Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16842
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mohamed
Lamine Kone
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mohamed Lamine Kone, Ivory Coast
Represented by Mawuli Kwaku Avorgah
RESPONDENT:
Ismaily SC, Egypt
Represented by Nermeen Mandouh
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16842
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 August 2024, the Ivorian player, Mohamed Lamine Kone (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Egyptian club, Ismaily SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
signed an offer letter (hereinafter: the Offer or Employment Contract) which stated the
following (quote verbatim):
“Subject: Official offer to transfer to Ismaily Club football team
Hello player/ Mohamed Kone,
Warm greetings from Ismaily SC.
Ismaily Club is interested in making an official offer to transfer to club football team for 3
seasons (three seasons) starting from season 2024/2025 to the season 2026/2027 as follow:
Season 2024/2025: USD 50,000
Season 2025/2026: USD 70,000
Season 2026/2027: USD 90,000
-
Accommodation will be in Ismaily club’s hotel.
-
One flight ticket per season. In case of bringing the wife, the club will provide an apartment.
The activation of the contract shall enter into force in the presence of come to Egypt in order to
make medical tests and all physical and psychological by Ismaily Club.
We will wait for your reply our offer.”
2.
On 21 August 2024, the Player received an offer from the Tunisian club Le Stade Tunisien
(hereinafter: the Third Club).
3.
On 22 August 2024, the Player received a flight ticket from the Third Club to travel to Tunisia
and pass his medical tests. The dates of the round trip were from 24 August 2024 to 10
September 2024.
4.
Allegedly, the Player rejected the offer from the Third Club as he had signed the Offer.
5.
On 24 August 2024, the Player travelled to Egypt to undergo the medical exams.
6.
Between 28 August and 5 September 2024, the Player and his agent exchanged WhatsApp
messaged in which the Player was asking updates about his medical exams.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16842
7.
On 9 September 2024, the Player and the Club exchanged the following messages (quote
verbatim):
Player: “Please tell when exactly is the club Al Ismaily going to do medicals for me so that we
finalize everything? I have come here to Egypt long time ago and nothing nothing nothing….”
Club: “I cannot give you a date for what you are asking for. I think it will be on Saturday, and
when the technical staff arrives things will become clear.”
Player: “I don’t understand… Where is technical staff? I think to day medical and then sign
contract has nothing to do with technical staff. I think it’s only with administrative staff. That’s
all.”
Club: “They will come Saturday”
Player: “is the technical staff the ones that are going to do medical exams for me? Or are they
the ones to write contract paper and signature? Until now, I don’t see any relationship between
technical staff and me doing medical followed by contract signature.”
Club: “The technical staff includes the medical staff, the administrative staff, the technical
director, the general coach and the goalkeeping coach.”
Player: “Check my air ticket and check return date on it.” The Player attached the flight ticket.
Club: “It’s tomorrow.”
8.
On 10 September 2024, the Player left Egypt.
9.
On 5 October 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club stating the following (quote verbatim):
“On 11 August 2024, your professional club Ismaily Sports Club signed an employment contract
with the Ivorian professional striker Mohamed Lamine Kone.
On 24 August 2024 the player flew to Egypt to join your Club. On 10 September 2024, thee player
was sent back to his country Ivory Coast for a reason told orally to him that the club was not
interested in him.
I hereby get in touch with the administration of your club to find out the exact current position
of the club regarding the employment of the player. I invite you to kindly send me a feedback
latest by 10 October 2024 by email […].”
10. On 6 October 2024, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Ethiopian club
Saint George Sport Association valid as from 6 October 2024 until 7 July 2025 (hereinafter:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16842
the New Contract). The Player’s monthly remuneration under the New Contract was ETB
213,000 (approximately USD 1,608).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 30 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
12. The Player lodged a claim with FIFA requesting USD 210,000 as compensation for breach
of contract plus 5% interest as from 10 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
13. The Player provided the following breakdown:
-
“Season 2024/2025: 50,000 USD
Season 2024/2025: 70,000 USD
Season 2024/2025: 90,000 USD”
(Freely translated from French)
14. In continuation, the Player alleged that the Club unilaterally terminated the employment
relationship without just cause due to the following reasons:
-
The Club booked a flight ticket for the Player to travel to Egypt;
The Player went to Egypt and complied with the requirement of the Offer;
The Player did not undergo medical examinations as the Club never arrange them;
The Club did not reply to the Player’s default notice.
15. Finally, regarding the date of the termination of the employment relationship, the Player
alleged that the Club unilaterally terminated it on 10 September 2024, i.e. the date he left
the country.
