Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13557
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Monimon
De Louis Florian Yonsian
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Monimon De Louis Florian Yonsian, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by FIFPro Division Africa
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Pioneers Club, Egypt
Represented by 14 Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13557
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The British and Ivorian player, Monimon De Louis Florian Yonsian (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), born on 25 November 2000; and
•
The Egyptian club, Pioneers Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant), affiliated to the Egyptian Football Association (hereinafter: EFA).
2.
The Player and the Club are jointly referred to as the Parties.
3.
On 15 September 2023, the Club entered a transfer instruction into the FIFA Transfer
Matching System (hereinafter: TMS) to engage the Player permanently as out of contract
(Transfer ID: 748719). The copy of the contract uploaded to TMS contains the following
terms and conditions (hereinafter: the TMS Contract):
•
Date of signature: 15 September 2023
•
Duration: One season – 2023/2024
•
Remuneration: EGP 322,50.65 in total, payable as follows:
o
o
o
EGP 161,290.65 on 1 October 2023;
EGP 80,645 on 15 February 2024;
EGP 80,645 on 1 May 2024.
4.
Only the first two pages of the TMS Contract were uploaded to the relevant transfer
instruction. Furthermore, the Player disputed having signed this contract.
5.
On 13 November 2023, the Parties allegedly entered into a further employment contract,
which was registered with the EFA. The copy of the contract registered with the EFA has the
following terms and conditions (hereinafter: EFA Contract):
•
Date of signature: 13 November 2023
•
Duration: Three seasons – 2023/2024, 2024/2025 and 2025/2026
•
Remuneration:
o
EGP 322,50.65 in total for the 2023/2024 season, payable as follows:
EGP 187,500 on 15 January 2024;
EGP 93,750 on 15 March 2025;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13557
o
EGP 425,000 in total for the 2024/2025 season, payable as follows:
o
EGP 106,250 on 1 October 2025;
EGP 106,250 on 1 January 2026;
EGP 106,250 on 1 March 2026;
EGP 106,250 on 1 May 2026.
EGP 475,000 in total for the 2025/2026 season, payable as follows:
•
EGP 93,750 on 15 May 2025.
EGP 118,750 on 1 October 2026;
EGP 118,750 on 15 January 2027;
EGP 118,750 on 15 March 2027;
EGP 118,750 on 15 May 2027.
Additional clauses:
“1- The Player agrees to receive his financial dues during the contract period
with the Club in Egyptian Pounds.
2- The Player is entitled for one economy class round trip flight ticket during
the season.”
6.
The EFA Contract does not refer to the TMS Contract, and the Player also denies ever
signing this document.
7.
On 20 November 2023, the Club sent the Player two letters stating the following, quoted
verbatim:
“Dear Florian,
With reference to your employment contract with Pioneers Club
Kindly be advised that for the past 2 weeks Pioneers team manager on different occasions
is trying to deliver your pay cheque as per said contract however you continuously refuse
with no clear reason given or justification.
You are kindly requested to attend to the team manager office tomorrow to receive your
cheque or provide us with bank account if you prefer a transfer.
Meanwhile in case you continue the attitude the club reserve all its legal rights under said
employment contract and will exercise all necessary actions to protect said rights.“
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13557
***
“Dear Florian,
Kindly be advised that you have been unjustifiably absent from training today
20/11/2023.
Accordingly, you are kindly requested to abide by your obligation under the employment
contract with our club.
Meanwhile, kindly be advised that we will apply a penalty of deduction on your upcoming
pay cheque as per internal team regulations submitted to you.
In case such behavior continues, the club protect all its legal rights and will continue to
apply disciplinary measures as per our regulations.”
8.
On 21 November 2023, the Club sent the Player a letter stating the following, quoted
verbatim:
“Dear Florian,
Kindly be advised that you have been unjustifiably absent from training today
21/11/2023.
Accordingly, you are kindly requested to abide by your obligation under the employment
contract with our club.
Meanwhile, kindly be advised that we will apply a penalty of deduction on your upcoming
pay cheque as per internal team regulations submitted to you.
In case such behavior continues, the club protect all its legal rights and will continue to
apply disciplinary measures as per our regulations.”
9.
On 27 and 30 November 2023, the Club again contacted the Player, acknowledging that he
had been absent from training and that sanctions might apply.
10. On 13 December 2024, the Club sent the Player a letter stating the following, quoted
verbatim:
“We are very surprised to receive your email below despite our several reminders for you
to respect your contractual obligations and join the team training and despite our several
requests to attend to the club investigation to discuss any issues you may need to discuss
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13557
Having said that and as a sign of good faith we request you to appear in club on Saturday
16/12 1 pm to discuss any issues you may need to discuss
Meanwhile, we still remind you that you insist on breaching your contractual obligations
by missing training and rejecting to collect your pay cheque (kindly refer to our endless
reminders) and the club reserves all its legal obligations in this regard.”
11. The Player wrote the following, in response thereto, quoted verbatim:
“Thank you please which club ? can you confirm the location please.
I would also like Mr Aymen and Mr Ibrahim to be present for this discussion as they also
were present when I signed.
