Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22086
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Aboubacar
Camara
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Aboubacar Camara, France
Represented by Danielle Babin
RESPONDENT:
FCU 1948 Craiova, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22086
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 September 2024, the French player Aboubacar Camara (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Romanian club FCU 1948 Craiova (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into a document titled “Sports Activity Contract” (hereinafter: the First Contract),
valid from the date of the signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
Art. 4 of the First Contract established, inter alia, the following (quoted verbatim):
“i. The Club undertakes to pay the Player, subject to the due registration of the contract
with the PFL/RFF the validity thereof and the granting of the full and definitive right to
play, for his professional services, for the period 04 September 2024 - 30 June 2025, the
following amounts:
a. For the period 04 September 2024 - 30 June 2025, the monthly net amount of 3,500
EURO (three thousand five hundred), payable in lei, the official exchange rate of the
Romanian National Bank, on the day of the payment, to be paid at the latest on 15 of
the month.
[…]
iii. The payment obligation of each instalment shall fall due on the 15th of each month
following the month for which the instalment is paid (for July the payment instalment
shall become due on 15 August, for August, the payment instalment shall become due on
15 September, etc).
[…]
I.
The player shall benefit, for the validity of this contract (04 September 2024-30
June 2025), from:
[…]
b. a match bonus of 300 EUR (three hundred) net only for victory and only if the player
is in the starting 11; if the player enters the match as a substitute, he shall receive,
only for victory, a bonus of 150 (one houndred fifty) EURO net;
[…]
d. the amount of EUR 300 (three hundred) net for accommodation expenses, the other
maintenance expenses being exclusively the player´s responsibility. The damages and
prejudices to the accommodation shall be exclusively borne by the player and will lead
to the cancellation of the obligation to provide such monthly amount to the Player
accommodation. The monthly amount shall be only provided for the duration of the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22086
competition season or for the validity of the contract and only in exchange for a renting
contract, duly registered with the relevant authorities.”
3.
On an unspecified date, the Player and the Club entered into another document titled
“Sports Activity Contract” (hereinafter: the Second Contract), valid as from 1 July 2025 to 30
June 2027.
4.
Art. 4 of the Second Contract established, inter alia, the following (quoted verbatim):
“i. The Club undertakes to pay the Player, subject to the due registration of the contract
with the PFL/RFF the validity thereof and the granting of the full and definitive right to
play, for his professional services, for the period 01 July 2025 - 30 June 2027, the following
amounts:
a. For the period 01 July 2025 - 30 June 2026, the monthly net amount of 4,500 EURO
(four thousand five hundred), payable in lei, the official exchange rate of the
Romanian National Bank, on the day of the payment, to be paid at the latest on 15 of
the month;
b. For the period 01 July 2026 - 30 June 2027, the monthly net amount of 5,500 EURO
(five thousand five hundred), payable in lei, the official exchange rate of the Romanian
National Bank, on the day of the payment, to be paid at the latest on 15 of the month;
[…]
iii. The payment obligation of each instalment shall fall due on the 15 th of each month
following the month for which the instalment is paid (for July the payment instalment
shall become due on 15 August, for August, the payment instalment shall become due on
15 September, etc).
[…]
A. for the period 1 July 2025 - 30 June 2026, the player shall benefit from:
a) a signing-on bonus of EURO 6,000 (six thousand) net, payable once, only subject
to the registration and validation of the extension of the contract and the granting
of complete and definitive right to the player to play for the Club, within 30 days
maximum from such extension;
b) a match bonus of 300 EUR (three hundred) net only for victory and only if the
player is in the starting 11; if the player enters the match as a substitute, he shall
receive, only for victory, a bonus of 150 (one houndred fifty) EURO net;
[…]
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22086
d) the amount of EUR 300 (three hundred) net for accommodation expenses, the
other maintenance expenses being exclusively the player´s responsibility. The
damages and prejudices to the accommodation shall be exclusively borne by the
player and will lead to the cancellation of the obligation to provide such monthly
amount to the Player accommodation. The monthly amount shall be only
provided for the duration of the competition season or for the validity of the
contract and only in exchange for a renting contract, duly registered with the
relevant authorities
B. for the period 1 July 2026 - 30 June 2027, the player shall benefit from:
a) a signing-on bonus of EURO 6,000 (six thousand) net, payable once, only subject to
the registration and validation of the extension of the contract and the granting of
complete and definitive right to the player to play for the Club, within 30 days
maximum from such extension […]”
5.
