Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19312
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Blessing
Kasarachi Okpe
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE, Brazil
CLAIMANT:
Blessing Kasarachi Okpe, Nigeria
Represented by Daria Gorlova
RESPONDENT:
Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19312
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 July 2024, the Nigerian player Blessing Kasarachi Okpe (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Amed Sportif Faaliyetler (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from 30
July 2024 until 30 May 2025.
2.
According to clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player inter alia the
following amounts:
•
USD 14,000 net as guaranteed payment for the 2024/2025 season (cf., clause 4A of
the Contract), payable as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
USD 1,400 by 30 August 2024;
USD 1,400 by 30 September 2024;
USD 1,400 by 30 October 2024;
USD 1,400 by 30 November 2024;
USD 1,400 by 30 December 2024;
USD 1,400 by 30 January 2024 (sic);
USD 1,400 by 20 February 2025;
USD 1,400 by 30 March 2025;
USD 1,400 by 30 April 2025;
USD 1,400 by 20 May 2025.
•
“The Club commits to cover visa costs for the Player. The Club has the obligation to keep
the Player registered fully and accordingly Turkish law until the Player leaves Turkey for
her country of origin at the end of the season. All the costs related to application for
Turkish terms of residence and working permit will be covered by the Club.” (cf., clause
4B of the Contract).
•
USD 1,400 as an additional payment “together with the first salary on 30.08.2024” (cf.,
clause 4C of the Contract).
3.
On 22 March 2025, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, demanding payment of USD
4,200 in outstanding salary and USD 218 in visa costs. The Player requested that the Club
remedy the breach within 15 days, otherwise the Contract would be terminated in
accordance with art. 14bis Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations).
4.
On 9 April 2025, the Player terminated the Contract citing overdue payables.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19312
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 21 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
6.
In her claim, the Player argued that the Club had failed to pay her salary for the months of
January, February and March 2025, as well as her visa costs. Consequently, the Player
claimed that she terminated the Contract with just cause in accordance with art. 14bis of
the Regulations.
7.
The Player submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“1. To pay the debt in the amount of 5818 USD (outstanding salary for January 2025,
February 2025 and March 2025 of 1 400 USD each (according to Article 4A of the
Contract), in addition to an extra salary payment for August 2024 (according to Article
4C of the Contract), the visa costs of 218 USD (345 890 NGN at the rate established on
05.08.2024 https://www.exchange- rates.org/ru/MCTOpnfl-Kypcoe/ngn-usd-2024) paid
by the Player (annex#7)). Bank details (annex#8);
2. to pay the Player 5% interest p.a. in accordance with the Article 104 (1) of the Swiss
Code of Obligations accrued on amount of 5818 USD as from the date of submission of
this claim and until the day of effective payment.”
b. Reply of the Club
8.
On 20 June 2025, the Club submitted its response to the Player’s claim.
9.
In its submission, the Club contended that it had duly paid the Player the amount of USD
1,400 in cash as remuneration for the month of August 2024. In support of this assertion,
the Club provided a receipt allegedly signed by the Player, which it claimed served as proof
of payment.
10. Furthermore, the Club disputed the Player’s entitlement to reimbursement of visa-related
expenses. The Club argued that, pursuant to a mutual understanding between the parties,
the Player had agreed to bear the costs associated with her visa application. Consequently,
the Club maintained that it could not be held liable for the reimbursement of such fees.
11. Based on the foregoing, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in its
entirety, and that no financial or other relief be granted in her favor.
12. The Club requested the following relief:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19312
“7.1. The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal
about the present case.
7.2. Based on the reasons explained above and the receipts submitted by the Respondent,
we request that the amount in question be deducted from the Claimant's claims, taking
into account the amounts paid by the Respondent and our good faith, especially the
salary payment for August.
7.3. In addition, we request that the Respondent Club's request for payment of the visa
fee, which the Claimant requested and is obliged to pay, be rejected.”
c. Additional comments of the Player
13. On 21 May 2025, at the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Player confirmed that
she had received the payment corresponding to her August 2024 salary, which had not
been previously claimed. However, the Player maintained that she remained entitled to an
additional payment of USD 1,400 pursuant to clause 4C of the Contract.
