Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22393
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Maharafa
Tandina
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Maharafa Tandina, Mali
Represented by Kerem Gurses
RESPONDENT:
Karvan Yevlakh, Azerbaijan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22393
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to the present case are:
-
The Malian player, Maharafa Tandina (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player); and
-
The Azerbaijani club, Karvan Yevlakh (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club).
On 23 December 2024, the Club allegedly sent the Player the following contract offer
(hereinafter: the First Offer):
“By this letter the Parties confirm that they have agreed for 1 year contract period from
01.01.2025-31.12.2025 after successful training and medical examination. The basic monthly
salary is set at 1100 dollars.
We also undertake that all expenses will be covered during his stay in Azerbaijan.”
3.
The First Offer contained a designated space for signature for both parties; however, it only
contained the Club’s signature.
4.
On the same day, 23 December 2024, the Club allegedly sent the Player the following
contract offer (hereinafter: the Second Offer):
“Professional Football Club “Kanan”. based in Azerbaijan. Yevlakh legally represented by the
chairman of the Board Mr. Elnur Azizov - hereinafter "the Club" and football player
MAHARAFA TANDINA (…) "the Payer "
Together hereinafter referred to as the Parties
By this letter the Parties confirm that they have agreed for 1 year contract period from
01.01.2025-31.12.2025. The basic monthly salary is set at 1100 dollars.
We also undertake that all expenses will be covered during his stay in Azerbaijan.”
5.
The Second Offer contained a designated space for signature for both parties and was
signed by both parties.
6.
The Claimant presented the following transcripts of voice messages, which allegedly
occurred between the Player and Mr. Emin Hajizada, an alleged club representative. The
date, is unclear, but appears to be on 29 or 30 December 2024:
“Audio Recording 1 - English Translation By the way, I spoke with the coach. He discussed the
financial issue with the chairman. The chairman is not willing to accept it at all—under no
circumstances. He says, "If he is going to come, he must pay the full amount." I asked how we
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22393
should handle this situation. He informed me of the current status. In fact, he had messaged
me a few hours earlier, but I forgot to tell you. It’s good that you wrote and reminded me.
How should we proceed?
Audio Recording 2 - English Translation Brother, you had connections with some football
players in Türkiye, or with Mamadou Bai. Is it possible for you to borrow some money from
one of them? You could then repay it in installments.
Audio Recording 3 - English Translation Brother, try asking around. For Türkiye, USD 3,000 is
not a very large amount, in my opinion. If you have footballer friends there, you might be
able to handle it For example, if there is USD 1,000 available, we can add another USD 2,000
and resolve the issue—there is no problem. I will hand over the money right in front of you. I
know you fully trust me, but I will still give it to you in your presence so that you are absolutely
certain. I swear, not a single cent of that money will remain with me. We will also discuss this
in the presence of the coach. You know my situation as well—I have marriage-related
expenses and so on. Otherwise, I would have paid it myself, but my financial situation is not
suitable at the moment. Therefore, if you manage to obtain oney from someone, you can
repay it in installments.”
7.
The Claimant informed FIFA that he remained unemployed following the alleged
termination of the Second Offer.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 18 December 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
9.
The Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA for breach of contract.
10. The Claimant argued that he had entered into a valid and binding employment contract
with the Respondent Club on 23 December 2024, after rejecting an earlier conditional offer
and signing a revised, unconditional agreement that included all essential elements of an
employment relationship, namely, duration, remuneration, obligations, and signatures. He
emphasized that, relying on this finalized contract, he undertook all necessary steps to
commence his employment, including securing a visa and purchasing flight tickets for
himself and his accompanying relative, incurring expenses of TND 16,656.65. According to
the Claimant, the Club’s subsequent demand that he personally pays USD 3,000 as a
“license fee” had no contractual basis and constituted an unlawful attempt to impose new
terms. According to the Player when he refused this request, the Club unilaterally withdrew
from the agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22393
11. The Claimant maintained that the Club’s conduct amounted to termination without just
cause under the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations).