Furthermore I would like the copy of the contracts that I signed to also be brought to the
meeting as I still have not been given my copies of the contracts. So the discussions can
be facilitated and a solution can be found and so that the matter between me and the
club can be settled on that Saturday 16 of December. Thank you again.”
12. On 18 and 19 December 2023, the Parties exchanged further correspondence via email. In
summary:
•
The Player expressed his intention to terminate the ongoing employment
relationship prematurely, citing several reasons, including confusion
surrounding the contractual framework, non-payment of salary, and lack of
confirmation of registration. He also formally requested a release letter from the
Club.
•
The Club refuted the Player’s allegations, stating that the Player should obtain a
copy of his contract from the EFA. The Club asserted that it had complied with its
obligations and alleged that the Player had refused to accept payment and had
acted unprofessionally. The Club rejected the Player’s request for a release letter
and indicated that it would exercise its contractual rights.
•
The Player informed the Club that he had obtained a copy of the EFA Contract
but denied ever signing it. He reiterated that he had joined the Club in July 2023
and had previously been involved with another Egyptian club, ENPPI FC
(hereinafter: ENPPI FC). He also claimed that he had not received any salary for
three months.
•
The Player stated that he was no longer interested in discussing his contractual
situation via email. He alleged that the Club had failed to provide the correct
version of his contract and had manipulated its contents. He again challenged
the legitimacy of the Club’s conduct and reiterated his request for a release
letter, citing the following reasons, quoted verbatim:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13557
“1. The club has failed to register me, the proof is that there is no contract at
the EFA that proves that I am currently registered
2. The club has not payed me my salary and forces me to take an amount that
has not been put in the contract I signed
3. I have been paying my house rent, transports and food from my own pockets
from pre-season (July) until the present time (December). Whilst the club
refused to pay me my salary.
4. The contract handed by the club to the EFA is a contract that the club never
discussed to me about and added clauses and fees I have no awareness
about.”
13. On 23 December 2024, the Club refuted the Player’s allegations and, inter alia, invited him
to return to the Club’s premises to resume training, receive any outstanding payments, and
submit any offers received from other clubs for the Club’s consideration, at the risk of
breach of contract.
14. On 3 January 2024, the Player sent a notice of the default to the Club and ENPPI FC, stating
the following, quoted verbatim:
“As you may recall, I first trained for one month with ENPPI FC. ENPPI FC was interested
in me as a professional football player but was of the opinion that I needed more
experience, reason for which I was sent to Pioneers FC. It is my understanding that these
clubs have a partnership.
In this context, on 22 July 2023 I was made to believe that I signed a 'pre-liminary' contract
with ENPPI FC that would start in January 2024 as well as a 1-year contract with Pioneers
FC (for a total salary of EGP 250,000), which would then be rescinded in January 2024 for
me to join ENPPI FC on the basis of the 'preliminary' contract. Regretfully, I never received
a signed and fully filled out version of those contracts.
In this regard, please note that I have not received a single salary payment since my
arrival until now. It was only with the help of my agent that I was able to pay my rent,
transportation costs and food. I asked repeatedly for my salary, but unfortunately to no
avail. In the meantime, I kept on training and even played 5 official games for Pioneers
FC, however despite me providing my services to the club, I did not get any salary in
return. This is unacceptable.
Given the absence of payment and the absence of receiving a full version of my contracts,
I went to the Egyptian Football Association ('EFA') to request the copies of my contract. To
my surprise, the contract that the EFA gave me was inaccurate and not in line with what
was discussed and agreed on with Pioneers FC and ENPPI FC:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13557
First, the contract I received from the EFA - concluded with Pioneers FC - was supposedly
signed only on 13 November 2023, even though I never signed any documents on this
date and I already trained and played matches long before that date.
Second, the contract indicated that it started in January 2024 with the first payment being
due on the 15th of January 2024 whereas I was training and playing official matches long
before January 2024.
Third, the contract has a duration which I never agreed too.
All these elements were added to the contract by the club(s) without my consent. I am
shocked by the clubs' behaviour and feel cheated.
In addition to the above, you have so far failed to provide me with my ID, residence and
work permit documents, although I requested those many times. This puts me in a
precarious and unacceptable situation which needs to be remedied.
On account of all of the above, I request within the next 5 days that both Pioneers FC and
ENPPI FC:
1. Clarify my contractual situation with both clubs;
2. Send me the employment contracts as originally agreed;
3. Pay me my outstanding salaries for the months of July to December 2023;
4. Arrange my ID, residence and work permit documents.
Please note that should the clubs not comply with my requests, I will inform FIFA about
these irregularities, may opt to terminate my contracts and I will seek redress in front of
the relevant decision-making bodies.
Finally, should you wish to terminate my contract, please put an offer in writing for me
to consider.”
