Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21904
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Gerald Valentin Kilota
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Gerald Valentin Kilota, France
Represented by Manuel Noumbissi
RESPONDENT:
Iraqi Air Force Club, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21904
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the French player Gerald Valentin Kilota (hereinafter: the Claimant
or the Player) and the Iraqi club Iraqi Air Force Club (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 10 August 2024
until 31 July 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant USD 150,000 in
3 instalments, namely 30% after signing the Contract, 35% between the two stages, and
35% after the end of the football season, which, according to the Transfer Matching System
(TMS), ended on 1 July 2025.
3.
In addition, the Claimant is entitled to the following benefits in kind under the Contract:
“The club provides accommodation (furnished apartment) and transportation for the player and
a ticket number (2) round trip (Paris, Baghdad, Paris)”
4.
On 13 February 2025, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Respondent:
“Subject: Urgent request for the Immediate return of Gérald Valentin KILOTA’s passport
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing to formally request the immediate return of Mr. Gérald Valentin KILOTA’s passport,
which is currently being held unlawfully by the club’s sporting director. As you are undoubtedly
aware, a passport is a strictly personal document, and under no circumstances can it be
confiscated or retained by an employer, especially in the case of a foreign worker.
The continued withholding of Mr. KILOTA’s passport is not only a violation of his fundamental
rights but also constitutes an infringement of national and international labor regulations. We
kindly ask that you ensure the immediate release of his passport to him without further delay.
Failure to comply with this request may result in legal action before the competent authorities.
We trust in your sense of responsibility and professionalism to resolve this matter promptly and
in full compliance with the law.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this urgent issue and look forward to your confirmation
of compliance. […]”
5.
On 6 March 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of the second instalment of the Contract amounting to USD 52,500.
6.
On 25 March 2025, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21904
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 13 November 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
8.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to
outstanding remuneration. In particular, the Claimant stated that the Respondent only paid
him the first instalment of the Contract in the amount of USD 45,000 but did not pay him
the second instalment of the Contract, which was due between the 10th and 15th of February
2025.
9.
In addition, the Claimant stated that he got injured in November 2024 and that the
Respondent approached him in January 2025 in order to terminate the Contract.
10. Lastly, the Claimant argued that the Respondent unlawfully retained his passport and
evicted him from his apartment.
11. In this context, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“i. DECLARE the Claim admissible;
ii. DECLARE AND JUDGE that the AIR FORCE SPORTS CLUB is guilty of terminating the Contract
without just cause;
iii. ORDER the Club to pay Mr KILOTA the sum of USD 219,635.00 (two hundred and nineteen
thousand, six hundred and thirty-five) plus interest at 5% per annum from 24 March 2025,
broken down as follows:
o USD 105,000.00 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause
o USD 2,135 as reimbursement for physiotherapy costs;
o USD 37,500.00 as damages for the harm suffered;
o USD 75,000.00 in additional compensation.
iv. ORDER the AIR FORCE SPORTS CLUB to be prohibited from registering new players, nationally
or internationally, for two full and consecutive registration periods due to breach of contract
without just cause during the protected period.
v. ORDER the AIR FORCE SPORTS CLUB to pay Mr KILOTA the sum of USD 10,000.00 in respect of
the legal representation costs incurred in order to assert his rights before this Chamber.”
(Freely translated from French)
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21904
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged a delay in paying the Claimant’s remuneration,
in particular the second instalment under the Contract. However, the Respondent denied
all other allegations made by the Claimant, namely those related to the unlawful retention
of his passport.
13. In this context, the Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. To reject all allegations made by the Claimant regarding the arbitrary retention of the
passport, moral abuse, and threats, based on evidence demonstrating the player's bad faith
and his intentional invalidation of his travel document for the purpose of fleeing.
2. To reduce the compensation amount to the minimum appropriate level, taking into account:
• the player's previous offer (USD 100,000),
• the player's medical condition (injury and inability to perform),
• the player's bad faith in planning his departure and invalidating his passport, which nullifies
any basis for moral damages.
3. To reject the player's request to impose a registration ban on the Club, as the reasons for
termination do not rise to the level of serious violations that would justify such a sanction.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Competence and applicable legal framework
14. 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 13 November 2025 and submitted for
decision on 29 January 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.
15. 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 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 an Iraqi club.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21904
16. 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.
a. Burden of proof
17. 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 TMS.
b. Merits of the dispute
18. 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
19. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note that, according to
the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause due to outstanding remuneration
and that the Respondent unlawfully retained his passport and evicted him from his
apartment.
20. In addition, the Chamber took note of the position of the Respondent, who acknowledged
a delay in paying the Claimant’s remuneration regarding the second instalment of the
Contract, but denied all other allegations made by the Claimant, namely those related to
the unlawful retention of his passport.
21. In this context, the Chamber first acknowledged that its 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 formal prerequisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
22. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21904
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
23. In the present matter, the Chamber noted that, on 6 March 2025, the Claimant put the
Respondent in default and requested payment within 15 days of the second instalment of
the Contract amounting to USD 52,500. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant
unilaterally terminated the Contract on 25 March 2025, i.e., at least 15 days after having
put the Respondent in default.
24. Taking into account (i) the wording of art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations; (ii) the fact that
the Claimant’s salary was not due on a monthly basis; and (iii) that no due date was included
in the Contract for the payment of its second instalment, the Chamber considered that it
was up to the Player to prove, on the basis of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, that
the second instalment of the Contract was due on the date of his default notice to the Club
on 6 March 2025, as he alleged.
25. Accordingly, the Chamber examined the documentation on file and concluded that the
Player failed to provide any evidence to establish the due date for the payment of the
second instalment of the Contract. However, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent
expressly acknowledged having delayed the payment of the second instalment of the
Contract to the Claimant.
26. In view of the above, the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed by the Respondent
that the second instalment of the Contract in the amount of USD 52,500 was due to the
Claimant on 6 March 2025, i.e., the date of his default notice to the Club.
27. Within this framework, the Chamber calculated the pro-rata value of the Player’s monthly
salary under the Contract and concluded that it corresponds to approximately USD 12,500.
•
USD 150,000 (total value of the Contract) / 12 months (from 10 August 2024 until 31
July 2025)
28. Therefore, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the Player had more than four
outstanding monthly salaries on 6 March 2025, i.e., the date of his default notice to the
Club.
•
USD 52,500 / USD 12,500
29. In continuation, the Chamber 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.
Nonetheless, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence
to prove the payment of the amount claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21904
30. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant did have just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract on 25 March 2025, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
31. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
32. Firstly, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding
remuneration under the Contract at the moment of its termination, namely its second
instalment amounting to USD 52,500.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 24 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
34. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
35. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
36. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
37. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 52,500, i.e., the third instalment under the Contract,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21904
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
38. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
39. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
40. In view of the above considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 52,500 to the Claimant, which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
41. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 25 March 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
42. Lastly, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request for moral damages based on
the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. In this
respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant did not provide any evidence regarding the
alleged retention of his passport by the Respondent, nor did he provide any justification or
quantification of the alleged moral damages suffered. Likewise, the Chamber rejected the
Claimant’s request for the reimbursement of physiotherapy costs, observing that the
Claimant did not discharge his burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
as he did not provide any proof of payment for the alleged costs.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. 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.
44. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21904
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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
c. Costs
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21904
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Gerald Valentin Kilota, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Iraqi Air Force Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 52,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 March 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 52,500 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25
March 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. 11
REF. FPSD-21904
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. 12