Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18016
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ibrahim
Tomiwa Gbadamosi
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar)
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahim Tomiwa Gbadamosi, Nigeria
Represented by Heritage Soccer Agency
RESPONDENT:
Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18016
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 July 2024, the Nigerian player, Ibrahim Tomiwa Gbadamosi (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Saudi club, Al Batin (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
On 26 December 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent entered into a mutual amicable
termination and settlement agreement (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement) according to
which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 103,180 as
follows:
-
USD 44,545 on 26 December 2024;
USD 30,000 on 28 January 2025;
USD 28,635 on 28 February 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
3.
On 30 January 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
4.
The Claimant alleged that the Respondent failed to meet the Settlement Agreement’s
second instalment due on 28 January 2025.
5.
On 3 March 2025, the Claimant informed the FIFA general secretariat that the Respondent
also failed to pay the Settlement Agreement’s last instalment due on 28 February 2025.
6.
The Claimant’s requests for relief, as amended, were the following:
“We therefore, wish to file a fresh application to claim the total amount of $58,635.00
[Fiftyeight Thousand, six Hundred and Thirty-Five United states dollars], that AL-BATIN FC
owes Our Client IBRAHIM TOMIWA GBADAMOSI.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
7.
In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged the existence of the overdue amounts but
argued that its financial difficulties, caused by relegation and a drastic reduction in
revenue, prevented timely payment.
8.
The Respondent requested FIFA to recognize the situation as force majeure and grant a 30day extension for payment.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18016
9.
The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“To rule that Al Batin Club shall be provided a final time limit of thirty (30) days from the date
of the FIFA Decision to pay the amount of 30000$ to the player.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18016
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 30 January 2025 and submitted
for decision on 31 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 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.
11. 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) (January
2025 edition), the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Nigerian player and a Saudi club.
12. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
13. 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 she 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
14. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18016
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent
as per the Settlement Agreement, namely USD 58,635.
16. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations.
17. The Single Judge first 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
the parties.
18. Nonethless, the Single Judge noted that that the Respondent did not provide any proof of
payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant. Furthermore, no
reasonable justification was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement. In particular, the Single Judge considered that
relegation and a drastic reduction in revenue do not constitute a valid justification for nonpayment, as financial difficulties of this nature remain part of the ordinary business risk
assumed by clubs.
19. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, although the final instalment of the
Settlement Agreement was not yet due at the time the claim was submitted, namely on 30
January 2025, it had fallen due prior the closure of the submission phase, i.e. 17 March
2025. Consequently, the Single Judged deemed that the instalment of the Settlement
Agreement due on 28 February 2025, has also to be awarded to the Claimant.
20. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from
the contract concluded between the parties, namely USD 58,635.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
21. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18016
22. 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
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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18016
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahim Tomiwa Gbadamosi, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Batin, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 58,635 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18016
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. 9