisting of a sign on
fee and ten monthly salaries, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 20 August 2025. -on fee and ten
monthly salaries
19. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“45. On these grounds, the Player respectfully requests that the DRC order the Club to
pay the Player compensation for breach of contract in the amount of IQD 41,250,000
net, plus 5% interest per annum as of August 20, 2025, until full payment is made.”
b. Position of the Club
20. The Club failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 27 September 2025 and submitted for
decision on 10 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21053
22. 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.
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by the Player against the Club, in which the Player alleged
the existence of a valid employment relationship allegedly terminated by the Club without
just cause.
27. In particular, the DRC noted that the Player asserted that, in July 2025, the Club – acting
through its Coach – had conveyed a contractual offer containing all essential terms of an
employment relationship, which the Player accepted by signing and returning the draft
contract without reservations. On this basis, the Player maintained that a valid and binding
employment contract had been concluded and that the Club subsequently terminated said
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21053
contract without just cause by way of implicit conduct, thereby entitling him to
compensation.
28. On the other hand, the Club failed to submit any response to the claim. Consequently, the
DRC considered that it should base its analysis exclusively on the allegations and
documentary evidence submitted by the Player, while bearing in mind that the absence of
a reply does not relieve the claiming party of its burden of proof.
29. Against this background, the Chamber established that the core issue to be examined was
whether the parties had effectively entered into a valid employment relationship.
30. The Chamber began by recalling that according to the well-established jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal, for an employment relationship to have been validly concluded, the
parties must have agreed on the essentialia negotii of the employment contract, which
typically consist of (i) the duration of the relationship, (ii) the obligation of the employee to
provide personal services under the authority and direction of the employer, (iii) the
remuneration payable for such services, and (iv) the decisive element being the mutual
consent of the parties to be legally bound.
31. As a general rule, the consent is most clearly verified through the signatures of both parties
on the employment contract. However, the Chamber recalled that in certain circumstances,
consent may also be established absent a countersignature, provided that it can be clearly
and unequivocally inferred from the conduct of the parties, particularly from evidence of
agreement and/or concrete acts of execution of the contract, such as initiation of
registration procedures, provision of work permits or travel arrangements, or payment of
remuneration.
32. It follows that, in the absence of signatures, and in the absence of clear, consistent, and
corroborated evidence of consent / execution, isolated or circumstantial elements are
generally insufficient to establish the conclusion of an employment relationship.
33. In the present case, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player submitted evidence
showing that an individual identified as the Club’s Coach transmitted a draft employment
contract to the Player’s Agent via WhatsApp, and that the Player signed such draft and
returned it through his agent (i.e., the Purported Contract).
34. Nevertheless, the DRC observed that:
•
The Purported Contract was never signed by the Coach, nor by any individual with
demonstrable signing authority on the Club’s behalf. While the identity of the Coach
and his affiliation with the Club were not disputed, the Chamber found that (i) the
name of this individual was different than the one listed in the Purported Contract
(or in TMS) and (ii) in any event, the mere involvement of a Club representative in
negotiations did not automatically bind the Club contractually.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21053
•
The WhatsApp messages submitted by the Player contained contradictory
information regarding the PDF files. In particular, the Chamber observed that the
Club’s name was spelled differently – or possibly translated differently – in the
screenshot compared to the version submitted by the Player with his claim, which
further raised doubts about the authenticity of the evidence.
35. In this context, the DRC also deemed it necessary to stress that the mere transmission of
an unsigned draft contract by a club representative is not sufficient to establish the club’s
consent to enter into an employment relationship. According to the Chamber, contractual
consent must be substantiated by additional supporting elements, such as express written
confirmation of acceptance, acknowledgement of intentions, or unequivocal acts of
performance. Accepting the opposite position would unduly lower the standard of proof
required for contractual formation. It would render a club’s signature redundant or only
dispositive in the negative.
36. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that the Player submitted only a limited
excerpt of the WhatsApp correspondence between the Coach and the Player’s Agent, which
does not – in the DRC’s view – meet the required threshold. The full context of the
negotiations remained unknown, and it was apparent from the case file that certain
discussions took place via audio messages, the content of which was not provided.
37. For instance, the Chamber was unable to verify whether decisive elements, such as
conditions precedent, reservations, internal approvals, or express acceptance, had been
communicated orally but were not reflected in the written record. Moreover, the DRC
observed that the written excerpts did not demonstrate that the Club had requested the
Player to sign and return the Purported Contract, nor that it had confirmed acceptance
following the Player’s signature.
38. Similarly, the DRC found no evidence whatsoever of execution of the Purported Contract
by the Club. In particular, no steps had been taken to arrange visas, flights, registration
procedures, accommodation, or salary payments. On the contrary, the file suggested that
the entirety of the interactions between the parties lasted no more than a few days and
remained purely at a negotiation stage.
39. In light of the above, while the DRC remain convinced that WhatsApp and similar
instant‑messaging tools play an important role in the football market and are frequently
used during negotiation, the Chamber was equally of the opinion that the informal nature
of communications cannot displace the requirement of clear mutual consent, particularly
when the evidence submitted consists of partial chat excerpts, unfiled audio messages,
and a contract unsigned by the alleged employer. In other words: consent cannot be tacitly
presumed from incomplete evidence.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21053
40. The DRC also deemed it appropriate to express the dissatisfaction with the Club’s conduct,
notably its failure to reply to the default notices and to the present proceedings. However,
the Chamber was of the opinion that the procedural silence does not create contractual
consent, nor does it shift the burden of proof from the Claimant.
41. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the Player did not sufficiently
demonstrate the existence of the mutual consent required to establish an employment
relationship, let alone a breach of contract capable of triggering the severe consequences
of termination.
42. The DRC therefore concluded that no employment relationship had been established
between the parties in the present case. As a consequence, the DRC considered that the
claims for compensation for breach of contract could not be upheld.
d. Costs
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21053
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ezekiel Joseph Bassey, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21053
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