15. On 7 January 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s notice, quoted verbatim:
“With reference to your letter dated 3 January 2024 and our numerous correspondence
re the same subject, kindly note that we have in different occasions clarified to you the
details of your contract. We are also aware that you already received your original copy
from the federation as we have directed you earlier as per the applicable regulations in
Egypt. Having said that we reiterate the fact that you are still absent from training since
20 November 2023 despite our several reminders to report to training and to receive
your balance salary. However all these reminders were rejected by you leading to your
absence on so far 5 official games which negatively affected the team especially with our
enability to register any other foreign player.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13557
As for your other requests, kindly be informed that the club numerous times attempted
to call you to receive payments and you have unjustifiably rejected with no clarification
given having said that we confirm that you already received total of EGP 42k between
salaries and allowances (related receipts may be furnished upon request)
On the other hand, club has already issued your ID by virtue of which you managed to
play the games. As for the residency process as you know it was delayed due to the expiry
of your passport however club already started the process and is only pending the
original passport and your physical presence in front if the department of residency in
cairo.
In view of the above and in order to avoid further unnecessary delay your are required
to immediately come to the club to appear in front of sports director and return to
training. You will also receive your salary and pending allowance if any. Meanwhile we
expect you to return to training within the coming 5 days post which the club reserve all
its legal rights in this regard. Regards”.
16. On 9 January 2024, the Player again contacted the Club, reiterating his previous requests
and demanding a “clear and concise” response within an additional five-day period. In the
same communication, the Player acknowledged receipt of EGP 42,000 from the Club.
17. On 10 January 2024, the Club responded to the Player, referring to its previous
correspondence and reaffirming its position. The Club maintained that the Player had
failed to provide his bank account details and cited ongoing issues related to the renewal
of his passport. The Club reiterated its invitation for the Player to resume training and
address any outstanding obligations.
18. By letter dated 15 January 2024, but allegedly dispatched on 17 January 2024, the Player
contacted the Club once more, stating that he remained unaware of his contractual status.
He asserted that he did not possess an Egyptian bank account due to the Club’s failure to
provide the necessary documentation. The Player granted the Club an additional 48 hours
to clarify his contractual situation, provide copies of the relevant agreements, settle
outstanding remuneration, and arrange for the issuance of the required documents. He
further stated that failure to comply within the specified timeframe would result in the
termination of the contract.
19. On 19 January 2024, the Club issued a further response to the Player, reiterating the same
arguments presented in its previous correspondence. The Club acknowledged receipt of
the Player’s bank details but claimed they were insufficient to process payments, citing the
requirement to use the national currency. The Club also appeared to provide copies of the
TMS Contract and the EFA Contract, and reaffirmed its position that the Player had
breached his contractual obligations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13557
20. On 25 January 2024, the Club notified the Player of the termination of their employment
relationship (hereinafter: the Termination Notice) on the following grounds, quoted
verbatim:
“We make reference to our previous correspondences, including the ones dated 23
December 2023, 7 January 2024, 10 January 2024, whereby (i) we clarified several issues
related to your contractual conditions, as well as (i) reiterated your contractual
obligations and, more importantly, (iii) specifically requested you to return to the Club
and resume training as contractually agreed between the Parties on 13 September 2023,
and extended on 13 November 2023.
Throughout the last two months, the Club has received severe accusations from your side
concerning the Club’s actions and alleged failure to comply with its financial obligations,
in particular the purported non-payment of your salaries as indicated in your default
notices, contents of which our Club vehemently objects for the reasons already explain
in the above-cited correspondences.
For the avoidance of doubt, and as already advanced in the notifications exchanged with
you, we are of the firm opinion that your prolonged absence from the Club since 20
November 2023, despite the numerous attempts and written requests to resume training,
is a blatant infringement of the contractual obligations established under the
Employment Agreement signed between the Parties.
Moreover, the Club contends that the aforesaid violation of the Employment Agreement,
together with the constant failure to abide by the Club's instructions, the absurd
allegations contained in your correspondences against our Club, and the lack of a mutual
agreement, besides constituting sufficient evidence of your conflictive and abusive
conduct, also clearly demonstrates that the employment relationship between the Parties
has become untenable, thus putting the Club in a position to immediately terminate the
Employment Agreement signed between the Parties with just cause, as per established
under Article 14 FIFA RSTP.
In view of the foregoing, the Club hereby unilaterally terminates the Employment
Agreement signed between the Parties on 13 September 2023, extended on 13 November
2023, with lust cause and with immediate effects.
Finally, please note that, as already advanced in the Club's previous correspondences,
the latter will initiate the appropriate legal actions against you with the purpose of
securing appropriate compensation for the damages suffered before the competent
judicial bodies.”
21. The Player informed that, following the Termination Notice, he was registered with the
British club, Warrington Rylands as an amateur. The Player acknowledged receiving GBP
2,000 for the three weeks he spent at the club.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13557
22. According to the information available in TMS, the Player signed a new employment
agreement with the Welsh club, Flint Town United FC, valid from 31 July 2024 to 1 January
2025. According to this contract, the Player would be entitled to a total remuneration of
GBP 4,151.78.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 31 January 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
24. In his claim, the Player first explained that the Club and ENPPI FC are “closely connected”
and that on 22 July 2024 he “was made to believe that he signed a ‘pre-liminary’ contract with
the Egyptian club, ENPPI FC, that would start in January 2024 as well as a 1-year contract with
[the Club] (for a total salary of EGP 250,000, i.e. a monthly salary of EGP 20,833), which would
then be rescinded in January 2024 for him to join ENPPI FC on the basis of the ‘pre-liminary’
contract”. However, he claimed that he was never given a copy of these documents, only
blank copies to sign.