Art. 15 of the Second Contract stipulated, inter alia:(quoted verbatim):
“[…]
v. If the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract with just cause, the other party
shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP or FIFA/FRF in force (as
aaplicable). Similarly, if the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract without
just cause, the terminating party shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions
of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF in force (as applicable).
[…]”
6.
On 25 July 2025, the Club, the Player, and the Romanian Club FC Metaloglobus Bucuresti
S.A. (hereinafter: Metaloglobus) entered into a document titled “Transfer Agreement”
(hereinafter: the Loan Agreement) for the temporary transfer of the Player for the period
from 1 August 2025 to 30 June 2026.
7.
Art. 4 of the Loan Agreement included, inter alia, the following (quoted verbatim):
“4.1. For the duration of the temporary transfer, except for June 2026, [Metaloglobus] will
pay the Player, monthly, a net compensation in the amount of 3,000 (three thousands)
euro, in lei, at the official exchange rate of BNR on the day of payment, as well as the rent
for the apartment.
4.2. For the duration of the temporary transfer. The [Club] will pay the Player, monthly, a
net compensation in the amount of 2,000 (two thousands) euros, in lei, at the official
exchange rate of BNR on the day of payment, on the 15th of each month, for the previous
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22086
month.
4.3. The [Club] undertakes to pay the player the compensation for June 2026, in the
amount of 3,000 euros (three thousands) net, in addition to the amount of 2,000 euros
(two thousands) net.
4.4. For the duration of the temporary transfer, all obligations of the [Club] towards the
Player, apart from the obligation provided for in art. 4.2 above, are suspended.
[…].”
8.
On 29 August 2025, the Player put the Club in default, claiming the salaries of April, May,
June, and July 2025 and their respective accommodation allowances (EUR 15,030 in total),
as well as five unpaid match bonuses (EUR 1,500), and the signing-on bonus of the Second
Contract (EUR 6,000). The Player provided the Club with a 15-day period to comply with the
payments.
9.
On 24 September 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Second Contract, citing
overdue payables. In the termination letter, the Player claimed a total amount of EUR
22,530, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
EUR 15,030 for outstanding salaries of April, May, June, and July 2025;
EUR 1,500 for match bonuses;
EUR 6,000 for the signing-on bonus of the Second Contract.
10. The Player informed that he remained contractually bound to Metaloglobus (per the Loan
Agreement).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 25 November 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
12. In his claim, the Player argued that, under art. 4 of the First Contract and Second Contract
(hereinafter: the Contracts), the Club owed him a total amount of EUR 22,530 net, namely
EUR 15,030 for outstanding salaries and accommodation allowances, EUR 1,500 for match
bonuses and EUR 6,000 corresponding to the signing bonus of the Second Contract.
13. According to the Player, the EUR 15,030 for salaries and accommodation allowances were
composed by:
• For April 2025, a total amount of EUR 2,430, being EUR 2,130 of salaries plus EUR
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22086
300 of accommodation allowance, which were due on 15 May 2025;
• For May 2025, a total amount of EUR 3,800, being EUR 3,500 of salaries plus EUR
300 of compensation, which were due on 15 June 2025;
• For June 2025, a total amount of EUR 3,800, being EUR 3,500 of salaries plus EUR
300 of compensation, which were due on 15 July 2025;
• For July 2025, a total amount of EUR 4,800, being EUR 4,500 of salaries plus EUR
300 of compensation, which were due on 30 August 2025 (ultimately amended to
15 August 2025).
14. As to the match bonuses, the Player argued that the Club owed him EUR 1,500 for having
played the following matches (i.e., EUR 300 each):
•
•
•
•
•
On 10 November 2024 against Slatina;
On 6 December 2024 against Câmpulung;
On 9 March 2025 against Metalul Buzău,
On 29 March 2025 against Focșani;
On 18 April 2025 against Ungheni.
15. Finally, the Player claimed EUR 6,000 corresponding to the signing bonus set out in the
Second Contract, payable within 30 days as of the date of signature.
16. The Player alleged having put in default the Club on 29 August 2025 when he served a
written notice asking for the payment and provided the Club with 15 days to comply with
its obligations.