12. Therefore, the Claimant requested the following relief:
“1. Allow the claim in full;
2. Declare that the Club terminated the employment contract without just cause;
3. Order the Club to pay 13,200 USD as compensation for the residual value;
4. Order the Club to reimburse 16,656.65 TRY travel expenses and all visa and related costs;
5. Apply 5% annual interest;
6. Impose a registration ban if payment is not made;
7. Order the Club to pay 20,000 CHF as legal cost contribution;
8. Order the Club to bear the full procedural costs. “
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22393
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. 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 18 December 2025 and submitted for decision
on 26 March 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.
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 Malian player and an Azerbaijani club.
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.
b. 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 Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22393
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
is a claim of a Player against a Club concerning an alleged termination of their employment
relationship.
20. The Chamber started by recalling the Claimant’s arguments, namely that the parties had
concluded a valid employment contract, as the Second Offer contained all essential terms,
and that the Club subsequently terminated the contract without just cause after
demanding payment of a license fee, which the Claimant refused to pay.
21. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to present its reply to the claim
of the Claimant, and therefore its decision would be made on the basis of the
documentation on file, that is, the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant, in
line with art. 14 par. 1 and art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
22. Consequently, the Chamber considered that its task was to determine whether the parties
had an employment relationship; and, if so, the manner and consequences of its alleged
termination.
23. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber observed that while the Second Offer
presented by the Player contained signatures attributed to both parties as well as a start
date, end date, and salary, the conditions under which the document was allegedly agreed
raises doubts as to its intended effects. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber noted
that the Player acknowledged that he was not in the same country at the time of signature,
yet he failed to provide any evidence demonstrating how the document was exchanged or
transmitted between the parties. Likewise, the majority of the Chamber observed that
there was no proof that he communicated his acceptance to the Club, nor any indication
as to whom such acceptance was allegedly conveyed.
24. Nonetheless, and while its validity as an employment contract remains somewhat
questionable, the majority of the Chamber noted that the Second Offer was signed and
that such signature remained uncontested by the Club.
25. Moreover, and even assuming that the Second Offer constituted a valid employment
contract, the majority of the Chamber found that the Player’s version of events was not
supported by verifiable evidence. The Player alleged that he purchased flight tickets on 28
December 2024, purportedly for travel on the same day; however, it remained unclear
whether the Player actually travelled. His bare assertion that he “purchased flight tickets
for himself and his accompanying relative” was insufficient to demonstrate that he took
any concrete or subsequent steps to join the Club.
26. The majority of the Chamber further noted the Player’s allegation that the Club requested
an additional payment from him, that he refused such request, and that the Club
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22393
consequently terminated the contract. However, the document submitted by the Player,
namely transcripts of voice messages in WhatsApp, in support of this allegation did not
identify the sender corroborating his role, contained no date, and lacked any contextual
information. Moreover, the majority Chamber noted that such exchanges of WhatsApp
messages reflect a discussion with an intermediary rather than with any duly identified
representative of the Club. What is more, from the messages exchanged it cannot be
retrieved that the Club terminated the Contract and informed him accordingly.
27. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber found that there was no credible evidence
establishing that: (i) the Club itself demanded any additional payment, (ii) a disagreement
occurred between the parties, or (iii) the Club withdrew from or terminated the alleged
contract.
28. Notably, following the alleged events of 30 December 2024, the Player made no attempt to
contact the Club until almost a year later with the filing of the present claim on 18
December 2025. The majority of the Chamber considered that such prolonged inaction was
inconsistent with the conduct reasonably expected from a party who believed that a valid
employment contract had been concluded and wished to execute the contract.
29. In light of the Player’s conduct and the absence of reliable evidence to support the Player’s
contentions, the majority of the Chamber concluded that, even if the Second Offer had
been deemed valid, it was never executed. Accordingly, the majority Chamber decided to
reject the Player’s claim regarding outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract.
30. Finally, the majority of the Chamber found that the Player’s request for reimbursement of
flight tickets was unfounded. The Second Offer did not contain any provision providing for
the reimbursement of travel expenses. As such the majority of the Chamber considered
that the Player’s claim for reimbursement lacked any contractual basis and therefore had
to be dismissed.
d. Costs
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22393
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Maharafa Tandina, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22393
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. 10