25. The Player also stated that the signing dates of each contract and the payment schedules
were inconsistent, and that it would have been illogical to accept that he would have agreed
with the conditions therein established. He made the following remarks in this respect,
quoted verbatim:
“7. However, the fact that the contract was altered without his consent can be proven
given that it makes of course no sense for the Player to sign a contract in September 2023
for one season with the first payment being due on 1 October 2023 (EGP 161,290.65) and
when he did not receive this first payment on that date, to think that he would then sign
a new contract on 13 November 2023 to extend it with two more years and then to agree
that his first salary payment for the season 2023/2024 would not be made in October
2023, but would be postponed to 15 January 2024 (EGP 187,500). This would mean that
the Player somehow would agree that between July 2023 until 15 January 2024, i.e. for 6
months, he would not be entitled to any payment and that once he faced the first nonpayment by the Club, he decided not to ask for his money but instead to extend the
contract and postpone the first payment with 3 more months. This is completely illogical
and simply not realistic.
8. As the same time, if the timeline of the Club was correct, it begs the question why the
Club was asking in their letter of 7 January 2024 to the Player to come to the Club to get
his salaries? Indeed, it seems to be the Club's view that, in accordance with the contract
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13557
they say is valid, no salary would be due until 15 January 2024, so which salaries was the
Club referring to in their emails? It also begs the question which salaries they apparently
paid prior to the termination of the contract if they deemed that the first salary was only
due on 15 January.
9. Finally, keeping in mind the economic reality of the Player, it is entirely preposterous
to think that he - as a foreign player - would agree to play professional football for an
Egyptian professional club for free for 6 months.
10. In view of the above, the Player submits that the FIFA DRC should primarily rule that
there was a 1-year contract in place signed in July 2023, by means of which the Player
was entitled to a total fee of EGP 250,000, meaning a monthly salary of EGP 20,833.33.”
26. The Player also claimed that, despite having repeatedly requested updates in this respect,
he never received a single payment. He added that he played an official match for the Club
on 11 October 2023 but still did not receive a copy of the contract or related documents,
nor did he receive payment.
27. In light of the foregoing, the Player alleged that he was forced to approach the EFA to
request a copy of his contract. He claimed that, in doing so, he received a document (i.e.,
the EFA Contract) with terms and conditions that had never been agreed upon, especially
with regard to a longer duration than had previously been set. To support of his argument,
the Player also pointed out that the contract uploaded into TMS (i.e., the TMS Contract)
provided for different conditions to those in the EFA Contract, and these were also not
aligned with their previous agreement.
28. The Player then recalled the notifications exchanged between the Parties, highlighting that
the Club had not only failed to provide him with the requested documentation but had also
abruptly terminated their employment relationship at the end of January 2024.
29. With regard to the termination, the Player asserted that:
•
It was not an ultima ratio measure;
•
The Club stated on 10 January 2024 that it was “not planning to waste more time
on such matter”; and
•
The Player had a valid reason to stay away from training given that the Club had
failed to pay him his salary and to arrange his work and residence permit.
30. With regard to the situation concerning his passport, invoked by the Club during the
correspondence exchange, the Player pointed out that his new document would not expire
until 2028 and that the Club was therefore already in possession of everything that it
needed to arrange his work authorization(s).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13557
31. Furthermore, the Player emphasized that the only amount paid by the Club (i.e., EGP
42,000) was intended to cover his rent (EGP 16,000), flight ticket (EGP 22,000), and
transportation costs (EGP 4,000). Conversely, he received no salary for any of the months
he worked.
32. Based on the above considerations, the Player filed the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine
that the Club terminated the employment relationship without just cause on 25 January
2024, and to order the Club to pay him the following amounts:
Primarily:
-
EGP 145,833.33 as outstanding salaries (salary of July 2023 to January 2024, 7
x EGP 20,833.33) + 5% interest as from the due dates, being the end of each
month).
-
EGP 104,166.67 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract
(salary of February to June 2024, 5 x EGP 20,833) + 5% interest as from 26
January 2024.
-
EGP 125,000 as a compensation for the specificity of sport + 5% interest as from
26 January 2024.
In the alternative, only if the FIFA DRC would consider the contract of 15 September 2023
valid:
-
EGP 161,290.65 as outstanding salaries + 5% interest as from 2 October 2023.
-
EGP 161,290 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5%
interest as from 26 January 2024.
-
EGP 161,290 as a compensation for the specificity of sport + 5% interest as from
26 January 2024.
In the further alternative, and only if the FIFA DRC would consider the contract of 13
November 2023 valid:
-
EGP 187,500 as outstanding salaries+ 5% interest as from 16 January 2024.
-
EGP 1,087,500 as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5%
interest as from 26 January 2024.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13557
-
EGP 637,500 as a compensation for the specificity of sport +5% interest as from
26 January 2024.
In both scenarios, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to impose sporting sanctions on
the Club on the basis of art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP for breach of contract, for the latter's
breach of contract within the protected period.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
33. On 3 March 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim
against him. The Club disputed the Player’s account of the facts, inter alia, as follows.