17. In light of the above, the Player submitted the following request for relief (quoted verbatim):
“i. Order that the Respondent shall pay to the player 22.330 Euros Net (twenty-two
thousand, five hundred thirty euros) TOTAL + %5 interest per annum starting from the
below-mentioned due dates:
- April 2025: 2430 EUR (From 15th may 2025)
- May 2025: 3800 EUR (From 15th june 2025)
- June 2025: 3800 EUR (From 15th july 2025)
- July 2025: 4800 EUR (From 30 august 2025)
- match bonuses: 1500 EUR (From 30 june 2025)
- Signing Bonus: 6000 EUR (from 30 july 2025)
ii. Order that the Respondent shall pay to the player the additional amount of 22.000
EUR net (twenty-two thousand euros net) corresponding to the amount due to the player
for the season 2025/2026 according to the loan agreement «Acord de transfer» (annex3)
signed by the player and the club, indeed the player has been loaned to FC
METALOGLOBUS BUCURESTI S.A, football club evoluing in Romania first division, in
25.07.2025 for the period of 01.08.2025 to 30.06.2026 with according to this loan
agreement clause 4.2 a obligation to pay the player a monthly compensation of EUR 2000
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22086
net.
iii. Order that the Respondent shall pay to the player the additional amount of EUR 72.000
net (twenty-two thousand euros net) corresponding to the salary + signing bonus (EUR
66.000+ EUR 6000) due to the player for the season 2026/2027 according to the «sport
activity contract » (annex 2).
iv. Order that the Respondent shall pay to the player the additional amount of EUR 5000
net corresponding to the claimant attorney fees.
v. Order that if and so far, the amounts as mentioned over is not paid to the Player within
the prescribed time limit, Article 24 of RSTP shall be imposed against the club.”
b. Position of the Club
18. In its reply, the Club requested the Football Tribunal to dismiss the Player’s claim in its
entirety and order him to bear the costs of the proceedings.
19. The Club stated that “arrangement proceedings” were open against it per decision passed in
case file no. 3319/63/2025 by the Dolj Tribunal, Second Civil Section. The Club further
argued that for that reason the appointed liquidator should handle the present case.
20. In light of the above the Respondent requested that the Football Tribunal:
“1. Dismiss in its entirety the claim filed by the Player against FCU 1948;
2. Order the Claimant to bear the costs of these proceedings;”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22086
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 25 November 2025 and submitted for
decision on 26 February 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.
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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber was competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a French player and a Romanian club.
23. For the sake of completeness, and although the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal was
not disputed, the Chamber recalled that the Club had informed that it was currently
undergoing “arrangement proceedings”. In this regard, in line with the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Chamber wished to point
out that insolvency proceedings, per se, do not affect FIFA's jurisdiction as long as the club
remains affiliated to the respective member association, but only the enforcement of the
potential decision. In this context, the Chamber confirmed that the jurisdiction of the
Football Tribunal was not affected in this case.
24. 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
25. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22086
26. 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
27. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract.
28. According to the Player, the Club owed him EUR 22,530 net in outstanding remuneration
under the Contracts (i.e., EUR 15,030 net in salaries and allowances for the months of April
to July 2025, EUR 1,500 net corresponding to match bonuses, and EUR 6,000 net for the
signing bonus of the Second Contract). As a result, he claimed to have terminated the
Second Contract with just cause, being equally entitled to: (i) EUR 22,000 net for season
2025/2026 under the Loan Agreement (cf., clause 4.2: EUR 2,000 per month); (ii) EUR 72,000
net for season 2026/2027 under the Second Contract (EUR 66,000 net salary + EUR 6,000
net signing bonus); and (iii) EUR 5,000 net in attorney’s fees.
29. The Club confined its reply to requesting the dismissal of the Player’s claim in its entirety
due to purported “arrangement proceedings” and that the Player bear the costs of the
proceedings.
30. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was (i) to determine whether the
Player terminated the employment relationship with just cause, as well as (ii) the
consequences of such termination. Furthermore, the Chamber also had to (iii) assess
whether the Player was entitled to the outstanding payables and compensation.
31. In the first place, and as to whether the Player terminated the Contract with just cause, the
Chamber first recalled that art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations provides that:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing 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,
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).
Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision coming into force
may be considered.”