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club alleged that it complied with the terms of the Offer as it covered all the
costs for the Player’s flights and accommodation in Egypt as well as the medical tests.
17. The Club alleged that the “medical, and physical, and psychological examinations […] were
explicitly mentioned as conditions precedent to the activation of the contract as stated in the
offer.” In this regard, the Club also stated that it took all the necessary steps in order to
evaluate the Claimant’s suitability for the proposed offer and acted in good faith.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16842
18. However, the Club argued that the Player’s result in the psychological examinations were
“unsatisfactory” and for that reason the Club decided not to proceed with the conclusion of
an employment contract.
19. In this regard, the Club argued that there is no employment relationship between the
parties as no employment contract was ever concluded.
20. Specifically, the Club alleged that “the Proposal presented to the Claimant was merely a
conditional pre-contractual agreement, intended to facilitate the examination process and
streamline negotiations with the Claimant in the event that he successfully completed the
required tests. It was not a binding employment contract but rather an outline to serve as the
basis for the final agreement, contingent upon the Claimant meeting the specified conditions.”
21. In addition, according to the Club the Offer was not “structured” as an employment contract,
it did not contain a designated space for the Claimant’s signature and “did not include any
obligation on the player’s behalf and misses many important pillars for the recognition of
Employment contract under the Egyptian Law (the Applicable Law), for example: the criterion of
dependency of the employee to the employer, the Arabic Language as a main language of the
employment contact.” Therefore, according to the Club, the Offer did not contain the
essentialia negotii and cannot be considered as an employment contract.
22. Furthermore, the Club argued that the flight tickets bought for the Player were a round
trip, as they were merely purchased in order for the Player to undergo the medical
examinations without the intention of having him staying in the country. In this regard,
considering the absence of the essentialia negotii and the “limited terms of the Claimant’s stay
in Egypt further corroborate that no final employment contract was concluded between the
parties.”
23. In view of the above, the Club disputed the jurisdiction of the Dispute Resolution Chamber,
alleging that there was not a valid employment contract between the parties.
24. The Club further argued that the Player did not incur any alleged damages as the Club did
not impede him from negotiating or passing medical exams with other clubs.
25. In this regard, the Club argued that the Player could have negotiated and signed with the
Third Club in order to mitigate his damages of the non-conclusion of the employment
contract with the Club.
26. The Club also stated that the Player acted in bad faith not concluding an employment
contract with the Third Club as from the flight tickets to Tunisia that were bought by the
latter, it is evident that the negotiations had advanced, and that the Player denied going to
Tunisia to mitigate his damages.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16842
27. Finally, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the aforementioned, the Respondent respectfully requests the following reliefs:
-
That all allegations and claims raised by the Claimant to be dismissed as they are without
merit and lack legal or factual foundation.
-
That all costs incurred in connection with these proceedings, including but not limited to
procedural fees, legal expenses, and any associated costs, be borne entirely by the
Claimant.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
28. In his reply, the Player denied having undergone any medical tests and stated that the Club
has not provided any proof demonstrating otherwise.
29. In this regard, the Player provided screenshots from a conversation he had with the Club
on 9 September 2024, i.e. a day before his departure from Egypt, according to which, the
Club informed him that the date of the examination tests was still unknown.
30. For that reason, the Player alleged that “By refusing to carry out medical examinations on the
Player, the Club has therefore not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the Player and
consequently the Club will have to be held responsible for the unilateral termination of the
player's contract without just cause.”
31. In addition, the Player claimed that he fulfilled his contractual obligations by agreeing to
travel to Egypt. However, according to the Player, the Club failed to fulfil its contractual
obligations as it did not arrange his medical examinations without providing “valid reasons
and will undoubtedly have to bear the consequences of a unilateral breach of contract without
just cause.”
32. Regarding the damages suffered due to the non-conclusion of the Contract, the Player
stated that the fact that he was invited to travel to Egypt and that his trip was arranged by
the Club, showed the latter’s intention to conclude an employment contract. Therefore, the
Player would not have gone to the Third Club as he had reasons to believe that an
employment contract with the Club would be concluded.
33. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the real reason why the Club did not continue with
the conclusion of an employment contract was that they were serving a transfer ban and
thus, it was not possible to transfer any new player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16842
34. Finally, the Player requested the following relief:
“a. That FIFA should recognize that no medical examinations were done to the Player before he
left Egypt on 10 September.
b. That FIFA should take into account our comments regarding the correspondence of the
Respondent.
c. That all requests made by claimant in his initial claim before FIFA are reiterated by claimant.
d. That all allegations and claims made by the Respondent deserve to be dismissed as they are
without merit, without proof and lack legal or factual foundation.
e. That FIFA should recognize that the Club has failed to comply with its binding obligations
signed with the Player and therefore the Club must bear all the consequences of a unilateral
termination of Contract without just cause.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
35. In its reply, the Club stated that “Since no binding employment contract was ever executed, the
Claimant could not have acquired any contractual rights or obligations. In the absence of a valid
contract, there can be no claim of breach, let alone any assertion that the Respondent must
bear the consequences of an alleged unilateral termination. The Claimant’s attempt to impose
contractual liability on the Respondent is without merit and must be dismissed.”
36. In addition, the Club reiterated that the Offer was merely a preliminary discussion and that
its signing did not constitute acceptance thereof.
37. The Club also stated that the purchase of the flight tickets did not demonstrate that there
was a contractual obligation, but “it was merely an arrangement to facilitate discussions and
potential engagement, not a confirmation of a concluded agreement.”
38. Despite the evidence presented by the Claimant, the Club insisted that the Player’s results
of his psychological exam were unsatisfactory. The Club further explained that the Player’s
“inability to meet the required standards demonstrated that he was not fit for engagement, and
as such no binding employment contract could have been concluded. The Claimant’s
psychological instability was evident from his manner of conduct and communication with the
Respondent during his stay. This was assessed by Ismaily’s officials after consultation with
experts.”
39. However, the Club also mentioned that it “did not conduct any examinations.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16842
40. In addition, the Club also disputed the acceptance of the Offer from the Player by alleging
that “a legally binding contract requires mutual intent and agreement on all essential terms.
The Respondent never confirmed its acceptance of any purported agreement simply because
the Claimant signed the Proposal.”
41. Finally, the Club reiterated its requests for relief:
“In light of the aforementioned, the Respondent respectfully requests the following reliefs:
a. that all allegations and claims raised by the Claimant to be dismissed as they are without
merit and lack legal or factual foundation.
b. that all costs incurred in connection with these proceedings, including but not limited to
procedural fees, legal expenses, and any associated costs, be borne entirely by the Claimant.”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16842
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
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 30 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 30 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.
43. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), 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 Egyptian club.
44. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Club challenged FIFA’s competence to hear the
case at hand, because there was no employment relationship between the Parties and
therefore it did not constitute an employment-related dispute under the scope of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
45. In this context, the Chamber recalled the well- established jurisprudence of the DRC and
the CAS according to which the notion of employment-related disputes includes a wider
range of disputes than just simply those arising out of employment agreements. Therefore,
the Chamber considered that has jurisdiction to entertain the present claim that arose
from the conclusion of an employment offer in line with art. 22 par. 1, lit. b) of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
46. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it 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
47. 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. 10
REF. FPSD-16842
c. Merits of the dispute
48. 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 emphasised 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
49. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly disputed whether the Offer constituted an employment contract or
not. On the one hand, the Claimant argued that the Offer constituted an employment
contract. As an employment contract was never executed because of the Respondent’s
behavior, the Claimant argued that he terminated the employment relationship with just
cause. On the other hand, the Respondent alleged that the Offer was never activated as
the Player did not pass the medical exams.
50. In this regard, the Chamber reiterated the following undisputed facts:
-
On 11 August 2024, the Club sent the Offer to the Player, which included the name
of the parties, the duration, the remuneration and other benefits.
-
On an unspecified date, the Player signed the Offer despite the fact that there was
not any designated space for his signature.
-
The Offer stated that “the activation of the contract shall enter into force in the
presence of come to Egypt in order to make medical tests and all physical and
psychological by Ismaily Club.”
-
The Club bought a round-trip ticket to the Player from CIV to Egypt for 24 August
2024 and return on 10 September 2024.
-
The Player travelled to Egypt on 24 August and left on 10 September 2024.
-
The Player did not undergo any medical examinations while in Egypt.
-
The Player received a flight ticket to travel to Tunisia for a different offer he had
received from the Third Club, but rejected it as he had signed the Offer with the
Club.
51. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Offer constituted a valid and binding employment contract and the consequences herein.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16842
52. In view of the above, the Chamber first assessed whether the Offer contained the essentiala
negotii. For that reason, the Chamber recalled that the established case law of the DRC
dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered valid and binding, in
addition to the consent of the employer and the employee, it must contain the essential
elements (essentiala negotii) of an employment contract, i.e. the parties to the contract and
their function, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration to be
paid by the employer to the employee.
53. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the essential elements had been clearly
established in the Offer.
54. Regarding the signature and acceptance of the Offer, the Chamber observed that the
Player signed the Offer despite the absence of a designated space for his signature.