34. Initially, the Club stressed that the EFA Contract was the only document relevant to
assessing their employment relationship and that it contained all the essential negotii. In
particular, the Club confirmed that it had entered into the TMS Contract but argued that
this was superseded by the EFA Contract two months later.
35. According to the Club, the only payment due under the TMS Contract was the instalment
payable on 1 October 2023. All others already overlapped with the EFA Contract and should
therefore be paid in accordance with it. Consequently, the Club argued that the Player’s
position regarding his overdue payables had no merit.
36. Contrario sensu, the Club claimed that the Player had breached his contractual obligations
due to his unjustified and prolonged absence from duty. The Club referred to the multiple
notices sent to the Player at the end of November 2023, which went unanswered.
Furthermore, the Club argued that in December 2023, the Player failed to attend meetings,
made false allegations, and explicitly expressed his intention to terminate the employment
relationship.
37. As a result, the Club claimed that it had opened an investigation against the Player, to which
he again failed to respond. Similarly, he allegedly “kept on resorting to unviable justifications
towards not complying with the [EFA Contract]”. The Club also denied any involvement of
ENPPI FC and stressed that the Player attempted to force his release without a cause.
38. The Club also emphasised that:
•
it had already confirmed the validity of the EFA Contract to the Player on multiple
occasions, yet he still insisted on raising unreasonable issues;
•
the Player’s registration was delayed because his passport had expired at the
time. Conversely, “the Club had earnestly commenced the requisite procedures and
was merely anticipating expeditious resolution upon the submission of the original
passport and the Player’s physical presence before the Department of Residency in
Cairo”. The Club filed copies of the Player’s old and new passports to support
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13557
their position;
•
the Player refused his payments, despite the Club’s attempts to pay him.
Furthermore, (i) any payment could only be made in EGP; (ii) he was not entitled
to any sums for the period that of his absence; and (iii) the Player had already
confirmed payment of EGP 42,000, leaving no outstanding payments.
39. In light of the foregoing, the Club claimed that it had terminated the EFA Contract with just
cause, based on art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations). In particular, the Club referred to art. 14, par. 2 of the
Regulations, claiming that the Player had attempted to force the termination and had
committed repeated and prolonged breaches of contract.
40. The Club referred to the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence on long-lasting absences,
claiming that it confirmed its right to terminate the EFA Contract in this case. The Club also
refuted each of the “excuses” listed by the Player in the attempt to justify his position.
41. Consequently, the Club claimed to be the party entitled to compensation for breach of
contract under art. 17 of the Regulations. In this regard, the Club requested to be awarded
EGP 1,087,500 i.e., the residual value of the EFA Contract, “which shall serve as the minimum
cap for the calculation of an appropriate compensation taking into consideration all the
objective factors. Hence, the compensation cannot be less than this bare minimum amount in
any case”.
42. If the Football Tribunal ruled that the EFA Contract had been terminated without just cause,
the Club argued that any compensation should be limited to the residual value of the EFA
Contract, reduced by any new employment found by the Player. Furthermore, no additional
compensation or compensation for the specificity of sport were applicable in the present
case. In fact, should any specificity of sport be considered in this case, the Club claimed
that it should be deducted from any sum owed to the Player due to his controversial
behaviour.
43. The Club also stated that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the Player as the breach
occurred during the protected period.
44. The Club’s requests for relief were as follows:
“In light of all of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant respectfully requests the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) Dismiss the Statement of Claim in its entirety;
(ii) Determine that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent materially breached the
Employment Agreement signed between the Parties by remaining absent from duty for a
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13557
prolonged period of time, consequently leading to the unilateral termination of the
Parties’ employment relationship by the Club with just cause;
(iii) Order the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay compensation to the Respondent /
Counterclaimant in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP, comprehensively
analysing the market value and market expectations, which in any case could never be
less than 1.087.500,00 EGP (One Million Eighty-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred
Egyptian Pounds);
(iv) Impose sporting sanctions upon the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as considered
appropriate.
In the alternative,
(v) In the unlikely event that FIFA Football Tribunal determines that there was no just
cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Parties, to
determine that any compensation owed to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must
never exceed the residual value of the Agreement at the termination date.”
45. On 4 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
counterclaim and requested that it provide “the details of a bank account registered in the
name of the counterclaimant on a signed copy of the Bank Account Registration Form” by no
later than 8 March 2024 (cf., art. 18, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
46. On 8 March 2024, the Club filed a copy of the Bank Account Registration Form (hereinafter:
BARF) in the name of its CEO. The document provided by the Club was also undated.
47. On 11 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the BARF filed by
the Club. However, they specified that the BARF should be issued in the name of the
Counterclaimant and that no exceptions would be made in this respect. Consequently, the
Club was asked to resubmit the BARF, including the correct beneficiary and the relevant
date by no later than 13 March 2024. At the request of the Club, this deadline was extended
to 18 March 2024.
48. On 18 March 2024, the Club submitted another BARF, this time referring to a bank account
in the name of “Al Alamiah for Sports Service. Pioneer FC”. The BARF submitted by the Club
was signed and dated by the same representative.