14. The Player reiterated her initial requests for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 21 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 17 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
16. 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 (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 Nigerian player and a Turkish club.
17. 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. 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19312
b. Burden of proof
18. 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
19. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for breach of contract.
21. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that the Player unilaterally terminated the
employment contract on 9 April 2025, invoking just cause pursuant to art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
22. In its defense, the Club merely referred to a payment allegedly made in August 2024, which
is not relevant to the period under dispute and does not address the Player’s claim
regarding unpaid salaries for January and February 2025. The Club did not provide any
documentation or credible evidence to demonstrate that the outstanding amounts were
settled or that the Player’s allegations were unfounded.
23. In the absence of any substantiating evidence from the Club to refute the Player’s
allegations, the Single Judge considered it established that at least two monthly salaries
(i.e., January and February 2025) remained unpaid at the time the Player placed the Club in
default. Furthermore, the Player granted the Club a reasonable deadline to remedy the
breach, which the Club failed to comply with.
24. The Single Judge emphasized that such a persistent and material breach of the Club’s
contractual obligations constituted a valid ground for unilateral termination.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19312
25. In other words, in light of the factual circumstances and the applicable regulatory
framework, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the
contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations. Accordingly, the Club shall be held
liable for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
26. 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 Club.
a. Outstanding remuneration
27. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounted to USD 5,600, broken
down as follows:
•
•
•
•
USD 1,400 under clause 4C of the Contract;
USD 1,400 as the salary for January 2025;
USD 1,400 as the salary for February 2025;
USD 1,400 as the salary for March 2025.
28. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request and the principle of ne ultra petita,
the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as from the date of the claim until the date of effective payment.
b. Reimbursement of visa costs
29. The Single Judge acknowledged that the Player also claimed reimbursement of visa
expenses.
30. The Single Judge acknowledged that, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the Club had
been contractually obliged to process and bear the costs of the Player’s visa. This obligation
aligned with standard practice in international employment relationships, where
administrative and immigration-related expenses are typically borne by the employer to
facilitate the execution of the contract.
31. The Single Judge then noted that the Player submitted a document in support of her claim,
which appeared to be an invoice for the amount of NGN 345,890. However, the Single Judge
noted that the document did not constitute proof of payment, as it lacked confirmation
that the amount had actually been disbursed by the Player. The Single Judge recalled that,
in principle, and in line with established jurisprudence, claims for reimbursement had to
be supported by clear evidence of payment, such as receipts or bank statements.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19312
32. Nevertheless, the Single Judge observed that the Club did not dispute that the Player had
processed her visa, nor did it challenge the amount claimed. Instead, the Club’s defense
focused solely on denying its contractual liability, without addressing the relevant
provisions of the Contract that clearly assigned this responsibility to the Club.
33. In light of the Club’s implicit acknowledgment of the Player’s actions, its failure to contest
the amount, and the contractual obligation to bear such costs, the Single Judge found it
reasonable to infer that the Player had incurred the expense in question. The absence of
formal proof of payment was mitigated by the Club’s conduct and the context of the claim.
34. Accordingly, the Single Judge concluded that the Player was entitled to be reimbursed the
amount of NGN 345,890, and that such amount should accrue interest at a rate of 5% p.a.,
as from the date of the claim.
c. Compensation for breach of contract
35. The Single Judge noted that, although the Player had claimed to have terminated the
contract with just cause, she had not submitted any request for compensation for breach
of contract.
36. In view of this, and in order to avoid ruling ultra petita – that is, beyond the scope of the
claims submitted – the Single Judge stressed that he was prevented from issuing any
decision in this respect.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19312
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
40. 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.
41. 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19312
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Blessing Kasarachi Okpe, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 5,600 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 May 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- NGN 345,890 as reimbursement for expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 May 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.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-19312
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. 11