32. Therefore, for a player to be able to terminate a contract with just cause based on the
existence of outstanding salaries, it is necessary that: (i) the club owes the player at least
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22086
two monthly salaries; (ii) the player has put the defaulting club in writing; and (iii) the player
has granted the club a deadline of at least 15 days to comply with its financial obligations.
33. In light of the above, the Chamber began by verifying whether the Club owed the Player at
least two monthly salaries at the time he placed the Club in default.
34. In doing so, the Chamber first noted that – considering all agreements signed between the
parties – the Club had undertaken to pay the Player the following salaries:
i. EUR 3,500 net as monthly salary from September 2024 to June 2025 (cf., the First
Contract);
ii.EUR 4,500 net as monthly salary for July 2025 (cf., Second Contract);
iii.EUR 2,000 net as its share of the Player’s remuneration during his loan with
Metaloglobus from August 2025 to June 2026 (cf., Loan Agreement); and
iv.EUR 5,500 net as monthly salary from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027 (cf., the Second
Contract).
35. In this regard, the Player maintained that when he put the Club in default on 29 August
2025, the Club owed him a total of EUR 22,330, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
EUR 2,130 corresponding to the monthly salary for April 2025;
EUR 3,500 corresponding to the monthly salary for May 2025;
EUR 3,500 corresponding to the monthly salary for June 2025;
EUR 4,500 corresponding to the monthly salary for July 2025;
In addition to:
• EUR 300 corresponding to the accommodation allowance for April 2025;
• EUR 300 corresponding to the accommodation allowance for May 2025;
• EUR 300 corresponding to the accommodation allowance for June 2025;
• EUR 300 corresponding to the accommodation allowance for July 2025;
• EUR 300 for having participated in a match against Slatina on 10 November
2024;
• EUR 300 for having participated in a match against Câmpulung on 6 December
2024;
• EUR 300 for having participated in a match against Metalul Buzău on 9 March
2025;
• EUR 300 for having participated in a match against Focșani on 29 March 2025;
• EUR 300 for having participated in a match against Ungheni on 18 April 2025;
and
• EUR 6,000 corresponding to the signing bonus of the Second Contract.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22086
36. The Chamber further noted that part of these amounts pertained to both Contracts.
Consequently, the Chamber decided that, as both of them were valid during overlapping
periods, both had to be interpreted together. In other words, there was no evidence – nor
had the Club argued – that the execution of the Second Contract rendered the First
Contract moot. Therefore, the Chamber stressed that the financial obligations set out in
both Contracts were indeed complementary and clearly amounted to more than two
monthly salaries.
37. The Chamber considered that the Player also proved that it placed the Club in default in
writing on 29 August 2025 and granted a 15-day period to comply.
38. In this regard, the Chamber found worth noting that, in accordance with the practice of the
Football Tribunal, once a player alleges that there are outstanding payables under a
contract, and demonstrates that his claim has a contractual basis, the burden of proof
shifts, requiring the Club to prove that it has indeed paid the salaries in accordance with
the provisions of the said contract. Therefore, the Club bore the burden of proving
compliance with all the terms of the Second Contract.
39. Similarly, the Chamber concluded that, even assuming that the Second Contract was, to
some extent, suspended as a result of the Player’s loan to Metaloglobus, the Club was
nonetheless required to honour its financial obligations arising from both Contracts as well
as from the Loan Agreement.
40. Nevertheless, the Club failed to respond to the Player’s default notice and limited its reply
to requesting the dismissal of the Player’s claims without submitting any evidence. As such,
the Chamber considered that the Club had failed with its burden of proof.
41. Accordingly, the Chamber established that the Player satisfied all requirements set out in
art. 14bis of the Regulations and that he had just cause to terminate the employment
relationship pursuant to that provision.
ii. Consequences
42. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such an unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
43. First, the Chamber mentioned that the Player was entitled to the salaries of April, May, June,
and July 2025 and to the signing bonus of the Second Contract as outstanding
remuneration.
44. Additionally, the Chamber decided to award the Player the monthly payments for August
and September 2025 as outstanding remuneration. The Chamber emphasized that this
conclusion was in line with the well-established practice of the Football Tribunal, since the
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22086
employment relationship was terminated on 24 September 2025. Moreover, considering
that the Loan Agreement was valid as from 1 August 2025, and that under its terms the
Player was entitled to receive a monthly payment of EUR 2,000 from the Club, the Player
was therefore entitled to the aforementioned amounts..
