Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18506
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sadia Paul
Kylian Kin
BY:
Calum Beattie, Scotland
CLAIMANT:
Sadia Paul Kylian Kin, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Ammar Asfour
RESPONDENT:
Al Gharbia, United Arab Emirates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18506
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 February 2024, the Ivorian player Sadia Paul Kylian Kin (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Emirati club Al Gharbia (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signing
until 31 May 2024.
2.
Clause 13 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“13- The sum of the player’s contract is (8,000 Eight thousand dirhams) only, provided
that the [Club] pays the [Player] a monthly salary (2000 dirhams four thousand dirhams
and nothing more) at the end of each month”.
3.
Clauses 17 and 18 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“17- In the case of ending the contract from [Club], the [Club] pays one-month salary only
to the [Player].
18- In the event of termination of the contract by the [Player], the [Player] shall pay an
amount of 0 dirhams to the [Club]”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 9 March 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
5.
The Player claimed that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause and is
therefore liable to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
6.
The Player also informed that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Contract.
7.
In particular, the Player requested to be awarded:
•
AED 8,000 as salaries for 4 months, from February until May 2024;
•
AED 2,000 as “penalty and compensation” pursuant to clause 17 of the Contract;
•
AED 8,000 as bonuses pursuant to clause 17 of the Contract;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18506
•
8.
AED 6,000, equivalent to three months’ salary, as compensation due to “material
and moral damage”.
The Player submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“In a conference we ask FIFA to approve the following:
= Obligating the [Club], to pay the amount of 18,000 quarter of a quarter of a dirham
Emirati to the [Player] according to the previous financial report
= Obligating the [Club] to pay the amount of 24,000 Twenty-four thousand Emirati
dirhams to claim compensation for the material and moral damage caused by the
[Club]”.
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
The Club failed to respond to the claim despite being invited to do so.
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 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 9 March 2025 and submitted for
decision on 15 April 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Ivorian player and an Emirati club.
12. 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 January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18506
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 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
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 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
15. The Single Judge then turned to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for breach of contract brought by a player against a club.
16. On the one hand, the Single Judge noted that the Player claimed to be entitled to
outstanding remuneration, compensation for breach of contract and compensation for
material / moral damages.
17. On the other hand, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Club had not responded to the
claim and therefore concluded that his decision should be taken solely on the basis of the
documentation provided by the Player (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
18. In this context, the Single Judge recognised that his task was to decide on the circumstances
of the alleged termination of the Contract and its consequences.
19. Similarly, and by virtue of art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge
determined that it was for the Player (as the party claiming, inter alia, compensation for
breach of contract) to demonstrate that (i) there was an employment relationship between
the parties; and (ii) such employment relationship was terminated – by one of the parties –
though fault of the Club.
20. However, the Single Judge found that there was barely any evidence on file, which made it
almost impossible to reconstruct the factual background to the case.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18506
21. After a careful analysis, the Single Judge established the following:
•
The parties signed the Contract on 1 February 2024. A copy of the Contract was
registered with the United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAEFA); and
•
In March 2025, the Player submitted a claim to FIFA alleging that the Club had
terminated the Contract prematurely and without just cause.
22. In taking into account the above, the Single Judge was satisfied that the contractual
relationship existed but was unable to establish the extent of its performance or
circumstances of its termination. In particular, the Single Judge emphasised that the Player
had not explained when and/or for what reason the parties had departed from the
Contract.
23. In this regard, the Single Judge underscored that there was not a single piece of evidence
on file of the alleged breach by either party: the Player did not put the Club in default until
he brought the claim to FIFA and he did not provide any evidence to support his account
of the facts.
24. The Single Judge also found that it was impossible to establish whether the Club had
engaged in any type of abusive behaviour towards the Player, as alleged in his statement
of claim. In fact, the only evidence submitted by the Player was the “UAE League Player Card”,
which the Single Judge considered to be of no probative weight in the context of the
termination.
25. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the Player failed to produce any
documentation to prove: (i) the alleged breach(es) by the Club; or, in any event, (ii) what
had actually happened between February 2024 and the filing of this claim.
26. Consequently, on the basis of the (lack of) documentation on file, the Single Judge
confirmed that the Player had failed to prove that there has been a breach of contract by
the Club and, further, that it was serious enough to trigger the consequences of a breach
of contract as an ultima ratio measure (cf., art. 14 of the Regulations).
27. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that after February 2024, the parties mutually departed
from the performance of the Contract and/or could not prove otherwise. Therefore, the
Single Judge that there was no basis for awarding to the Player any remuneration or
compensation.
28. As a result, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s claim on its entirety.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18506
d. Costs
29. In continuation, 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.
30. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18506
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sadia Paul Kylian Kin, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18506
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