However, the mere presence of the signature did not, by itself constitute proof that the
Player accepted the Offer.
55. Nevertheless, based on the evidence on file and facts of the case, the Chamber concluded
that the Player accepted the Offer by travelling to Egypt using flight tickets that were
provided by the Club.
56. Consequently, the Club concluded that the Offer had been accepted by the Player
considering his signature and the fact that he travelled to Egypt in order to pass the medical
tests.
57. Regarding the conditions of the Offer, the Chamber noted that the Offer stated that “the
activation of the contract shall enter into force in the presence of come to Egypt in order to make
medical tests and all physical and psychological by Ismaily Club.”
58. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that for the conclusion of the employment contract the
Player had to travel to Egypt “in order to make medical tests and all physical and psychological
by Ismaily Club.”
59. Based on the wording of the clause, the Chamber considered that the contract would be
“activated” if the Player travelled to Egypt to pass his medical exams and not, if the Player
successfully passed the medical exams.
60. According to the evidence on file, the Chamber observed that the conditions set out in the
Offer had been met and an employment contract had been validly concluded as the Player
indeed travelled to Egypt to pass his medical tests.
61. Finally, the Chamber wished to clarify that after the conclusion of the Employment Contract
between the parties, its validity could no longer be dependent on the successful medical
examination, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16842
62. Having established the above, the Chamber passed on the determination of the
Employment Contract’s termination date. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Player
alleged that the termination date was 10 September 2024, the date in which he left the
country with the flight ticket that had been booked by the Club.
63. In addition, the Chamber concluded that the Club was aware of the Player’s return flight
ticket date, as it booked it for him, and that it did not take any action to proceed with the
medical examinations or change the date of his departure from Egypt.
64. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player remained passive after his departure
from Egypt until 5 October 2024 and 6 October 2024, i.e. when he sent a letter requesting
updates regarding his contractual situation and when he signed a new employment
contract, respectively.
65. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Contract terminated the day the Player left the
country, i.e. 10 September 2024.
66. On the question of whether there was just cause for terminating the employment
relationship, the Chamber first wished to recall that, according to art. 14 of the Regulations,
only a breach or fault of significant gravity justifies the termination of a contract. In other
words, only when there are objective criteria that do not reasonably allow the continuation
of the employment relationship between the parties to be expected, could a contract be
terminated prematurely. The early termination of an employment contract can only be a
measure of ultima ratio.
67. The Chamber noted that, despite the fact that the Club had initially argued that the Player
failed the psychological exams, it later acknowledged that the Player had not undergo any
medical examinations. In this regard, the Club claimed that it realized from the Player’s
“manner of conduct and communication with the Respondent during his stay” that he was
psychologically unstable, and it would not be possible to integrate him in the team and the
Egyptian community.
68. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Player had gotten in contact with his manager
as well as with the Club in order to get updates regarding the medical examinations.
However, the Club informed him that they did not know when the medical examination
would take place, even if it knew that the Player was leaving the country the day after.
69. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that, in the Player’s letter sent to the Club
on 5 October 2024, he mentioned that he was orally informed by the Club that the latter
was not interested in him. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Club did not deny
the aforementioned allegation and that, on the contrary, it confirmed that, due to the
Player’s unsatisfactory psychological exam results, it was no longer interested in entering
into an employment contract with him.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16842
70. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the reasons given by the Club would not justify
the early termination of a contract under art. 14 of the Regulations.
71. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Club terminated the employment
relationship without just cause in breach of art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
72. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
73. The Chamber observed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination.
74. In this regard, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and
other benefits due to the Player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the
time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on
whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
75. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
76. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations.
77. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the
employment contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 210,000 (i.e. the residual
value of the Employment Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
78. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16842
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
79. Indeed, the Player found employment with Saint George Sport Association. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately ETB
213,000 (approx. USD 1,608) per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of ETB 2,130,000, that is, ETB 213,000
times 10 months (from October 2024 to July 2025).
80. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. However, the Chamber noted that the employment contract was
not terminated due to overdue payables and therefore no additional compensation shall
be awarded to the Player.
81. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 193,917 to the Claimant (i.e. USD 210,000 minus THB 2,130,000 (approx. USD 16,083),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
82. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 10 September 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
83. 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.
84. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequences 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16842
85. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
86. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particular the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
87. In view of the above, the DRC decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
88. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all appliable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which
is available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
d. Costs
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16842
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Mohamed Lamine
Kone.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Ismaily SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 193,917 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
If full payment (including applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification of
this decision, the case will be referred to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee at the request of
the claimant.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16842
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. 18