45. Therefore, the Chamber decided to award the Player EUR 23,630 net plus interest, broken
down as follows:
• EUR 2,130 net corresponding to the balance for April 2025, plus 5% p.a. from 16
May 2025 until the date of effective payment;
• EUR 3,500 net corresponding to the salary for May 2025, plus 5% p.a. from 16
June 2025 until the date of effective payment;
• EUR 3,500 net corresponding to the salary for June 2025, plus 5% p.a. from 16
July 2025 until the date of effective payment;
• EUR 4,500 net corresponding to the salary for July 2025, plus 5% p.a. from 16
August 2025 until the date of effective payment;
• EUR 6,000 net corresponding to the signing bonus of the Second Contract, plus
5% p.a. from 31 July 2025 (as no signing date was specified in the Second Contract,
the Chamber decided to award interest as from the 31 st day after it entered into
force) until the date of effective payment.
• EUR 2,000 net corresponding to the payment that the Club owed to the Player
under the Loan Agreement for August 2025. The Chamber highlighted that no
interest applied on this amount because it was not claimed.
• EUR 2,000 net corresponding to the monthly payment that the Club owed to the
Player under the Loan Agreement for September 2025. The Chamber highlighted
that no interest applied on this amount because it was not claimed..
46. As to the accommodation allowances and performance bonuses, the Chamber considered
those allegations as not proven, and, consequently, it rejected them since under art. 4 of
the Contracts, the Player was entitled to accommodation allowances amounting to EUR 300
per month, not EUR 500, and “only in exchange for a renting contract, duly registered with the
relevant authorities”, which the Player had failed to provide in this case. In addition, the
Chamber rejected these claims because the Player failed to submit any evidence
demonstrating his participation in the relevant matches, much less that he was a starter or
that the Club won as requested by the Contracts.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22086
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. In this regard, the Chamber noted that art. 15 of the Second Contract provided, inter alia,
that “If the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract with just cause, the other party
shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP or FIFA/FRF in force (as
aplicable). Similarly, if the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract without just cause,
the terminating party shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP of
FIFA/FRF in force (as applicable).”
50. Consequently, the Chamber established that compensation should be calculated based on
the other parameters set out in art. 17 of the Regulations, as decided by the parties. 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).
51. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player. In this regard, the Chamber noted
that the Second Contract was terminated on 24 September 2025, while the Loan
Agreement was still in force. Under the Loan Agreement, the Club was bound to pay the
Player a monthly amount of EUR 2,000 net until its expiry on 30 June 2026, and an extra of
EUR 3,000 net for the month of July 2026.
52. Thereafter, had the Player not terminated his employment relationship with the Club, the
Second Contract would have remained valid until 30 June 2027, and as from 1 July 2026,
the Player would have been entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 5,500 net.
53. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 93,000 (i.e., eight salaries
of EUR 2,000 for the period October 2025 to May 2026, a monthly amount of EUR 5,000
corresponding to June 2026, a signing bonus equivalent to EUR 6,000, and twelve salaries
of EUR 5,500 corresponding to the period from July 2026 to June 2027) served as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-22086
54. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player 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
Chamber 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.
55. However, in the present case, the Chamber established that, given its particularities and
the fact that the termination occurred during the loan period, the abovementioned amount
already encompasses the mitigation by the Player with Metaloglobus in that the original
salary of the Player had already been split between the two clubs.
56. Therefore, the Player would in principle be entitled to a total compensation of EUR 93,000
net. However, the Chamber noted that the Player limited his claim (considering all requests
for relief) to an amount of EUR 116,330 net.
57. As the Player has already been awarded EUR 23,630 net in outstanding remuneration, and
in light of the principle of ne ultra petita, the Chamber concluded that the Player was
ultimately entitled to EUR 92,700 net as compensation for breach of contract, and that no
interest should apply because it was not claimed.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
58. 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.
59. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
60. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-22086
61. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
62. The Chamber 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
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-22086
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Aboubacar Camara, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FCU 1948 Craiova, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 19,630 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 2,130 net of as from 16 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,500 net of as from 16 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,500 net of as from 16 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 6,000 net of as from 31 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 4,500 net of as from 16 August 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
- EUR 4,000 net as outstanding remuneration;
- EUR 92,700 net as compensation for breach of contract.
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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-22086
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. 18
REF. FPSD-22086
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. 19