49. On 19 March 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat requested that the Club clarify whether it
was indeed one of the account holders provided in the last version of the BARF.
50. On 22 March 2024, the Club explained that the company mentioned in the BARF was its
sole shareholder and therefore that the BARF should be accepted.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13557
51. Also on 22 March 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
BARF and stated that it would be up to the DRC to rule on its validity and, consequently,
the admissibility of the counterclaim. Furthermore, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the
Player to respond to the Club’s counterclaim.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
52. On 10 April 2024, the Player submitted his reply to the Club’s counterclaim.
53. In doing so, the Player first disputed the admissibility of the Club’s counterclaim in light of
art. 18, par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules.
54. Alternatively, the Player also argued that the substance of the Club’s counterclaim should
be rejected. In particular, the Player reiterated that:
•
There was no contract signed in September 2023 or November 2023. In fact, he
only signed a blank document in July 2023, which the Club then edited. As proof,
the Player highlighted that the Club had not disputed or explained the fact that
he had been already at their premises since mid-July 2023;
•
It would be illogical to sign a contract in September 2023 with the first payment
being only due on 1 October 2023, extend the same contract by two more years,
and agree to postpone any payment until 15 January 2024. In the Player’s view,
this would imply that he would have worked for free since July 2023;
•
The Club has never paid the first instalment mentioned in the TMS Contract.
Consequently, the Club was in default from 1 October 2023 and could not
demand that the Player provide services as usual;
•
The opening of the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Club’s letters
at the end of November 2023 was never notified to the Player. Furthermore, and
even if the document had been delivered, this would not constitute a bilateral
procedure with safeguarded procedural rights, but rather would have indicated
that the Club had unilaterally decided to impose a penalty on the Player;
•
The Club had never attempted to deliver a cheque to him;
•
The Club could not prove that it had taken the necessary measures to obtain his
ID and work authorization. Similarly, the Club did not explain why it had failed to
hand over a copy of his contract(s);
•
The reason for the Player’s absence was the lack of clarity by the Club and the
failure to remedy the situation despite the multiple notices.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-13557
55. In light of the above, the Player disputed the Club’s cause for terminating their employment
relationship. In particular, he argued that the termination was not an ultima ratio measure,
and that, even if it were, (quad non) no compensation should be awarded to the Club. The
Player also emphasized that the Club had suffered no loss with the termination and that,
even if he were found to be in breach, any compensation should be reduced to zero.
56. The Player did not file any documents together with his submission.
d. Additional comments by the Club on the original copy of the EFA Contract
57. On 26 August 2024, the FIFA general secretariat referred the Parties to art. 23, par. 2 of the
Procedural Rules, inviting the Club to provide the original copy of the EFA Contract via
courier, together with “additional information regarding the execution of the above-mentioned
contract (i.e. how, where and when the document was signed, who was present)”.
58. On 30 August 2024, the Club submitted the physical version of the EFA Contract, which
matched the version made available in the case file. The Club further stated the following,
quoted verbatim:
“Please note that the aforesaid document was signed on the date indicated therein, in
the presence of the Player himself, together with the Respondent’s Team Administrator,
Mr. Ahmed Karam, the Respondent’s Football Manager, Mr. Walid Ramadan, and the
Respondent’s Translator, Mr. Tarek Khatab, at the premises of ENPI Club –at Kilo 17 Cairo
Suez Road, Cairo, Egypt. Finally, please note that the Respondent does not have any
further relevant documentation to submit.
Given that the Respondent does not owe a stadium or any official premises, thus
operating under the same premises of ENPI Club, with whom it has a business
partnership, the copies were signed at the premises of ENPI FC and the Google
coordinates can be found in the following link […].”
e. Additional comments by the Parties on the Interim Regulatory Framework
59. On 4 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit any additional
comments in light of the new interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the
FIFA Council on 23 December 2024.
60. On 12 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged that no response had
been received from the Club and invited the Player to submit any comments he might have
on the matter.
61. On 18 February 2025, the Player submitted his comments, highlighting that no
compensation could be awarded to the Club in accordance with the updated wording of
art. 17 of the Regulations, given that the Club had failed to prove any damages.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-13557
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
62. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analyzed
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 31 January 2024 and submitted for decision
on 3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
63. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a British / Ivorian player and an Egyptian club.
64. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recognized that there was a preliminary
procedural issue concerning the admissibility of the Club’s counterclaim and, particularly
with regard to the BARF submitted together with its petition. Nevertheless, the Chamber
stated that the Club provided sufficient documentation to prove that the banking
arrangement concerned an internal proxy manner, which was also not specifically
challenged by the Player.
65. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the counterclaim was admissible.
66. Lastly, the Chamber analyzed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 of the Regulations
(July 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
67. 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).
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-13557
c. Merits of the dispute
68. 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 emphasized 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
69. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by the Player against the Club, as well as a counterclaim
submitted by the Club.
70. The Chamber observed that the Parties presented conflicting accounts regarding both the
termination of their employment relationship and the contractual framework governing it.
