Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22459
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Mbodji Mamadou
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Mbodji Mamadou, Senegal
Represented by Nemanja Filipovic
RESPONDENT:
Thanh Hóa, Vietnam
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22459
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 July 2025, the Senegalese player, Mbodji Mamadou (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Vietnamese club, Dong A Thanh Hoa (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
1 August 2025 until 30 June 2026.
2.
As per art. 2 par. 1 lit. K and lit. L of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly VND
10,000,000 net accommodation allowance (USD 400) as well as one round-trip economy
ticket.
3.
On the same day the Player and the Club signed an Annex to the Contract (hereinafter: the
Annex) which provided a monthly salary of USD 13,000 net payable between the 15 th and
the 20th day of the next month.
4.
On 6 December 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of default
to the Club, via email, stating that the Club only paid him his salary of August 2025, on 1
November 2025, and that no other monthly salary was paid. The Player requested the
payment of USD 26,000 from the Club corresponding to the salaries of September and
October 2025. The Player granted the Club 15days to proceed with payment.
5.
On 15 December 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a second notice
of default to the Club, via email, stating that the Club’s lack of response and absence of
payment put him and his family in severe financial distress.
6.
On 22 December 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of
termination to the Club via email, stating that the Club did not pay the Player’s salaries.
7.
On 28 December 2025, the Player departed from Vietnam and returned to Senegal.
8.
On 20 January 2026, the Player signed a contract with the Kazakh club Irtysh-Pavlodar, valid
from 20 January 2026 until 5 November 2026, for a monthly salary of KZT 4,586,670, for a
total remuneration of KZT 43,819,960.
9.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 25 December 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
11. The Player argued that the Club persistently failed to comply with its contractual payment
obligations. He asserted that, despite being entitled to a monthly salary of USD 13,000, he
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22459
received only one payment, corresponding to August 2025, and even that payment was
made two months late and in cash, contrary to the provisions of the Contract. The Player
stated that all other salaries from September 2025 to June 2026—amounting to USD
130,000—remained unpaid.
12. The Player asserted that he fully honoured his contractual responsibilities. He mentioned
that he trained regularly, remained available for selection, and performed well, scoring 3
goals in 9 matches. He therefore denied any misconduct or breach that could justify the
Club’s non-payment.
13. The Player raised that he repeatedly attempted to resolve the matter amicably. He
explained that he formally placed the Club in default on 5 December 2025 and provided a
15-day deadline to remedy the overdue amounts. He asserted that the Club ignored both
the initial default notice and his subsequent written communication on 15 December 2025.
14. The Player stated that due to the Club’s persistent and serious failure to pay multiple
monthly salaries, he terminated the Contract with immediate effect for just cause. He
argued that the Club’s conduct amounted to a fundamental breach entitling him to
terminate and claim outstanding amounts and compensation.
15. The Player further argued that the Club failed to pay a contractually agreed return airfare
to Dakar (USD 1,302), which remained outstanding. He included this as part of the total
amount in dispute of USD 131,302.
16. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“Declare the claim admissible.
Order the Club to pay all outstanding salaries (USD 130,000) plus the contractual airfare
(USD 1,302).
Order the Club to pay 5% annual interest from each salary’s due date until full payment.
Declare that the Player terminated the contract with just cause.
Order the Club to bear all procedural and legal costs.
Impose sporting sanctions on the Club in case of non‑compliance.
Order the Club to immediately release the Player’s ITC, enabling him to register with a new
club.”
b. Position of the Respondent
17. Despite being provided the opportunity to do so, the Club has not answered the present
claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22459
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 25 December 2025 and submitted
for decision on 17 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.
19. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 Senegalese player and a Vietnamese club.
20. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
21. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
22. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22459
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took of the fact that the
Player is claiming compensation following a termination of his Contract for outstanding
remuneration and the ensuing outstanding remuneration.
24. The Single Judge recalled that since the Club failed to validly answer to this claim, his
decision would be based upon the documentation on file, that is, the argumentation and
evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules.
25. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and ultimately assess the consequences
thereof.
(i) Outstanding salaries:
26. The Single Judge first noted that the Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him his
salaries for the months of September, October, and November 2025.
27. The Single Judge observed that pursuant to the Annex of the Contract, the Player was
entitled to a monthly salary of USD 13,000, payable between the 15 th and 20th day of the
following month, as well as an accommodation allowance of VND 10,000,000. The Single
Judge also observed that the Player never claimed the monthly allowance and decided to
omit this part of the Player’s entitlement and only focus on the monthly salaries from the
Annex.
28. The Single Judge recalled that per the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal,
once a player alleges that the Club had failed to pay him his salaries, the burden of proof
shifts onto the Club to demonstrate that it had indeed paid the salaries as per its
contractual obligations.
29. In absence of an answer to the present claim, the Singled Judge concluded that the Club
has failed to meet its burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5. of the Procedural Rules and
decided to consider the claimed salaries as outstanding.
30. The Single also noted that the termination of the Contract occurred on 22 December 2025
and therefore decided to follow the longstanding practice of the Football Tribunal and
awarded the salary of December 2025 as part of the outstanding remuneration.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22459
31. In following the constant practice of the Football Tribunal, coupled with the specific request
for relief of the Player, the Single Judge decided to award interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over
the outstanding amounts as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 net as from 21 October 2025;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 21 November 2025;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 21 December 2025.and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 22 December 2025.
(ii) Flight ticket reimbursement:
32. The Single Judge then moved on to the Player’s request for reimbursement of his flight
tickets which he claimed amounted to USD 1,302. As per the Annex the Player was entitled
to a roundtrip economy ticket for himself.
33. After careful review of the evidence on file, the Single Judge observed that the Player has
not demonstrated having paid the ticket, as the evidence he provided is not a receipt
evidencing payment.
34. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Player was entitled to this benefit as per art. 2
par.1 lit. L of the Contract and has provided the cost of an adult ticket as part of his evidence
which is of VND 34,259,000 for an adult ticket.
35. In following the constant practice of the Football Tribunal, coupled with the specific request
for relief of the Player, the Single Judge decided to award interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over
the outstanding amounts as from 17 March 2026.
(iii) Termination of the Contract:
36. Having established the foregoing, the Single Judge 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, 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).
37. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the salaries of September, October, and November 2025. Furthermore,
the Single Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the
Respondent in default on 6 December 2025, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 22 December 2025.
38. The Single Judge also 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 concluded between
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22459
the parties. Nonetheless, in absence of an answer by the Respondent, the Single Judge
determined that it did not discharge his burden of proof of making the payment of the
amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
39. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
40. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
41. The Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable by the
Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge 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.
42. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
43. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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).
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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 Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 78,000 (i.e., 6 months times USD 13,000)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract,
45. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22459
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal 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.
46. Indeed, the Player found employment with Kazakh club Irtysh-Pavlodar from 20 January
2026 until 5 November 2026. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the
Player was entitled to approximately KZT 4,586,670 per month equivalent to approximately
USD 9,179.95. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his
damages in the total amount of KZT 19,820,967.43, that is, KZT 4,586,670 times 4 months
and 9 days, which is equivalent to USD 39,670.50.
47. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
48. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the amount of additional compensation
of USD 39,000, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
49. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 67,329.50 to the Claimant (i.e., USD 78,000 minus USD 39,670.50. plus USD 39,000),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
50. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 22 December 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
51. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
52. In this regard, the Single Judge 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22459
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.
53. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
54. 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.
55. The Single Judge 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
56. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
57. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
58. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22459
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mbodji Mamadou, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Dong A Thanh Hoa, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 52,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 21 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 21 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 21 December 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,000 as from 22 December 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
- VND 34,259,000 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17
March 2026 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 67,329.50 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22
December 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22459
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. 12
REF. FPSD-22459
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. 13