Specifically, the Player asserted that a contract signed in July 2023 should govern the
relationship, whereas the Club maintained that the EFA Contract is the applicable
agreement.
71. In this context, the DRC recognized that its task was to determine:
•
The contract governing the Parties’ relationship;
•
The circumstances surrounding the termination and whether just cause
existed; and
•
The legal consequences arising therefrom.
72. The Chamber then proceeded to assess each of these elements in turn.
A. CONTRACTUAL BASIS
73. The Chamber first addressed the Parties’ disagreement regarding which version of the
contract should be considered to resolve the dispute.
74. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player consistently maintained – both in his
written submissions and throughout the proceedings – that he signed a one-year contract
with the Club in July 2023, with total remuneration amounting to EGP 250,000.
75. The Chamber further observed that the Player denied having ever concluded either the
TMS Contract or the EFA Contract. He claimed instead that he had signed a preliminary
agreement in July 2023, which was subsequently altered by the Club without his knowledge
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-13557
or consent. Additionally, the Player asserted that the final understanding between the
Parties was that he would join the Club’s business partner, ENPPI FC, rather than the Club
itself.
76. Conversely, the Club denied the existence of any contract signed in July 2023. It maintained
that both the TMS Contract and the EFA Contract were valid and binding. Although the Club
did not clarify why the TMS Contract was replaced by the EFA Contract within a short
timeframe, it claimed that the latter was duly signed by both Parties, included the Player’s
thumbprints, and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
77. In light of the above, the Chamber found that the evidence on file was open to multiple
interpretations. In fact, the Chamber concluded that neither party had presented a fully
coherent and substantiated narrative.
78. On the one hand, the Chamber noted that although the Player alleged he had been
employed by the Club as of mid-July 2023, he failed to provide any supporting
documentation. For instance, while he claimed to have participated in official matches, no
evidence was submitted to substantiate this. Similarly, his assertions regarding
communications with the Club about outstanding remuneration, or the provision of
housing and transportation allowances, remained unproven.
79. Given that the Player was only registered in TMS in September 2023, the Chamber found it
questionable whether he would have been eligible to participate in official matches prior
to that date.
80. Most notably, the Chamber emphasized that the Player did not submit a copy of the alleged
July 2023 contract, nor any other documentation capable of corroborating his version of
events. In the Chamber’s view, the Player failed to provide evidence of the remuneration
allegedly agreed with the Club or any material that could substantiate his claims.
81. Furthermore, the Player admitted to having signed blank or incomplete documents, which
may (or may not) have been used by the Club to generate the TMS and EFA Contracts. While
the DRC acknowledged the Player’s claim of vulnerability at the time of signing, the
Chamber considered that he was – or ought to have been – aware of the potential legal
consequences of such actions. The Chamber recalled that the Football Tribunal’s
jurisprudence consistently affirms the duty of both clubs and players to exercise
reasonable diligence in their contractual dealings, particularly in the context of
international transfers. In this case, the Chamber found that such diligence was lacking on
the part of the Player.
82. On the other hand, the Chamber also found the Club’s position to be contradictory.
83. Firstly, throughout the multiple rounds of submissions, the Club failed to provide any
explanation regarding the background of the Parties’ negotiations. While it denied the
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-13557
existence of any contract signed in July 2023, it simultaneously acknowledged a business
relationship with the entity referred to by the Player (ENPPI FC), without offering further
details (cf., additional comments on the EFA Contract’s signing).
84. Secondly, the Club confirmed that it had paid the Player EGP 42,000 – a payment that could
only relate to the TMS Contract – but did not clarify the nature of this payment. Similarly,
in referencing cheques and difficulties in delivering the Player’s entitlements via notices,
the Club appeared to acknowledge that their relationship began well before November
2023.
85. The Chamber also accepted the Player’s allegation that the timeline of the Club’s narrative
appeared illogical, particularly in light of the issues with his passport and the irregular
payment schedule. Although the Club vaguely claimed to have complied with the TMS
Contract, the Chamber was not convinced that this was the case.
86. Moreover, it appeared to the Chamber that the Club withheld relevant information from
the Player during their correspondence. Instead of simply providing a copy of the EFA
Contract – of which the Player was allegedly a signatory – the Club insisted that he approach
the EFA directly and without a reasonable justification.
87. The Club eventually submitted a physical copy of the EFA Contract, but again without any
supplementary evidence to support the date of signature. In fact, the Club contradicted
itself by stating that it was signed in the premises of ENPPI FC.
88. Taking all of the above into account, the Chamber was of the opinion that the balance of
the many elements of the case ultimately favoured the Club, as it did provide a document
signed by both Parties, whereas the Player did not. Furthermore, the Player admitted to
signing blank templates, thereby undermining his own allegations of forgery and exposing
himself to significant legal risk. He also failed to provide any evidence of the existence of
the July 2023 contract.
89. Consequently, the Chamber proposed that both the TMS Contract and the EFA Contract be
considered valid and binding on the Parties. Accordingly, the EFA Contract was deemed to
be the document governing the Parties’ relationship at the time of termination.
90. However, the Chamber also stressed that this conclusion was without prejudice to the
Chamber’s reservations regarding the Club’s controversial conduct, which were examined
further.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-13557
B. TERMINATION
91. Having established the above, the Chamber moved on to assess the Parties’ positions
regarding the termination.
92. The Parties concurred that the Club terminated the employment relationship on 25 January
2024 due to the Player’s prolonged absence and his “absurd allegations” concerning the
validity of the EFA Contract. However, they disputed whether the termination was with just
cause.
93. Here, the Chamber began its assessment by emphasizing that both Parties appeared to be
in breach at the time of termination.
94. The Player admitted that he stopped providing services on 20 November 2023. Therefore,
he was absent for two months leading up to the termination, during which time the Club
sent several letters requesting his reinstatement.
95. The Chamber also found it telling that the Player had requested to be released on more
than one occasion, rather than attempting to reach an amicable resolution or remedy the
situation.
96. In contrast, the Club admitted to having paid the Player EGP 42,000 in 2023. This suggested
that, despite its alleged financial difficulties, the Club had the means to fulfil its obligations.
However, the Club failed to provide evidence that it paid the outstanding balance between
this amount and the installment due under the TMS Contract in October 2023 (EGP
161,290.65). Furthermore, the Player only stopped training in November 2023, at which
point the first instalment under the TMS Contract was already long overdue and the Club
owed the Player a significant amount.
97. Similarly, and for reasons the Chamber could not precise, the Club failed to provide the
Player with a copy of the contracts upon request and did not appear to have taken
proactive steps to complete his paperwork, which should have been addressed in advance
(cf. art. 18 of the Regulations). The Chamber also found sufficient elements in the case file
to establish that the Club had proposed an unusual contractual arrangement.
98. The Chamber further found that the Club failed to implement more lenient measures prior
to terminating the contractual relationship. Although the Club referred to disciplinary
proceedings, it did not demonstrate that the Player’s right to be heard was respected or
that the process was conducted in a manner that would justify termination. While the
Chamber acknowledged that the Player’s alleged breach and the Parties’ dispute may have
exceeded the scope of a settlement, it also questioned whether termination was truly a
measure of ultima ratio.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-13557
99. Consequently, taking into account the particularities of the case, the Chamber concluded
that, at the time of termination, neither party could reasonably be expected to continue
the employment relationship, and that the contractual stability protected by the
Regulations had already been lost. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that both Parties
bore equal responsibility for the termination of their employment relationship.
100. The Chamber therefore decided that neither the claim nor the counterclaim for
compensation should succeed, as both Parties had lost interest in their contractual
relationship, contributed to its premature termination, and should not benefit from their
respective misconduct.
C. CONSEQUENCES
101. While assessing the consequences of the early termination, the Chamber restated that
neither party should be awarded compensation.
102. However, considering that the Player rendered services from 15 September 2023 to 13
November 2023 under the TMS Contract, and subsequently until 20 November 2023 under
the EFA Contract, the Chamber found that he was nonetheless entitled to receive
remuneration for that period.
103. Given that payments under both contracts were not structured on a monthly basis and
were subject to delays, the Chamber considered that an exact calculation of the amounts
due was not feasible.
104. Accordingly, in order to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the Player’s entitlement, the
Chamber decided to prorate the total seasonal remuneration under each contract, based
on the number of days the Player effectively provided services – from the date of signature
of each contract until 20 November 2023, when the Player ceased his duties.
105. The calculation was as follows:
TMS CONTRACT
Original Duration
Original
Duration
in days
Global
remuneration
Global
remuneration
per day
Days worked
Accrued Remuneration
2023/2024 season
TMS: 15.09.2023 30.08.2024
351
EGP 322,580.65
EGP 919.03
59
EGP 54,222.96
15/09 - 12/11
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-13557
EFA CONTRACT
Original Duration
Original
Duration
in days
Global
remuneration
Global
remuneration
per day
Days worked
Accrued Remuneration
2023/2024 season
inter alia
TMS: 15.09.2023 30.08.2024
351
EGP 375,000
EGP 1,068.38
7
EGP 7,478.63
13/11 - 19/11
TOTAL
EGP 61,701.59
106. The Chamber then decided that the Player was entitled to EGP 61,701.59 in outstanding
remuneration for the services rendered.
107. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that the Club claimed to have already
paid the Player EGP 42,000 for this period. However, the Player alleged that this amount
was intended to cover accommodation and transportation expenses. Furthermore, the
Club did not specifically dispute this allegation, nor did it provide any supporting
documentation – such as a bank transfer, receipt, or payslip with a detailed breakdown –
to substantiate the payment.
108. In light of the above, the Chamber awarded the full amount of EGP 61,701.59 to the Player,
together with 5% interest p.a., accruing from 25 January 2024, the day following the
termination of the employment relationship.
109. All other claims brought by the Player were rejected by the Chamber, as was the
counterclaim submitted by the Club.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
110. 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.
111. 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
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.
112. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-13557
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.
113. 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.
114. 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.
d. Costs
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-13557
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Monimon De Louis Florian Yonsian,
is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Pioneers Club, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- EGP 61,701.59 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 January
2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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 / Counterclaimant 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 / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-13557
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. 28